[RHat]

A sorcerer or alchemist with synergistic skills and spells/preparations can be more powerful than a conjurer when spirit abilities are in play.

I disagree with that entirely.  A sorcerer with synergistic spells might be more powerful in the right situation than a conjurer but there will be just as many if not more situations where the conjurer will be more powerful .

You're mistaken here.  A sorcerer or enchanter with synergistic skills gets to be REALLY powerful in a certain set of situations without having to sacrifice the huge versatility that is inherent to the skillset.  Conjurers get the versatility, but not the power.

Aspected Magicians are supposed to be "less powerful" than full Magicians, Adepts and Mystic Adepts. That is why they don't get free spells/preparations/rituals/whatever. There is no reason to add them. If a munchkin chooses full Magician over Aspected, that does not mean that Aspected is pointless (the same goes for pre-hot "fix" Mystic Adept, if a munchkin only goes for that because of the math, that does not mean it's "broken" it just means he needs to get the book used on him until he puts the calculator down, IMO).

At the same time, an Aspected build needs to be able to have just as much influence on the game as the Full Mage build.  If the Full Mage build is always a better way to make the same concept, the Aspected options are, indeed, pointless.

[Dracomax]

If a full magician is better than an AM, that's a problem. they shouldn't be better at start unless they have higher magic priority(and therefore, a full magician can be better at start, but isn't necessarily.)

The tradeoff is supposed to be that a full magician is more generalised, while an aspected magician is specialized. which should mean that an AM with the same stats is better at their area of magic than a Magician. The same way that a physisist can do something in any branch, but an astrophysicist is still going to kick their butts when it comes to calculating orbital trajectories, even if they can'd compute a biochemical reaction if their life depends on it. Magicians already have the bonus of adaptability. In their own spheres, AM should be as good, or better because they lose that adaptability. or else, there isn't any purpose in taking AM, not because you are a munchkin, but because it gives you no benefit.

To use a lunch based example: If I can buy a footlong sandwich for $5, or I can buy the same type of 4 inch sandwich for $5, Why would I ever buy the 4 inch? It doesn't make me a munchkin or pig to take the footlong, it just makes me not an idiot. 

I'm not saying it isn't more complicated than that. I am saying that unless the AM does something better than the Magician, what is the point?

[All4BigGuns]

To use a lunch based example: If I can buy a footlong sandwich for $5, or I can buy the same type of 4 inch sandwich for $5, Why would I ever buy the 4 inch? It doesn't make me a munchkin or pig to take the footlong, it just makes me not an idiot. 

Why would you buy the 4 inch? Because you're not hungry enough at that time to be able finish the entire footlong, and unless you'll be going to your home right then (rather than back to work or to some other location) the remainder would go bad before it could be properly stored.

[ZeConster]

So... people play Aspected Magicians because they don't have enough of an attention span to play multiple spects of being a magician?

[All4BigGuns]

Aspected Magician is like the D&D Sorceror, and Full Magician is like the D&D Wizard.

The Wizard is better than the Sorceror, but you don't hear anyone claiming that Sorceror is pointless.

[Dracomax]

Well, first, there are justifiable reasons to argue how much better a wizard actually is than a sorcerer, but honestly? it's a poor comparison. The sorcerer gets almost all of the things the wizard gets, and doesn't need to prepare the spells ahead of time.

Honestly? in this case, it'd be better to compare the magician to the sorcerer, and the AM to the wizard.  D&D wizards tend to be more specialized, actually be able to take specializations, and have to plan ahead for what they are going to do. Sorcerers can take a wide array of spells, and use whichever one best fits the situation. Like I said, It's a terrible comparison simply because the systems and class/archetypes work so differently, but the point is that they each do things the other can't, and the imbalance is only because the designers of 3rd edition(because enither 4th nor AD&D had nearly as pronounced a difference in power)  had no idea how to balance for high level play.

[All4BigGuns]

Honestly? in this case, it'd be better to compare the magician to the sorcerer, and the AM to the wizard.  D&D wizards tend to be more specialized, actually be able to take specializations, and have to plan ahead for what they are going to do. Sorcerers can take a wide array of spells, and use whichever one best fits the situation. Like I said, It's a terrible comparison simply because the systems and class/archetypes work so differently, but the point is that they each do things the other can't, and the imbalance is only because the designers of 3rd edition(because enither 4th nor AD&D had nearly as pronounced a difference in power)  had no idea how to balance for high level play.

You have that backwards, in D&D Wizards are better for generalized casting and Sorcerors tend to be more specialized (due to the smaller known spells list).

[ZeConster]

Aspected Magician is like the D&D Sorceror, and Full Magician is like the D&D Wizard.

The Wizard is better than the Sorceror, but you don't hear anyone claiming that Sorceror is pointless.

Last I checked, Sorcerors had upsides compared to Wizards.

[RHat]

Honestly? in this case, it'd be better to compare the magician to the sorcerer, and the AM to the wizard.  D&D wizards tend to be more specialized, actually be able to take specializations, and have to plan ahead for what they are going to do. Sorcerers can take a wide array of spells, and use whichever one best fits the situation. Like I said, It's a terrible comparison simply because the systems and class/archetypes work so differently, but the point is that they each do things the other can't, and the imbalance is only because the designers of 3rd edition(because enither 4th nor AD&D had nearly as pronounced a difference in power)  had no idea how to balance for high level play.

You have that backwards, in D&D Wizards are better for generalized casting and Sorcerors tend to be more specialized (due to the smaller known spells list).

It's specialist wizard (evoker etc.), not specialist sorcerer. 

And you're completely forgetting the advantages that the sorcerer has compared to the wizard (there's a reason why I greatly prefer the former).

[All4BigGuns]

And Aspected Magician does as well. Being lower priority, they can have better attributes and/or skills without using the karma on them. In fact the lower priority makes Aspected a better choice for a Troll than Full Magician.

It's specialist wizard (evoker etc.), not specialist sorcerer. 

The wizard can choose a specialty school, yes, but even the evoker will probably have a more generalized spell selection than the sorcerer is likely to have simply because they can have more spells in that book than the sorcerer can know.

[RHat]

The wizard can choose a specialty school, yes, but even the evoker will probably have a more generalized spell selection than the sorcerer is likely to have simply because they can have more spells in that book than the sorcerer can know.

Ah, but they're going to have fewer spell choices available to them at any given point in time.

[FasterN8]

Pretty soon the Mages Choir is going to break into song,.....


Mages - "Anything you can do I can do better.....I can do anything better than you."
AMs -     "No you can't....Oh crap, you CAN."

[ZeConster]

And Aspected Magician does as well. Being lower priority, they can have better attributes and/or skills without using the karma on them. In fact the lower priority makes Aspected a better choice for a Troll than Full Magician.

We're talking about the same priority table, right? At B, AMs get +1 Magic (which, depending on your Metatype choice, may very well be +1 Edge instead), an R4 skill group instead of 2 R4 skills, and -7 spells; and at C, they get an R2 skill group and -5 spells. So at the same Priority level, they're already weaker >80% of the time - not to mention the fact that you can't break the skill group until Step Seven, so depending on your Skills Priority choice, the skill group bit may actually end up restricting you. So the only thing that remains of "you can be one at a lower priority" is that you can be an Aspected Magician with a pre-Metatype Magic of 2 at Priority D.

[FasterN8]

There are times when an analogy might help, but I don't think this is one of them.  Mainly because the Aspected Sorcerer and full Mage are SO EASY to compare, and the comparative benefits of the DnD classes leave a lot more to subjective valuation.

... Being lower priority, they can have better attributes and/or skills without using the karma on them. In fact the lower priority makes Aspected a better choice for a Troll than Full Magician.

BigGuns,
Lets compare apples to apples.  For either the B or C magic priority, are the benefits gained for being an Aspected Sorcerer worth what they give up as a Full Mage at the same priority?  Is it even close?  I don't think so and I don't think you've addressed that point yet.

[Crunch]

not to mention the fact that you can't break the skill group until Step Seven, so depending on your Skills Priority choice, the skill group bit may actually end up restricting you.

Order of operations in chargen isn't that strict. You can break the skill group whenever you want. Same principle as Aptitude and Exceptional Attribute.