[Wakshaani]

Finally got a chance to look at the book myself to see what everyone is talking about...

Wakshaani, do you know if that chart on page 47 for the various Aspected Awakened Abilities is actually meant to be a change for Mystic Adepts? There isn't any other mention of changes to the way Mystic Adepts function anywhere else in the book (in fact there is nearly no mention of Mystic Adepts specifically in the book).

That chart seems to imply that Mystic Adepts automatically have access to Astral Perception (as it specifically calls out Physical Adepts as needing to take the Power, but doesn't use the same notation for Mystic Adepts). And it doesn't mark Mystic Adepts as having access to Enchanting, even though there is no real reason to remove that. It also doesn't make any note about how Mystic Adepts have restricted access to adept powers (they have to purchase their power points separately and don't gain more as Magic increases unlike Physical Adepts).

All-in-all, that chart seems like it should have just left off the first three lines, Full Magician, Mystic Adept, and Adept aren't "Aspected Awakened" and don't seem to be altered by what the book is talking about in relation to that chart.

Also, the preface of: "Three of these 'lost' aspects follow" is sort of lacking when one of those three is just an optional rule to allow Aspected Enchanters to essentially get a free Priority Upgrade (the effects of Priority B at the lower Priority C). They didn't even give it  a new name or otherwise alter it in any way. It is literally saying "we all know about Aspected Sorcerers, Conjurers, and Enchanters, but I bet you didn't know about the Apprentices, Enchanters, and Explorers, plus the minor sparks of Aware"  If you're going to make a 'more powerful' (read: available at lower priority) aspected enchanter, call it an Artificer or something and make it so that they can't use Alchemy to make spell preparations. At least then they would be in line with the Explorers, no access to immediate offensive magic, but have access to a high Magic Rating at a low priority.

The chart had one error, in that the Perception part for MysAd should be marked that they have to buy Astral Perception like an Adept.The removal of Enchanting was intentional, but a second thing never got up and running, which was an "Ala carte'" style of magician, where you got X points and could allocate them in Spellcasting for this, Conjuring for that, and so on, which would have allowed some other options. MysAds weren't comparable to full mages in power level as it stood as losing Astral perception and Projection, but gain PhysAd powers, is an easy call to make.Losing the Astral options 8and* Enchanting brings them to a similar level of ability. The MysAd is *probably* still better, but it's much closer. Losing Conjuring would be too big of a nerf, ditto spellcasting, leaving no other way to reel them back to an equivalency.

This had an unfortunate side-effect of killing a few concepts that were based on them, namely alchemical types using crossbows to lob mixtures around while being a PhysAd which is a rather keen thing and I'd hate to see it go. As a GM call, you could remove Conjuring instead, making them *much* weaker, but keeping the core aspects of that kind of character design. Your GM probably won't have any problem with that tradeoff, and had we gotten the bugs out of the ala carte system, you would have been able to build that anyway, so, hey.

Hope that helps!

 

[Kiirnodel]

The chart had one error, in that the Perception part for MysAd should be marked that they have to buy Astral Perception like an Adept.The removal of Enchanting was intentional, but a second thing never got up and running, which was an "Ala carte'" style of magician, where you got X points and could allocate them in Spellcasting for this, Conjuring for that, and so on, which would have allowed some other options. MysAds weren't comparable to full mages in power level as it stood as losing Astral perception and Projection, but gain PhysAd powers, is an easy call to make.Losing the Astral options 8and* Enchanting brings them to a similar level of ability. The MysAd is *probably* still better, but it's much closer. Losing Conjuring would be too big of a nerf, ditto spellcasting, leaving no other way to reel them back to an equivalency.

This had an unfortunate side-effect of killing a few concepts that were based on them, namely alchemical types using crossbows to lob mixtures around while being a PhysAd which is a rather keen thing and I'd hate to see it go. As a GM call, you could remove Conjuring instead, making them *much* weaker, but keeping the core aspects of that kind of character design. Your GM probably won't have any problem with that tradeoff, and had we gotten the bugs out of the ala carte system, you would have been able to build that anyway, so, hey.

Hope that helps!

The explanation helps, although I'm not sure I agree with the decision that was made. I think it is fair to say that probably 90% of Mystic Adepts probably don't use the Enchanting group as-is. It's a very niche magical group, that has already been pointed out as being underpowered. You've even gone so far as ruling that taking Aspected Enchanter at Priority C is equivalent to the other Aspected Magicians at Priority B! In any case, if most Mystic Adepts aren't using Enchanting, and the thought is still that they get too much more than Full Magicians... Have your really removed something that will balance them back out?

I'm still wondering what happened to the way Mystic Adepts were handled in 4th edition or 3rd edition. In 4th edition, Mystic Adepts allocated their Magic Attribute into either Power Points or Magician. And in 3rd, Magician's Way adepts were effectively adepts that spent their Power Points to gain an effective Magic Rating for the purposes of Sorcery, etc.

Fifth Edition removed the need to balance the two, which I think is the real reason why they seem more powerful than Full Magicians. In the previous iterations, there was no way to have 100% of both power sets, but the power sets weren't missing anything. They just ran at a fraction of the total power. We've already opened up the can of worms that is allowing Mystic Adepts to buy their power points on top of being a full magician. That's in the past, and I don't think it is fair to go back and just rip something away entirely. I think it would be better to add in something that limits the other side instead. Since Mystic Adepts have to spend extra karma to purchase their Power Points, and they don't gain free power points as their Magic increases it is effectively limited. On the Sorcery/Conjuring/etc side, a limitation could be the Force(s) that they are able to manipulate safely. There could be a rating (starts out at Half Magic Rating, or something), that rating determines the maximum Force the Mystic Adept can activate Magician abilities at. For example, Rating 3 means they are treated as Magic 3 for determining Spell/Spirit Drain. It can be raised up to your Magic Rating just like Power Points for the same cost. But just like Power Points it doesn't go up when they increase their Magic. In that way, Mystic Adepts would have access to everything, but be severely limited in how powerful they can grow.


P.S. I've been doing some digging on 3rd Edition Magic rules. I never played it, but I have some of the books on pdf from various promotions (thanks Shadowrun Online!). From what I could gather, Enchanting was added in the extra rules book Magic in the Shadows. From what I read, all Awakened had access to Enchanting. The difference between Aspected and Full Magicians was only a line between Conjuring and Sorcery (to which adepts had access to neither unless they were Magician's Way). But Enchanting is just stated as being only available to Awakened (no restrictions). Not sure how to take that...

[UnLimiTeD]

Well, Wakshaani probably can't do much to fix the mistakes made with 5e.
With the characters I've made so far, not that I've played many, I never really delved into either conjuring nor enchanting, the latter because it was weak, the former for the same reason I never play Cavalry in a medieval setting or play a ranger or beastmaster in other games - I'm just not fond of animals, or in this case of spirits, minions with their own agenda that I'm supposed to care for. Hell, I can't even eat them.
So it'd probably have been fair to say "Choose two out of three groups", and very few would have had a reason to complain. Though... why didn't you just write that? Hardly balance-breaking.

Should you get around to making yet another magic rulebook (It's already magicrun, but you make good books), I'm definitely looking forward to a free-form system.  Maybe with options like "only 2 skills per group" or something. Also, qualities to make enchanting easier if you understand the technology you're working it on or to improve the effect of selfmade items on yourself or decrease the addiction threshold of foci.
But wishlist aside, there's sooo many things to theorize with FA. I definitely want to build an Anti-Mage now, but I'm waiting to find out what the hell "Spell Resistance" is. ^^

[Tarislar]

I'm pretty sure that in 1st/2nd editions, "sleep" was just a fairly hefty AOE stun spell .  IIRC it was base damage 'serious' (6 boxes), so would just need some extra successes to stage up to 'deadly ' and a full ten boxes.

There was no base spell damage in 1st Ed.
It was all about net hits & staging.
Sleep was an AoE Combat spell w/ Staging-1, so 4 Net hits took it to Deadly (Stun)

[Tarislar]

The chart had one error, in that the Perception part for MysAd should be marked that they have to buy Astral Perception like an Adept.The removal of Enchanting was intentional, but a second thing never got up and running, which was an "Ala carte'" style of magician, where you got X points and could allocate them in Spellcasting for this, Conjuring for that, and so on, which would have allowed some other options. MysAds weren't comparable to full mages in power level as it stood as losing Astral perception and Projection, but gain PhysAd powers, is an easy call to make.Losing the Astral options and* Enchanting brings them to a similar level of ability. The MysAd is *probably* still better, but it's much closer. Losing Conjuring would be too big of a nerf, ditto spellcasting, leaving no other way to reel them back to an equivalency.

Is this confirmed in writing anywhere yet?

This had an unfortunate side-effect of killing a few concepts that were based on them, namely alchemical types using crossbows to lob mixtures around while being a PhysAd which is a rather keen thing and I'd hate to see it go. As a GM call, you could remove Conjuring instead, making them *much* weaker, but keeping the core aspects of that kind of character design. Your GM probably won't have any problem with that tradeoff, and had we gotten the bugs out of the ala carte system, you would have been able to build that anyway, so, hey.

An option for the future might be something where an Initiation grade can exchange the Metamagic (PowerPoint) for an ability expansion.
Abilities could be access to a previously restricted skill/area.
So an Adept could gain access to one of the Enchanting skills & more initiations for a 2nd skill & eventually a 3rd for the whole group.
A Mystic/Aspected/Adept could gain access to Projection, or perhaps something like "Limited Projection" for 1 & then a 2nd gets Full Projection
A Conjurer could get access to Counterspelling.
Sorcerer gets access to Summoning, then a 2nd Initiation gets Binding

Essentially allowing a Priority-D, Magic-2 Conjurer to eventually grow into a full power Mage

That might come across as too powerful, but the sheer Karma needed to do it can't be too different that swapping Attributes & Magic from A to D.
The massive Karma needed to raise Attributes from D to A in level is in the hundreds while I don't think even 200 Karma in Initiations would be enough to expand a Conjurer to Full Mage or Adept to Mystic Adept, etc etc.

But it would make for some interesting roll play & character advancement options.

[忍]

Roll-play or role-play? Nonetheless I like the idea.

[TonyK]

I definitely want to build an Anti-Mage now, but I'm waiting to find out what the hell "Spell Resistance" is. ^^

Interesting point. Spell Resistance is set out in the core rulebook (p. 311) as an adept power.  So is Null Wizard (FA p. 43) limited to adepts only?

[Novocrane]

It says "Spell Resistance quality". Doesn't exist. "Magic Resistance" does.

[Mirikon]

I'd say it is probably a typo, and they meant Magic Resistance, and say that whoever was writing had just come back from their D&D game.

[Bull]

If we really need to be pedantic about the name of a spell...

In 1st and 2nd edition you did not just learn "Firebolt" or "Stunball".  Instead, spells were broken up by both Force and by Damage code.

Force meant just that.  A Force 4 Firebolt and a Force 6 Firebolt were two completely different spells, and had to be learned separately, and you couldn't "pull" the spell to cast at lower levels, nor could you overcast and throw anything bigger.

Likewise, spells had Damage Codes:  Light, Moderate, Serious, and Deadly.  All characters had 10 boxes of Physical and Stun, and the Damage Codes translated to 1, 3, 6, and 10 boxes of damage. 

An example of this is Fireball vs Hellblast.  They were effectively the same spell, but Fireball had a base Damage Code of Serious, while Hellblast had a base Damage Code of Deadly.

As for Sleep.  In both 1st and 2nd edition core rulebooks, there is only 1 combat spell that did Stun Damage, and that was Sleep, an AoE spell. 

SR1 Version
Sleep
Drain: S1 Type: Mana Duration: Instant
Special Effect: An area spell that causes Mental Damage to living targets only. Staging is 1.

SR2 Version
Sleep
An area-effect spell that causes Stun damage to living targets only.
Type: Mana  Range: LOS  Target: Willpower (R)
Damage Level: M  Duration: Instant  Drain: [(F/2) - 1]S

Many of us who played back then still refer to AoE stun spells as "Sleep", and it's been referred to as such in novels and fiction over the years numerous times. 

*shrug*

[UnLimiTeD]

I guess the disconnect in interpretation stems from the application of "stun" damage.
These spells cause targets to sleep in the same way that repeatedly punching them in the temple does. You might say "Put them to sleep", but in all other instances I would probably use the word "unconscious" for that. Or "coma".
I just figured with all the spell variety we have now, someone should have probably developed a spell that just makes someone sleepy, like a specialized suggestion spell. That's probably not on this volume though, so I'd like to apologize for opening that can of worms.

Interesting point. Spell Resistance is set out in the core rulebook (p. 311) as an adept power.  So is Null Wizard (FA p. 43) limited to adepts only?

I highly doubt that, given that it's disadvantage is "No Astral Projection". In fact, I have a thread in the rules section currently, wondering if it was the writers intent that it works better for MyAds than Mages.
Regarding Power/ Quality:
Either has the same effect, but it doesn't list a rank/rating, so I'm still kind of at a loss here. For all I know, it could have been intended to be a level of arcane arrester.

[JmOz01]

Finally got a chance to look at the book myself to see what everyone is talking about...

Wakshaani, do you know if that chart on page 47 for the various Aspected Awakened Abilities is actually meant to be a change for Mystic Adepts? There isn't any other mention of changes to the way Mystic Adepts function anywhere else in the book (in fact there is nearly no mention of Mystic Adepts specifically in the book).

That chart seems to imply that Mystic Adepts automatically have access to Astral Perception (as it specifically calls out Physical Adepts as needing to take the Power, but doesn't use the same notation for Mystic Adepts). And it doesn't mark Mystic Adepts as having access to Enchanting, even though there is no real reason to remove that. It also doesn't make any note about how Mystic Adepts have restricted access to adept powers (they have to purchase their power points separately and don't gain more as Magic increases unlike Physical Adepts).

All-in-all, that chart seems like it should have just left off the first three lines, Full Magician, Mystic Adept, and Adept aren't "Aspected Awakened" and don't seem to be altered by what the book is talking about in relation to that chart.

Also, the preface of: "Three of these 'lost' aspects follow" is sort of lacking when one of those three is just an optional rule to allow Aspected Enchanters to essentially get a free Priority Upgrade (the effects of Priority B at the lower Priority C). They didn't even give it  a new name or otherwise alter it in any way. It is literally saying "we all know about Aspected Sorcerers, Conjurers, and Enchanters, but I bet you didn't know about the Apprentices, Enchanters, and Explorers, plus the minor sparks of Aware"  If you're going to make a 'more powerful' (read: available at lower priority) aspected enchanter, call it an Artificer or something and make it so that they can't use Alchemy to make spell preparations. At least then they would be in line with the Explorers, no access to immediate offensive magic, but have access to a high Magic Rating at a low priority.

The chart had one error, in that the Perception part for MysAd should be marked that they have to buy Astral Perception like an Adept.The removal of Enchanting was intentional, but a second thing never got up and running, which was an "Ala carte'" style of magician, where you got X points and could allocate them in Spellcasting for this, Conjuring for that, and so on, which would have allowed some other options. MysAds weren't comparable to full mages in power level as it stood as losing Astral perception and Projection, but gain PhysAd powers, is an easy call to make.Losing the Astral options 8and* Enchanting brings them to a similar level of ability. The MysAd is *probably* still better, but it's much closer. Losing Conjuring would be too big of a nerf, ditto spellcasting, leaving no other way to reel them back to an equivalency.

This had an unfortunate side-effect of killing a few concepts that were based on them, namely alchemical types using crossbows to lob mixtures around while being a PhysAd which is a rather keen thing and I'd hate to see it go. As a GM call, you could remove Conjuring instead, making them *much* weaker, but keeping the core aspects of that kind of character design. Your GM probably won't have any problem with that tradeoff, and had we gotten the bugs out of the ala carte system, you would have been able to build that anyway, so, hey.

Hope that helps!

What about a choose 2 out of 3 situation.  You can choose any 2 types of magic of your choice.  You might be a summoner/alchemist, or  a spellsling/summoner or a spellslinger/alchemist...

Thinking of a simple (but expensive) ala cart system...what about as initiations?  You can get astral projection or another type of magic each time (So an aspected mage would need to do it three times, an adept 4 times, a mystic adept 2 times)  Hell include Physical magic (You would still need to pay 5 karma per power then...)

[Wakshaani]

Yeah, playing around with an a la carte system but couldn't get it to click just right. I'd love to re-address it someday, but getting the balance right was tricky. I don't think any GM would mind a Mystic Adept who lost Summoning instead of Enchantment, for instance, so that the neat Alchemist Gunmage approach was still viable. It's  big power drop, but Spellcasting, Physical Adept powers, and Enchanting is a pretty nice stack all the same.

[Tarislar]

and you couldn't "pull" the spell to cast at lower levels,

spells had Damage Codes:  Light, Moderate, Serious, and Deadly.

but Fireball had a base Damage Code of Serious, while Hellblast had a base Damage Code of Deadly.

While I agree with most of your post Bull,  I'm not so sure about these parts.

I thought you could cast at "Lower" force.    The "Force" of the spell was your Max power.  But not a Minimum.    (Time to go find 1E again)

Spells didn't have "base" Damage Codes in 1st Edition.
If you scored net successes  you staged them up from Nothing to Light to Moderate, etc etc all the way to Deadly.
Though, Drain was set at a specific code level.

FireBall was Staging 2 v/s Hellblast was Staging 1.   So net successes were twice as effective with Hellblast.  (You only needed 4 for Deadly)

Fireball staged up at  either at 1-3-5-7 successes or at 1-2-4-6 to do L-M-S-D damage respectively.
I can't recall if staging 2 started to stage up AT 2 or if it was EVERY 2 after the 1st which netted you "Light" damage of 1 box.

[Sterling]

and you couldn't "pull" the spell to cast at lower levels,

spells had Damage Codes:  Light, Moderate, Serious, and Deadly.

but Fireball had a base Damage Code of Serious, while Hellblast had a base Damage Code of Deadly.

While I agree with most of your post Bull,  I'm not so sure about these parts.

I thought you could cast at "Lower" force.    The "Force" of the spell was your Max power.  But not a Minimum.    (Time to go find 1E again)

Spells didn't have "base" Damage Codes in 1st Edition.
If you scored net successes  you staged them up from Nothing to Light to Moderate, etc etc all the way to Deadly.
Though, Drain was set at a specific code level.

FireBall was Staging 2 v/s Hellblast was Staging 1.   So net successes were twice as effective with Hellblast.  (You only needed 4 for Deadly)

Fireball staged up at  either at 1-3-5-7 successes or at 1-2-4-6 to do L-M-S-D damage respectively.
I can't recall if staging 2 started to stage up AT 2 or if it was EVERY 2 after the 1st which netted you "Light" damage of 1 box.

Tarislar is correct.  From the SR1 Core, p.80:

Magicians choose the maximum rating of a spell when they first learn it. A magician can cast a spell with lower Force if he wants. but to increase the maximum Force of the spell. the magician must leam it all over again