[James McMurray]

How trustworthy is the FAQ?

Not very, there are multiple entries that platantly contradict the actual rule books.

Such as?

[Kontact]

Quite possibly the biggest one is with Mystic Adepts where the text says, that splitting Magic among spellcasting and PPs only determines how many PPs worth of adept powers they can use and how many dice they receive for spellcasting, and that, meanwhile, the full magic attribute is used for all other purposes, including maximum power ratings.

The FAQ on the other hand says that the dice put aside for spellcasting determine max force and overcasting.  This is a direct contradiction.

[Chaemera]

Or their guidance for how to split dice pools, where skill specialties are treated as skill modifiers instead of dice pool modifiers?

SR4A, pg 68 explicitly defines specializations as dice pool modifiers, so that one's easy to put to bed.

As a general rule, I never use the FAQ due to the number of conflicts people have brought up. I'd rather banter a rules question out here in the forums.

[Dead Monky]

The FAQ on the other hand says that the dice put aside for spellcasting determine max force and overcasting.  This is a direct contradiction.

Huh.  That's how I've always done that anyway.

[Mäx]

The FAQ on the other hand says that the dice put aside for spellcasting determine max force and overcasting.  This is a direct contradiction.

Thats not even the biggest contradiction of that entry, it also claims that the max level of any adept power is the amount of magic dedicated to adept powers, when the book very explicitly says that for max level of adept powers full magic rating is used.

[Charybdis]

The FAQ on the other hand says that the dice put aside for spellcasting determine max force and overcasting.  This is a direct contradiction.

Thats not even the biggest contradiction of that entry, it also claims that the max level of any adept power is the amount of magic dedicated to adept powers, when the book very explicitly says that for max level of adept powers full magic rating is used.

I think they're referring to Mystic adepts there, which seems like a fair call to me.

If someone has 6 Magic, 4 dedicated to Spellcasting, and 2 dedicated to Adept powers, then it seems pretty reasonable to limit the Adept powers to R2....

[Mäx]

The FAQ on the other hand says that the dice put aside for spellcasting determine max force and overcasting.  This is a direct contradiction.

Thats not even the biggest contradiction of that entry, it also claims that the max level of any adept power is the amount of magic dedicated to adept powers, when the book very explicitly says that for max level of adept powers full magic rating is used.

I think they're referring to Mystic adepts there, which seems like a fair call to me.

If someone has 6 Magic, 4 dedicated to Spellcasting, and 2 dedicated to Adept powers, then it seems pretty reasonable to limit the Adept powers to R2....

Except that,as my post said, the book explicitly says that you use mystic adepts full magic rating as a limit to ratings of adept powers.
I have heard about this think called reading comprehension that is apparently pretty usefull when quoting posts in forums

[Charybdis]

I think they're referring to Mystic adepts there, which seems like a fair call to me.

If someone has 6 Magic, 4 dedicated to Spellcasting, and 2 dedicated to Adept powers, then it seems pretty reasonable to limit the Adept powers to R2....

Except that,as my post said, the book explicitly says that you use mystic adepts full magic rating as a limit to ratings of adept powers.
I have heard about this think called reading comprehension that is apparently pretty usefull when quoting posts in forums

Point taken, (smart-@$$)
Further point to be taken though, is when correcting someone on reading comprehension, using the word 'think' instead of 'thing' somewhat weakens your moral high ground... As does inappropriate spelling of 'useful'.   

And not having my rulebooks to quote from has me at a distinct disadvantage on such technicalities.... damned work intruding on my gaming life!

Back to point, though. If the above quote on Magic rating had been in an Errata listing, instead of the FAQ wouldn't your argument now be null and void?
Ergo, is your concern merely the fact that the FAQ is being used for Dev's to also place Errata?

[Mäx]

Back to point, though. If the above quote on Magic rating had been in an Errata listing, instead of the FAQ wouldn't your argument now be null and void?
Ergo, is your concern merely the fact that the FAQ is being used for Dev's to also place Errata?

No, my problem is that the faq has many contradictions like that, none of witch have been changed in the newer printings of the books.
Meaning their not errata but merely faq writer answering questions using his own house rules, making the faq totally useless.

[Chaemera]

I'm with Max on this, if the FAQ were to be considered an Errata, at a minimum, it should have a clear statement saying that the FAQ takes precedence. Further, I would expect them to cite the passage they're contradicting and state that the FAQ supersedes that section.

I've never seen an errata not state what it does or doesn't change, and how. Also, the official "errata" is now the errata forum, from what I understand reading the blue-name texts in that forum.

But, that's really a discussion for a separate thread, what with this one being about vampires as PCs. 

Don't know that I have much useful (I checked, correct spelling) to add to that conversation, though. I don't like any of the big BP character options.

[Loki]

Infected PCs makes as much sense to me as the vampire romance genre. We are food to them, I fail to see why non infected PCs would endanger themselves with being infected or eaten, not to mention the social stigma of associating with them, but I guess some folk want to play Vampire: The Shadowrun.

[Charybdis]

Infected PCs makes as much sense to me as the vampire romance genre. We are food to them, I fail to see why non infected PCs would endanger themselves with being infected or eaten, not to mention the social stigma of associating with them, but I guess some folk want to play Vampire: The Shadowrun.

I generally concur with this issue. Which is why I insist that any Infected PC's in my games take the 'Infertile Infected' quality, so as to avoid the Infection issue at least.

The association and dietary requirements though? Well, that needs some further fleshing out on a case-by-case basis (pardon the pun

[John Shull]

My new campaign has vampire character played by a rookie PC.  He gets turned at start of adventure then his sister, runner, & friends come to rescue.  I am having a great time running this group and find the vampire the funnest to have in game.  The learning curve of becoming a bloodsucker is harsh.  Espically when the PC and the character are green and are having to prove themselves continuously. 

[CanRay]

Any Vampire in my group that starts Sparkling gets killed.

There will be no explanation.  Just.  Very.  Dead.

[Triggvi]

Any Vampire in my group that starts Sparkling gets killed.

There will be no explanation.  Just.  Very.  Dead.

another huge fan of the twilight series. lol