[Decade Rider]

About what the title says..anybody can break out to me how the Mystic Adept having to split his Magic stats bewteen Adept Powers and Spells work? lets say I got 5 magic..I use 2 on spells and 3 on adept powers..when i got about casting spells how much magic do i use for my spellcasting test..that kinda thing

[foolofsound]

However much Magic has not been spent on Adept powers is your effective Magic score for spellcasting.

[Decade Rider]

What about max force and overcasting?

[foolofsound]

If your effective spellcasting magic score is 2, your max force/overcast is determined as though your magic score was 2.

[Decade Rider]

Ouc ok diffrent quesiton. I wanted to make a "combat" mage that can handle himself in melee..should i got Mystic Adept or Magician?

[WellsIDidIt]

Actually, max force is going to depend on your GM. It's a largely debated topic with about half and half of the people being on each side of the fence.

The exact relevant wording is: Every point of Magic invested in mana-based abilities grants the character one point to use with Magic-based skills. For all other purposes, including the determination of the maximum level for adept powers, the character’s full Magic attribute is used.

Determining maximum force is not part of a skill use (it has never been tied to spellcasting/conjuring), but it is directly linked to those skills (you have no max force if you can't cast/conjure anything with force). Some people claim that max force is under the "For all other purposes" clause and some claim it's under the "to use with magic-based skills" clause.

I'm a supporter of the former while foolofsound is a supporter of the latter. In reality it doesn't matter who chimes in, but how the gm wants to rule.

[Halancar]

As WellsIDidIt says, there's a lot of debate on the subject on the board, and the wording is less than clear. There's an unofficial FAQ that ruled in foolofsound's favor, but it's not generally accepted.

One point to remember: if you use total Magic as max Force, a Mystic Adept is almost as good as a full mage at spellcasting even if he bought a lot of adept powers (he just rolls a few less dice, and with large dice pool that's not too bad). It's almost cheesy, remember what the rules have to say about abusing that quality (it is cheaper than the Magician one, and allows far more options with only a few limitations) although if your GM is similarly permissive with all characters that can work fine (like allowing War! stuff, for instance).

On the other hand if you use the 'reserved for Mage' part as max Force, a starting Mystic Adept with only 1 or 2 on the mage side is pretty much hosed, as most spells are easily resisted at that force, and even overcasting is no guarantee of success. Your Mystic Adept has awesome potential later on, though. Which is why the first option is very dangerous to allow in a long campaign.

Ouc ok diffrent quesiton. I wanted to make a "combat" mage that can handle himself in melee..should i got Mystic Adept or Magician?

I recommend Magician. All it takes is a good melee weapon, the weapon skill that goes with it, and physical attributes that are at least average, and you'll be decent in melee (don't go challenging street sams yet, though). You can then use spells to make you actually good: increased reflexes, increased attributes, as many as you can afford the sustaining foci for... and of course at some point a weapon focus, if only so you can use it in the astral (although your weapon skills do not at all translate into astral combat, it's a different skills and it uses the mental attributes).

Compared to what your spells can do, the Adept part of Mystic Adept just isn't really worth it, not if all you want is 'handling yourself in melee'. Of course an Adept can be a melee god, but if you want to be a 'combat' mage you need all the magic power you can get, and that mean the few Power point you can afford to spend on the Adept part of Mystic Adept won't bring much more to the table than your buff spells already can.

[WellsIDidIt]

Unless you've got your heart set on a few adept powers that aren't available via augmentation, go with magician. Bioware is generally cheaper at hitting your magic than sacrificing points for adept powers would have been.

[Decade Rider]

Is using touch spell as unarmed melee attacks a good idea..Knockout,deathtouch and shatter are very cheap to cast

Like piling combat spell bonus with spec a combat spell focus and a mentor spirit?

[foolofsound]

Is using touch spell as unarmed melee attacks a good idea..Knockout,deathtouch and shatter are very cheap to cast

Like piling combat spell bonus with spec a combat spell focus and a mentor spirit?

Can't, AFAIK. Both spellcasting and melee attacks are complex actions.

[Decade Rider]

err yeah well i meant using a touch attack sorry i had you confused

[foolofsound]

Possibly. If you can reliably cast a powerful Stuntouch spell, it might be more powerful than a melee attack.

[Eye Eternal]

I personally am in the camp of max force capped by what you assigned to mana out of your magic stat. But I don't think that mystic adepts are underpowered too much. Like was earlier said, just take the combat skills needed to be a combatant, use the adept side to get like 4 ranks in combat sense and 2 in mystic armor, take alright armor, and you can stand to fight(as said avoid sams at first to be sure) butwhat many people forget about is a melee focused character is usually not so good with guns. Even if they waste skill ranks with gun skills they now have to worry about maintaining the bullets, upgrades, etc. But a 2 magic skill still lets you say "hey, I can't make melee range this turn, alright... I will take some cover and throw the 4 force stunbolt." With alright rolls that is still 8dv stun, resisted by what, average 3 or 4 will? Ok resist my 8 damage with 3 dice, please try. Will be as good as most single gunshots and you aren't screwed to hell when at range. The book explicitly states that a GM should be aware, and make the player explore BOTH sides of his magic. Not EVERYTHING has to be min/max.

[JustADude]

Possibly. If you can reliably cast a powerful Stuntouch spell, it might be more powerful than a melee attack.

But not worth the risk compared to Stunbolting them from across the room, in my opinion.

[Dr. Meatgrinder]

Is using touch spell as unarmed melee attacks a good idea..Knockout,deathtouch and shatter are very cheap to cast

Like piling combat spell bonus with spec a combat spell focus and a mentor spirit?

Can't, AFAIK. Both spellcasting and melee attacks are complex actions.

The unarmed attack required to deliver a touch spell is part of the spellcasting action.

To touch an unwilling target, the caster must make a normal unarmed attack as part of the Complex Action of spellcasting (see Melee Combat, p.156). A tie on the Opposed Melee Test is sufficient for the caster to touch the target (p.63).