[Unahim]

It's not like letting any character straight out of char gen with 6 magic and a F3 power focus summon F9 spirits without overcasting is overpowered or anything, so...

Oh, wait, it totally is. Why are we having this discussion again?

[Reaver]

It's not like letting any player with 6 magic and a F3 power focus summon F9 spirits without overcasting is overpowered or anything, so...

Oh, wait, it totally is. Why are we having this discussion again?

because some mages just aren't happy summoning a force 6 spirit and just HAVE to summon a force 12.... but they only want a headache their uberness, instead of blowing out their frontal cortex

[spuwdsda]

The errata we need for rule sections that actually have completely contradicting rules, such as Grenades, Gunnery and whatnot. Not for a fluff explanation that only contradicts if people insist on taking it as the exact rules. RAW is decently clear and RAI is extremely clear here.

As has been stated before: A reader seeing the term 'effective magic rating'  (p319), should be forgiven for interpreting this as 'to all intents and purposes'. The second part may be an exclusive list of benefits RAI, but the reader is blameless for not divining this intention.

Imo this is an excellent example of an unclear rule. Such small clarifications are typically covered in an official FAQ.

N.B. I am not making any game-play judgement on this. Whether allowing power foci to boost MR would be be grossly overpowered or not, is not an issue I am addressing. My comments relate only to the clarity of the text on p319.

[Beaumis]

Frankly, I think the rules are quite clear, when read in context and not only the power focus section. Each focus provides a bonus to a specific area of magic with the exception of power foci. All other foci either add their force to a specific skill test (Alchemy, Disenchanting, Spellcasting etc.), allow you to treat a rule differently (sustaining focus, masking focus etc.). The power focus however does not feed of a specific area of magic, but of magic itself.

Every magic test with the exception of drain consists of Magic + Something. Normal focus boost the something side while power foci boost the magic side. The semantic difference is that normal foci provide a boost to whatever you use to work magic, while power foci provide a bonus because you are using magic.

Further evidence that there is indeed no such thing as a bonus to the magic attribute through power foci:

You can’t bond more foci than your Magic attribute, and the maximum Force of all your bonded foci can’t exceed your Magic x 5. Regardless of the number of bonded foci you have, only one focus may add its Force to a dice pool for any given test.
P. 318 Core)

The above quote flat out states that all foci add their force as dice pool modifiers to tests.

When you roll dice in Shadowrun, you are generally making one form of test or another. (P. 46 Core)

A test occurs when dice are rolled. If you don't roll dice, it's not a test. Its a mathematical formula that compares values.

If the spirit’s Force is greater than your Magic rating, the Drain is Physical; otherwise it’s Stun. (P. 300 Core)

There is no mention of a test. Its a simple inequality/ equality that determines whether the drain is physical or stun.

Historically speaking. Power foci increasing magic in previous editions had nothing to do with summoning, as it was your Charisma that determined the type of drain. (Edition 1 to 3)  If there was indeed an old school thought at work when it comes to summoning, it was certainly not to introduce a feature of power foci that has never existed in previous editions.

As a side note, if a power focus increased your magic rating, it would allow you to bond more foci. Sounds unlikely doesn't it?

[spuwdsda]

If you need to dig around so much - aren't you just proving that the rule is unclear?

I am also not convinced the 'context' you quote makes a conclusion obvious in any case - not that I am disputing your view of RAI at all.

You can’t bond more foci than your Magic attribute, and the maximum Force of all your bonded foci can’t exceed your Magic x 5. Regardless of the number of bonded foci you have, only one focus may add its Force to a dice pool for any given test.
P. 318 Core)

The above quote flat out states that all foci add their force as dice pool modifiers to tests. 

Indisputable, but it does not say that adding to dice pools is the only thing foci do. Again, I am making no further claim here. I am not expressing the view that power foci do more, just that this quote doesn't exclude it.

In fact, I will point out that Weapon Foci do more than add dice...

When you roll dice in Shadowrun, you are generally making one form of test or another. (P. 46 Core)

A test occurs when dice are rolled. If you don't roll dice, it's not a test. Its a mathematical formula that compares values.

Again, this doesn't address whether some foci might do more than add dice.

If the spirit’s Force is greater than your Magic rating, the Drain is Physical; otherwise it’s Stun. (P. 300 Core)
There is no mention of a test. Its a simple inequality/ equality that determines whether the drain is physical or stun.

But if our hypothetical GM has read 'effective magic rating' as 'to all intents and purposes', than when the power focus is active the magician has a greater magic rating. This may not be RAI, but it is a reasonable reading imo.

Historically speaking. Power foci increasing magic in previous editions had nothing to do with summoning, as it was your Charisma that determined the type of drain. (Edition 1 to 3)  If there was indeed an old school thought at work when it comes to summoning, it was certainly not to introduce a feature of power foci that has never existed in previous editions.

Our hypothetical GM may never have seen SR before. A historical context is not going to help him know RAI.

As a side note, if a power focus increased your magic rating, it would allow you to bond more foci. Sounds unlikely doesn't it?

Except you would have to keep the power focus on 24/7. If you turned it off you would have to break bonds to foci until you were legal again.

N.B. Just to make myself 110% clear. I am not advocating that power foci should do more than add dice. I am simply expressing the view that the text is open to this interpretation.

[Beaumis]

N.B. Just to make myself 110% clear. I am not advocating that power foci should do more than add dice. I am simply expressing the view that the text is open to this interpretation.

From an entirely detached point of view, you are absolutely right. Though, this is the case if not the nature, of the written word in general. Even the simplest of sentences can be ambiguous or unclear when viewed in isolation. The "it does not say I cannot" argument always applies and is employed regularly. Personally, I tend to lean towards the limited school of reading, meaning that if a rule tells me A it therefore excludes B. There are other approaches of course.

As to whether the rule is unclear or not, I find that a simple order of operations really helps when dealing with RPG rules. As a rule of thumb, most text passages in rule books are structured in the order of: Flavor -> Rules. Therefore, if a section states actual game mechanics at some point in its text, I generally dismiss everything prior to that as flavor. Game mechanics are identified by keywords that have been defined at some point in the rule-book. I realize that this is my personal approach however, but I feel it is a sensible one.

In admittance of your valid criticism of my previous post I would like to point out that in the entire core rule-book, there is only one mention of "effective magic rating". It would stand to reason that a term that important for all the awakened would be defined at some point.

Also, for a little hilarious tidbit: If a power focus could actually raise the magic rating, wouldn't it be subject to the +4 augmentation rule? After all, Magic is an attribute (albeit a special one). Frankly, the fact that none of the special attributes have an augmentation mechanism of any form other than actually raising the attribute should make the issue crystal clear.

P.S. I'd like to point out that I quote a lot from various points of the book because that puts all the information in one place. I'd think the devs assumed that a reader has all these things in mind when reading a singular rule. Sort of like math where the rules of distribution expect you to know what a multiplication is without explaining it specifically.

P.P.S. My statement as to the history of power foci was in answer to the claim that the term "effective magic rating" might be a reference to the "back to the roots" school of thought that supposedly influenced this edition. I wanted to debunk that claim by pointing out that at no point in Shadowrun's history have power foci affected the determination of summoning drain types.

[Michael Chandra]

Sidenote: According to Aaron, iirc, Augmented Maximum only applies to Cyberware, Bioware and anything that says they obey Augmented Maximum. So no, it wouldn't be subject to the Augmented Maximum.

[spuwdsda]

I think the use of the term 'effective magic rating' was a mistake by the author. When I first read that section on power foci I read 'effective' as 'to all intents'. Then I decided that probably wasn't the case. However, I have been convinced before I knew RAI, only to have the line editor tell me something different. I think a fair number of games will be running with power foci adding to magic rating.

Imo to claim this issue is decently clear is applying very low standard to 'decently'.

Without disappearing up ourselves with deconstructionism, we accept that the written word is subject to interpretation. However, The art of writing rulebooks is about communicating as unambiguously as possible. If the author/editor had changed:

"They are very powerful foci that temporarily increase your effective Magic rating. That means they add to your Sorcery, Conjuring, and Enchanting dice pools, along with any other test where Magic is involved."

With

" They are very powerful foci that add their rating to your Sorcery, Conjuring, and Enchanting dice pools, along with any other test where Magic is involved. "

There would be no ambiguity. Plus he would have saved his word count...

[ZeConster]

If you need to dig around so much - aren't you just proving that the rule is unclear?[/quoteOR maybe he's just providing additional arguments because you're sputtering "but... but..." at the others.

[RHat]

I'm just going to point this out: clarity to an audience is not the same thing as clarity.  While it is perfectly clear to us all, it is not actually clear.  It could be made truly clear with a single line change that specifies circumstances where it doesn't help.

[Michael Chandra]

And then you'd get people arguing "it doesn't say it doesn't help in <obscure situation that since was introduced by a splat book> so clearly it helps there." The universe always makes bigger idiots. Best to phrase it in a way the GMs can easily wield it.

[RHat]

Which is why you use a definition and example.  No ambiguity to be had.

"A power focus adds its rating in dice to tests involving Magic such as Spellcasting, but has no affect on any case where Magic is considered outside of a test, such as maximum Spirit Force."

[Michael Chandra]

Please sell me one-way tickets to your dream world. It sounds much better than reality.

Seriously though, just look at Attribute Boost for an example how not to do it.

[spuwdsda]

Please sell me one-way tickets to your dream world. It sounds much better than reality.

Be careful Michael, some people here take exception to such rhetoric. Not I of course.

[RHat]

I'm not saying that nobody will willfully ignore the text that bars what they want, I'm saying you can write it such that that's what they'd have to do.