[Mäx]

OK, I'm curious how you built that! The most straightforward approach I see is Aptitude, Restricted Gear, Spellcasting 7 (Combat +2), Spellcasting Focus (Combat) 5. That gets you 14 + Magic in your dice

2 Magic for casting + Spelcasting 4(combat+2) + Mentor bonus(+2) + Spelcasting focus (combat) 5 for the first and
4 Magic for caasting + Spelcasting 4(combat+2) + Mentor bonus(+2) + Power focus 4 for the second

[Tiamat]

I would just like to add, for those stating that RAW is trump:

FAQs are designed for when RAW is silly, such as this case. Its not a House rule when it comes from the Developers. I am also unable to find a section that even suggests it as optional. However I do find a section that says that these are answers to questions about the game!

The section in the new book was clearly just one glossed over for revision. Its one of the silly things about the new book, just like not including a chart for skill groups. (Or atleast I've never been able to find it in a timely manner when I've needed it)

[Bradd]

I don't think the RAW is silly, and it's not clear that the developers wanted to change it unless they issue errata. FAQs don't get the same level of scrutiny as errata, and they often contain mistakes. When they directly contradict rules and examples in the book, it's not a good ruling. (And what's wrong with the table on SR4A p. 120? It shows all skills by group and by linked attribute, right at the beginning of the skills chapter.)

[KarmaInferno]

I would just like to add, for those stating that RAW is trump:

FAQs are designed for when RAW is silly, such as this case. Its not a House rule when it comes from the Developers. I am also unable to find a section that even suggests it as optional. However I do find a section that says that these are answers to questions about the game!

Except, apparently, the FAQ author himself has stated that the FAQ is not supposed to override the RAW, only provide clarification.




-k

[Tiamat]

I would just like to add, for those stating that RAW is trump:

FAQs are designed for when RAW is silly, such as this case. Its not a House rule when it comes from the Developers. I am also unable to find a section that even suggests it as optional. However I do find a section that says that these are answers to questions about the game!

Except, apparently, the FAQ author himself has stated that the FAQ is not supposed to override the RAW, only provide clarification.




-k

State sources.

[KarmaInferno]

Ask Muspellsheimr, he's the one who was claiming it on page one.





-k

[Frankie the Fomori]

it will take a second, but AH had a post over on dumpshock. I will not guess at what I remember but he did stat that they only addressed rules clarification, not adding any rules. I will go over and search it, should not take too long.

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=30316&hl=errata

That was about the FAQ after they put it up on the Main page, Hope that answers your questions.

[Muspellsheimr]

Errors in any work are inevitable. Whether typographic (read: somebody slipped on the keyboard and nobody caught it), mathematical (read: somebody screwed up the calculations or formula and nobody caught it), or logical (read: somebody wrote something that didn't make any damn sense, or contradicted something written somewhere else, and either nobody read it or nobody caught it) errors creep into every product. Errata is supposed to fix those errors, to examine the situation and add corrects or rewrite entirely depending on the significance of the error and its effects on gameplay. This is really what differentiates it from FAQ: a good FAQ should explain, elucidate, provide examples for, and sometimes elaborate on a rule, but it shouldn't create new rules or "fix" old ones. That's what errata is for.

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=31056&hl=

In case you have not figured it out yet, Ancient History was one of the authors & primary driving forces behind the FAQ.


The "intent" of the rules alterations in the FAQ is irrelevant. Until it is included in Errata, it is a House Rule.




The purpose of Errata is to alter the functionality of a rule.
The purpose of FAQ is to clarify the functionality of a rule.

If the rule has not changed through Errata, any changes presented in FAQ are mistakes, regardless of the "intended" function of the rule.




Back to Mystic Adepts

For every point of Magic invested in physical abilities, the character
gets one Power Point that she can use to purchase adept powers.
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.

Overcasting limits & the maximum Force of a spirit or spell is not a function of the skill being used. The maximum Force a character can cast at does not change if the skill is 1 or 6. Force is not based off the divided Magic attribute, instead using its full value.

It is pretty clear about the maximum levels of Adept powers.

[KarmaInferno]

Mus, care to comment on Post 41 of the thread you linked?

The one where AH pretty much flatly states that the change in how Mystic Adepts use their split magic rating was intentional, is what the developers intended, and is one of the few exceptions to the "the FAQ is not errata" general idea?




-k

[Bradd]

I presume you're talking about the link that Frankie posted, not Muspellsheimr.

In that post, AH first defends the FAQ ruling on splitting dice pools: "A dice pool is generally Skill (+ Specialization) + Attribute + anything else that adds directly to the dice pool but is not listed as a dice pool modifier (foci, certain augmentations, etc.)." However, weapon foci are explicitly listed as dice pool modifiers! "When used in physical combat, weapon foci grant the character a dice pool modifier to melee attacks equal to their Force" (SR4A, p. 199). Furthermore, the FAQ ruling makes no sense when applied to two-weapon fighting. It's because of things like this that I don't trust FAQs when they contradict the RAW.

He does call the mystic ruling the "closest the FAQ comes to an actual errata, meant to reflect the actual intention of SR4A." But then the justification given is that it avoids abuse of the character concept. I'm wondering just where the abuse is? My impression is that most people think mystics suck balance-wise. Our group's big power-gamer thinks they suck even with the generous ruling. Frankly, I think you need to be generous with the magical power just to play them successfully as described, or they have the same problems that multi-classed spellcasters had in D&D3. The generous ruling doesn't allow abuse, it allows playability.

So given that half of that post is outright wrong, and the other have has shaky justification, I take it with a big grain of salt. If they mean to change the rule, they really should subject it to a higher level of scrutiny. I think far too many people (including the designers) have a knee-jerk reaction that it's over-powered. However, when you compare it to what an ordinary magician can do, it really isn't a big deal at all.

[Mäx]

The one where AH pretty much flatly states that the change in how Mystic Adepts use their split magic rating was intentional, is what the developers intended

If the powers that be intended what the FAQ says to be true, then it would be in the SR4A and as it isn't we can savely say that is just his personal opinion.

[Walks Through Walls]

Bradd I'll start by agreeing with you that for the power gamer mystic adepts do suck.

However, I disagree that the "generous" ruling is needed to make them playable. If you want them to be able to sling combat spells and knock out everyone then yes maybe they do. There are many other spells out there that even when cast at a lower level are effective especially when playing off the strengths of their physical adept abilities or non-cyber technologies they are using. A sound barrier around the team that is already sneaking into the building, or if the guard is stationary even better around him. An improved invisibility on the mystic adept in a chameleon suit who is being concealed by a spirit.

These are two examples that come to mind. Yes they are harder to play, but at the same time in my opinion allow greater opportunities to be creative and have a more flavorful role playing experience

[Bradd]

But that's just playing a super-adept, which is exactly what the rulebook tells you not to do. "Though this quality is inexpensive, gamemasters should be careful not to allow it to be abused. It should only be taken for characters that intend to explore their nature as mystic adepts." That's a little fuzzy, but I think it means more than just supplementing adept powers with bigger & better spell versions of more of the same.

Also, you may be overestimating what you can do with spells like improved invisibility. You need 3 hits to fool a camera, 5+ to fool a drone – that's Force 5. Going by the FAQ, that means you need to allocate Magic 3 to spellcasting just to overcast the spell at the necessary Force. That also starts you out with (at best) 3 power points and rating 3 in your adept powers.

It's not just about slinging Combat spells. Low Force caps make you suck at almost everything because they limit your total hits. You need those hits to cast physical illusions, attribute buffs, healing, defense, mind control, levitation, pretty much everything a spellcaster does. Your spirits are also much weaker, and you can't even astrally project. I really don't see why people think it's abusive to let a spellcaster actually cast spells. I keep hearing this "utility spell" argument, but that's just now how Shadowrun magic works – there just aren't that many spells where you can get away with 1–2 Force.