[ZeConster]

Trust me, dude, you do not want to start an argument about how things "can seem" - aside from it being a cheap shot, the topic will get locked in 12 seconds once people start responding in kind.

[All4BigGuns]

Trust me, dude, you do not want to start an argument about how things "can seem" - aside from it being a cheap shot, the topic will get locked in 12 seconds once people start responding in kind.

Perhaps, but he doesn't have the right to call someone a liar when they were careful not to make a statement as an absolute.

[ZeConster]

So you carefully phrased a nasty remark as an insinuation instead of a claiming of facts. That doesn't exactly help.

[All4BigGuns]

So you carefully phrased a nasty remark as an insinuation instead of a claiming of facts. That doesn't exactly help.

No, I said that someone could hold that opinion, which is something that is perfectly possible.

[RHat]

Whether or not the difference is sufficient is another question, but can we stop pretending that a well built Mystic Adept can possibly be as good at being a Mage as a well built Mage?  A well built Mage is making VERY substantial use of their chargen Karma, so spening that on Power Points directly diminishes the Mystic Adept's abilities as a Mage.

Or, in other words, "mage+" is completely inaccurate per definition.

[Crunch]

Sigh. Can we just drop it and go back to discussing the topic?

[Dracain]

Whether or not the difference is sufficient is another question, but can we stop pretending that a well built Mystic Adept can possibly be as good at being a Mage as a well built Mage?  A well built Mage is making VERY substantial use of their chargen Karma, so spening that on Power Points directly diminishes the Mystic Adept's abilities as a Mage.

Or, in other words, "mage+" is completely inaccurate per definition.

I completely agree, at this point I think Mystics are rather well balanced, but until someone starts busting out numbers, we'll have to see how it works out.  It seems to be balanced on the surface though, at the very least. 

Sigh. Can we just drop it and go back to discussing the topic?

Agreed, I don't think any of us want this topic to be locked.  I think it would be best if we all just calm down and focus on seeing if the new MA is balanced or not, and if it is not, what may be possible fixes, either as house-rules or errata. 

[All4BigGuns]

Whether or not the difference is sufficient is another question, but can we stop pretending that a well built Mystic Adept can possibly be as good at being a Mage as a well built Mage?  A well built Mage is making VERY substantial use of their chargen Karma, so spening that on Power Points directly diminishes the Mystic Adept's abilities as a Mage.

Or, in other words, "mage+" is completely inaccurate per definition.

I think that using things like "mage+" and the like are basically an attempt to create stronger feelings leaning toward the side of those arguing on the side that the MA is 'overpowered'. If I remember right, it first popped up when that point about Mystic Adepts having less of that character generation karma first came up.

[Crunch]

It's a large group of builds that's seriously problematic under the pre hotpatch system. Most of which are either in the Mage+ or Mage+/Utility field, but not all.

[RHat]

Sure, but I was under the impression that we've been discussing based on the 5 Karma cost.  The hotpatch does help with a lingering issue with progression, though.

[Shinobi Killfist]

Whether or not the difference is sufficient is another question, but can we stop pretending that a well built Mystic Adept can possibly be as good at being a Mage as a well built Mage?  A well built Mage is making VERY substantial use of their chargen Karma, so spening that on Power Points directly diminishes the Mystic Adept's abilities as a Mage.

Or, in other words, "mage+" is completely inaccurate per definition.

All I can say is in my game he Mage and the mystic are almost identical builds. The Mage has focused concentration and 1 more spell the mystic 6 points in pp otherwise identical builds. And so far he is playing like a Mage +.  Cant say what will happen down the line with the hot fix but currently it looks Mage+ to me as the 5 points in pp after astral perception seem more effective in most cases than focused concentration.

[Dracain]

Whether or not the difference is sufficient is another question, but can we stop pretending that a well built Mystic Adept can possibly be as good at being a Mage as a well built Mage?  A well built Mage is making VERY substantial use of their chargen Karma, so spening that on Power Points directly diminishes the Mystic Adept's abilities as a Mage.

Or, in other words, "mage+" is completely inaccurate per definition.

All I can say is in my game he Mage and the mystic are almost identical builds. The Mage has focused concentration and 1 more spell the mystic 6 points in pp otherwise identical builds. And so far he is playing like a Mage +.  Cant say what will happen down the line with the hot fix but currently it looks Mage+ to me as the 5 points in pp after astral perception seem more effective in most cases than focused concentration.

And this is what we're trying to iron out.  I am certain with all the clever optimizers we have we can figure something out. 

[Crunch]

Sure, but I was under the impression that we've been discussing based on the 5 Karma cost.  The hotpatch does help with a lingering issue with progression, though.

Allforbigguns seems to be arguing that it never should have been changed from 2.

I think at hotpatch levels Mysads are just about perfect. Capable of being effective in either sphere, without surpassing the specialists.

[DeathStrobe]

I think mystic adepts should be over powered.

(...)

Anyway, the game shouldn't be balanced around munchkins, but around making each archetype viable. And the way mystics used to be was not very viable.

So because Mystic Adepts weren't really viable in 4E, they should be boosted to the point where Magicians and Adepts aren't really viable? Nice.

Mages and adepts are viable. Go over to some of the Street Sam threads and see how they're all saying they're going to roll adepts or mages now because their Sammy has to worry about being hacked, and how that's so game breaking. Go see how combat mages are totally gimped and how they're all now going to roll Sammies because Sammies have more dice and don't have to worry about drain. Or how everyone is saying the game is now decker run and how they're the best ever.

There isn't any archetype that isn't viable. Even mystic adepts were somewhat playable in SR4, but if they get hit to hard with that nerf bat they'll barely be playable again. You should always aim for a fun concept, not for a munchkin super build. Not all parts of the game are going to be equal. A mage will be able to handle astral threats better than a mystic any day of the week, by simply being able to project. Adepts will be better at the physical side of things because they won't have to worry about mental stats at all. And a mystic that doesn't put any points into mental stats to try and be a adept with spells is going to have a harder time since they'll be damaging themselves with drain to just use those spells. Will the mystic have an advantage over a physical adept? Not always, but he'll have more versatility so probably will more often, and that's just the way the cookie crumbles sometimes.

[ZeConster]

Whether or not the difference is sufficient is another question, but can we stop pretending that a well built Mystic Adept can possibly be as good at being a Mage as a well built Mage?  A well built Mage is making VERY substantial use of their chargen Karma, so spening that on Power Points directly diminishes the Mystic Adept's abilities as a Mage.

Or, in other words, "mage+" is completely inaccurate per definition.

I think that using things like "mage+" and the like are basically an attempt to create stronger feelings leaning toward the side of those arguing on the side that the MA is 'overpowered'. If I remember right, it first popped up when that point about Mystic Adepts having less of that character generation karma first came up.

If you'd actually paid any attention to my posts while you were arguing with me about them, you'd know that I, at least, use "Mage+" and "Adept+" to mean precisely that: all the things an Magician resp. Adept gets at the same cost, with some extras thrown in for free. I also used those terms specifically for the pre-errata character advancement part.

I think mystic adepts should be over powered.

(...)

Anyway, the game shouldn't be balanced around munchkins, but around making each archetype viable. And the way mystics used to be was not very viable.

So because Mystic Adepts weren't really viable in 4E, they should be boosted to the point where Magicians and Adepts aren't really viable? Nice.

Mages and adepts are viable.

With the hot patch errata they are, yes, but before, the only real reason to go Magician long-term was Astral Projection. Besides, my point was that you said Mystic Adepts should be overpowered, but making them overpowered (not just viable, overpowered) would make Adepts and Magicians not viable.