[Shamie]

hello to all.

One of my players has been suggesting me to put this house rule in our games.

Such player feels that Mystic adepts are OP and Aspected Magician are UP. Even though with errata corrections. He thinks that only lossing astral is not really a disadvantage however that is my fault as I barely touch the astral in my games (we dont have any mage PC)

So he says that Mystic Adepts should be limited in the same way that aspected. Meaning that they should choose a magical skill group and cant have the others.

For me is a waste of time as the karma cost of an Mystic Adept would force a player to specialize in order to be competent but i havent had a Mystic Adept yet in my tables so i ask to you what do you think?

Thanks

[Crunch]

I think (if the Hotfix errata changes to Mys Ads are in play) that Mys Ads are reasonably appropriate. I think there's an argument to be made that Aspected Magicians, particularly sorcerers, are too weak at certain priorities (C specifically). If I was looking to houserule I think I would buff Aspected Magicians rather than Nerf Mys Ads.

But again that's all assuming that the Hotpatch Errata is in play.

[Michael Chandra]

Has the player checked out the Hotfix Errata and analyzed those for game balance?

[Xenon]

...If I was looking to houserule I think I would buff Aspected Magicians rather than Nerf Mys Ads.

But again that's all assuming that the Hotpatch Errata is in play.

Same

Aspected magician priority C, but to some extent also B, are IMO underwhelming and you are in almost all cases better off going [full] magician and just focus your skillpoints and spells in a single aspect.

Mystic adepts (if hotpatch errata is in play), [physical] adepts and [full] magicians are pretty balanced and priority D aspected magician is a pretty strong option for a low magic rating heavy cyberware hybrid and does not really need a buff.

[T-Hatchet]

I think there may also be a certain amount of balance issue between Summoners who do not suffer from the lack of spells and Enchanters and Sorcerers who suffer from the lack of spells for aspected  magicians at all priorities.

[Noble Drake]

I think there may also be a certain amount of balance issue between Summoners who do not suffer from the lack of spells and Enchanters and Sorcerers who suffer from the lack of spells for aspected  magicians at all priorities.

Not that I am saying that it makes it "okay," but...

In SR2 a Sorcerer got access to the sorcery skill (equivalent to the skill group) and could not astral perceive or project; a Conjurer got access to the conjuring skill (equivalent to banishing, and binding - if binding also included automatically summoning the spirit beforehand with 0 drain and 0 services) and could not astral perceive or project; and then there were Shamanic Adepts which could cast spells and conjure spirits, but were limited to only those which their chosen totem would receive bonuses to had they been a full shaman, but they don't get to use the totem bonuses, and they could astrally perceive and project as normal.

The choices for your character's capabilities have basically never been tightly balanced.

Personally, I don't think they need to be tightly balanced - at least not any more tightly than they currently are - because their are potential advantages to every choice on the priority table depending on your concept and how you choose to flesh it out

[Shamie]

I think there may also be a certain amount of balance issue between Summoners who do not suffer from the lack of spells and Enchanters and Sorcerers who suffer from the lack of spells for aspected  magicians at all priorities.

Yes because when you give free spells to the aspected it feels like the summoner suffer and viceverse.

What i did with the summoner was that make the Summoner aspected can summon any kind of spirit but only bind those from his tradition.

I house rule it like this for aspected Magician:

Priority B:
Magic 5, one rating 4 magical skill group, 4 spells/preparation/whatever.

Priority C:
Magic 3, one rating 2 magical skill group, 2 spells/preparation/whatever.

Priority D:
Magic 2, 1 spells/preparation/whatever.

Personally i dont think the Mystic Adept need to nerferd now that it cost 5 karma per power point. But i never had one of those in my table on 5th

[Shinobi Killfist]

Tough call at char gen our experience is the mystic adept is a bit too good.  The hotfix really corrects growth, but its a really ugly fix.

[Crunch]

My initial reaction is to give sorcerers free spells equal to those given to magicians at the same priority, and rule that conjurors are liked more by spirits and less likely to have the negative consequences of a bad reputation.

[JackVII]

Most of the MysAds I see seem to be "self-Aspected" to a degree, usually focusing on spellcasting and leaving the other stuff either for later or not at all. I guess since they have SO much stuff to spend Karma on, they probably tend to get spread thin a bit.

My fix for Aspected Magicians is to leave the priority levels as is, but change the Magic Values to 2/4/6. Instead of a SG, I give them two Magic Skills at the same level as their Magic Rating within one area of focus (Alchemy/Conjuring/Sorcery). Finally, I give them +2 dice to any Magic tests involving their specialty.

[Reaver]

having glanced over the character creation rules a bit, I am not seeing any real problems with any of the choices, in the long haul.

For a short term/low Karma total game, some choices do seem a little high or low but when you start looking at the long term picture from a GM stand point, nothing really pops out to me yet as being a big issue. Of course that might change after my group gets a going with 5e.....

[grid_roamer]

The difference is a full mage who can astrally preceve, then one who cant.

That's a big enough difference to leave it how it is.