[Imveros]

You are fine , just a big can of worms for some people , but it gets post counts up, and activity is usually a good thing.

yup the more the pot gets stirred the more likely people are to stay around and comment on other things.

[ZeConster]

I guess I should say i'm sorry for asking lol. I just joined this forum and had no idea about the argument this would start. the 5 karma a point is fine, and I can use negative qualities to max out if I need too. my concept character can be made pretty close to my ideal set up at generation, and with several runs under my belt i can get the other skills and abilities together to round out. my idea for my character just seems to mesh well with the idea of a mystic adept, but i guess a full mage would probably also work ,but would lack the physical quality I was looking for.

It's fine, really. Not your fault - A4BG just gets like this every time anyone utters the term "mystic adept".

[Michael Chandra]

Yup, there's like a dozen active people around that all have their own pet issues that they immediately trigger on.

Anyway, I'll try to make time to get my "possible houserules" thread going, that way you could always point your GM at it and go "I don't think it's necessary, but you could take a look there". They would come with justifications and wouldn't give everything for free, but it's still something that may interest the GM. I don't agree with all the houserules I'd post, but eh.

[Beaumis]

*raises hand* And I actually agree with him. Though personally I think my dislike of the "only character which loses something by stepping out of chargen" is mostly that it's bad form for game design.

From an actual balance perspective, I actively play a mystic adept that started with 6PP and he's perfectly fine. Frankly the issue is much bigger on paper and at chargen than in actual play.

[RickySpanish]

I have already talked to my gm about character progression and such, hes got plans for extra karma to be earned and such so i can build up a little faster.

[Tarislar]

I like some of the ideas about more Karma/PP & purchasing them post Char-Gen are interesting, but honestly they all mean bigger changes.

IMHO, one small addition that would be best is to allow MA to swap Spells for PP at Char-Gen is the ultimate fix.

Its quick & easy & its most in keeping with the old feel of the MA having to Trade Off between Adept v/s Caster power.

[Michael Chandra]

I disagree with a 1:1 trade myself, with the same reason as why I'd make PP cost 10 karma after chargen. You're going to use that karma for stuff you can't as easily get after chargen, if at all, and for example PQs cost double afterwards (if allowed by the GM) so it seems fair to make you give up 2 spell slots instead of 1. Everything at a price, otherwise all you're doing is making the player pay a tiny bit of cash extra for the spells afterwards.

[Tarislar]

I disagree with a 1:1 trade myself, with the same reason as why I'd make PP cost 10 karma after chargen. You're going to use that karma for stuff you can't as easily get after chargen, if at all, and for example PQs cost double afterwards (if allowed by the GM) so it seems fair to make you give up 2 spell slots instead of 1. Everything at a price, otherwise all you're doing is making the player pay a tiny bit of cash extra for the spells afterwards.

The issue isn't that 5K is cheap, well I think 5K IS cheap, but most don't seem to.
The issue is that in order to be a full Adept you have to give up Positive Qualities or take Negatives.
When what you SHOULD have to give up is Casting Ability.

What represents Casting ability ?  Spells & Magic Attribute.   And you can't give up Magic Attribute in 5E, so spells it is.
PP aren't PQ
PP are 5K
Spells are 5K

Its an easy trade and solves the issue of having to give up PQ or take NQ when in early versions you gave up casting.

[Michael Chandra]

When what you SHOULD have to give up is Casting Ability.

And giving up 2 spell slots per PP still is giving up Casting Ability, but at a rate where it actually is a risky price.

PP aren't PQ
PP are 5K
Spells are 5K

But spells are available after chargen, whereas PP aren't and PQ cost double. So PP=Spells is as flawed as PP=PQ. Besides, I never stated they are PQ. But as you said yourself, "you have to give up Positive Qualities or take Negatives". And that is precisely the point as to why I'd double costs like with PQs.

You say it's an easy trade. That is EXACTLY why you should realize it shouldn't be allowed that way. MAs are already balanced, and giving them yet more freedom without a single actual price is completely unnecessary. When all the MA has to do is pay the 5 Karma after chargen for the spell, rather than 5 karma for the PP now, you're no different than someone letting you buy the PP after chargen at the same price. No, in fact you're even nicer, because not all builds require all those Spell Slots. So you're giving the Mystic Adepts a massive freebie without any significant cost or risk. And that is ANYTHING but small. A small rule change with massive consequences cannot be considered small by any measure.

[All4BigGuns]

IMHO, one small addition that would be best is to allow MA to swap Spells for PP at Char-Gen is the ultimate fix.

This actually would be the absolute best way for the Mystics to get their Power Points. If their spell slots were used for it with the 5 Karma cost being there as well, then they would be unlikely to lose out on one or more permanently (which is the largest problem), and the system would be perfectly set up to accommodate practically any Mystic character idea (barring any that may require more skill points than is possible for a Mystic to get without having crap attributes).


Forget what true, full-on "hardcore munchkins" might do with it. Their actions should never be taken into account when designing a system. To do so only screws over more 'normal' players however unintentionally.

[ZeConster]

Considering how broad your definition of "hardcore munchkin" is, that's not a statement I can agree with.

[Tarislar]

I think we see Spells differently.
Because as my GM is so fond of telling me.  "You can never have enough spells".
And he's right.  Every mission I have hit a point where I wished I had a different spell.
You say spell slots aren't worth much & many builds don't need them.
I think on the other hand think are VERY useful & I constantly wish I had more.



I'm also not sure its got massive consequences.
It allows everything a 5PP build can do, but then gives you the 6th & final point while loosing 1 of your spells
Or it allows you to do a 5PP build & loose all of a C-Spells, most of B-Spells, & 1/2 of A-Spells.
Actually that is maybe the one way I can see it starting to get imbalanced.  A-Magic, loose 1/2 the Spells for PP's.
Then still have 25 Full Qualities.  And even then I'm not sure that is actually a Broken Character.

It would allow a 6 PP character w/ Full Negatives to also have Focused-Con-4 & Mentor Spirit.
Of course, since Foc-Con-3 & Mentor is already possible & PP-Reflexes is already better than if you were Sustaining Spell-Reflexes....Even that I'm not seeing as horridly broken.

I'm not seeing how this trade will suddenly make MA more overpowered than they already are.
It does mean they might not all be broke at 6K Cash to start.
Not sure that is a solid balancing issue to begin with given all characters should be able to start with a Fake SIN & a Vehicle of some type or it just makes the game...... well......... annoying honestly.

I'd love to hear some actual examples of builds that would be drastically different than what is already legal & would be "broken" with what they can do.

[Herr Brackhaus]

A spell (beyond your Priority allocation) during character generation costs 5 karma; a Power Point costs 5 Karma. I would likely allow (or request) that a single spell slot be allowed to substitute for a Power Point.

Meaning, a character with Mystic Adept at Priority A could take 6 Power Points and 4 Spells for no cost, instead of 10 Spells, and then spend the normal allotment of Karma on other things like skills; if there's one thing that strikes me as challenging with Mystic Adepts it's creating a balanced build at character generation.

[Tarislar]

Forget what true, full-on "hardcore munchkins" might do with it. Their actions should never be taken into account when designing a system. To do so only screws over more 'normal' players however unintentionally.

While I'm not sure I agree with that statement, I do think that much of the reason that MA are seen as Munchkin is because so many people go for the full 6PP at Chargen because you can't get them later.
If the 5PP cost of PP at Chargen was just how MA had to purchase them all the time, I think you would see a lot less 6PP builds & instead see more flavor builds that actually went into spells, qualities, skills, etc etc.

Right now the closest thing PP purchasing is to, is Contacts of all things.  You have to take them only at Char-Gen & you have no chance to buy more later.  Which is kind of annoying really.

[Namikaze]

A spell (beyond your Priority allocation) during character generation costs 5 karma; a Power Point costs 5 Karma. I would likely allow (or request) that a single spell slot be allowed to substitute for a Power Point.

The problem with this system comes into effect after character creation.  A player can easily replace that lost spell slot for 5 karma after character generation.  They cannot buy a power point after character generation.  This means that someone could easily sacrifice 6 spell slots for 6 power points, spending 0 karma at character creation, and then spending 30 karma later to replace those spell slots.  It is, in effect, allowing a player to buy power points after character creation.

Thus, the argument by many is that if you allow spells to be traded for power points, why not just allow power points to be bought after character creation?  My argument is that mystic adepts could never have 6 power points and 6 Magic points, so why should people complain if it costs a bit more to actually be able to achieve that desired goal?  As I type this, my two week old daughter is doing the same thing.  She cries when she's on her back because she wants to be on her side, but then she cries on her side because she's not on her back.