[Marcus]

If your building a pure mage you have to go magic A. It's your first priority. Thus Pure mage.
Magic A
Attributes B (Focus on Mental, determin if your Cha, Log, or Int, and max that, get a 5 will.)
Those 2 are easy.

Brings us to Meta, Skills and Cash.
On metatype you have 1 question, To Elf or Not to Elf? If your going Cha, to Elf is a logical choice, if not edge is your friend so I'd say meta D.
D meta (Human with 5 edge or elf.)
Which leaves skill and cash, from magic A your getting 10 skill. So skill E is possible, it just depends on how prepared to focus on purity of purpose you are. If all you wanna do is run Spellcasting and counterspelling, i'd go E. But if your looking for spirit summoning, and ascencing, and all that jazz then you want skill C. 
More Cash leads to more foci. So i'd go with this.
Magic A
Attributes B
Cash C
meta D
Skills E

[zarzak]

build

A pure mage really needs at least the following:

Spellcasting
Counterspelling
Summoning
Perception
Assensing

You probably also need sneaking, and some skill with a gun.

You *can* do skills E, but its not really a good idea ...

[Overbyte]

So the Magic C mage has 5 spells and a new spell after each run. The Magic A mage has 10 spells and a new spell after each run. With these assumptions:
1. MAG C will never catch up in terms of total spells. Of course there are diminishing returns to this point.
2. MAG C needs to spend karma on spells rounding out spell competency. MAG A provides a rounded enough spell list that one can safely beeline for initiation.
3. MAG C will be at a disadvantage, possibly a major disadvantage, all those runs in terms of versatility.

I still disagree since Mag C will have better skills and therefore better "versatility". It depends what type of versatility you mean.

But once again the OP didn't ask which is better.. Mag A or Mag C.. he asked for a "pure mage" build. I assume by that he means a build where you are a Mage and only a mage. Not also a face or a sammy. You can make that build in a variety of ways. We haven't even talked about a mage that has cyber-ware yet. :-)

[Whiskeyjack]

I still disagree since Mag C will have better skills and therefore better "versatility". It depends what type of versatility you mean.

But once again the OP didn't ask which is better.. Mag A or Mag C.. he asked for a "pure mage" build. I assume by that he means a build where you are a Mage and only a mage. Not also a face or a sammy. You can make that build in a variety of ways. We haven't even talked about a mage that has cyber-ware yet. :-)

Versatility through skills < versatility through spells.

In any case, a "pure mage" (which doesn't reasonably exist as you WILL want skills not tied to MAG, and if you have no secondary skills...I don't care how great of a caster you are, you're less useful and more likely to be geeked) would probably be Magic A, just to maximize magic-based options.

[Overbyte]

I still disagree since Mag C will have better skills and therefore better "versatility". It depends what type of versatility you mean.

But once again the OP didn't ask which is better.. Mag A or Mag C.. he asked for a "pure mage" build. I assume by that he means a build where you are a Mage and only a mage. Not also a face or a sammy. You can make that build in a variety of ways. We haven't even talked about a mage that has cyber-ware yet. :-)

Versatility through skills < versatility through spells.

In any case, a "pure mage" (which doesn't reasonably exist as you WILL want skills not tied to MAG, and if you have no secondary skills...I don't care how great of a caster you are, you're less useful and more likely to be geeked) would probably be Magic A, just to maximize magic-based options.

I disagree with your opinion.
You believe that Magic A is the best pick for all mages. I do not.
I find it a little odd that you wrote in the other thread  "It's not always advantageous to cast and it's often advantageous to not look like a mage. Sometimes you just need to fling lead." and that is exactly what I was advocating. So I think we are least in partial agreement. It seems to be a matter of degree.
As I said at the outset "Definitely depends what you want to do and the kind of game you run."
These are just opinions and options. Great thing about the char gen system. You have a lot of options.

Back once again to the OP's question asking for a "pure mage build". I gave one option. You gave another. He can decide what option he prefers.
But to reiterate to the original poster (if he is even reading this thread) it is best to try to form an idea of what the character is all about before delving into the details of a "build".

[Glyph]

build

A pure mage really needs at least the following:

Spellcasting
Counterspelling
Summoning
Perception
Assensing

You probably also need sneaking, and some skill with a gun.

You *can* do skills E, but its not really a good idea ...

Why not?  I agree with your list of bare-bones mage skills, and they are very doable with skills: E (with Magic: A, this is effectively 28 points - and you can also spend some starting Karma on skills - which I tend to do with most builds that I take skils: E on).

[ikarinokami]

Pure Mage

A- Magic
B- attributes ( you should have max tradition attribute, soft max willpower, 3 or 5 body, 4 or 5 intuition)
C- meta ( 5 - 7 edge)
D- resources ( power foci 3, 4 or 5)
E-  Skills

you may switch B and C depending if you choose elf. Edge does very nice things for mages.

You want at least power 3 or 4 at character creation, it makes a huge difference.
Focus concentration is also excellent for a pure mage build

A - Skills is a terrible idea, and should never be done, if your goal is pure mage.
B- Skills is also a terrible idea if you goal is to make a pure mage.


Seriously if you are only using 5 Spells, you are not doing something right.

At the very minimum you should have
indirect single target spells
AOE indirect spell
Combat sense
increase reflexes
improved invisibility
Levitate
heal

Incredibly useful spells that can be used almost every session : control thoughts, mind probe, trid phanstasm, physical mask, shape metal

incredibly powerful spells in certain situations : mana static, turn to goo, alter memory, detect ( life, enemies,) analyze device, fix

nice addition spells : fashion, sterilize, chaotic world,

And you don't need a gun. it's usually a terrible waste, because agility in one of the lower priority attributes, and honestly that's what the street sam is for. As mage you generally have better options anyway than firing a gun. 

[zarzak]

And you don't need a gun. it's usually a terrible waste, because agility in one of the lower priority attributes, and honestly that's what the street sam is for. As mage you generally have better options anyway than firing a gun.

A gun is a nice fallback (if you run into horrible background count or something); you'll usually at least have a point or two for a specialty in automatics, so you can spray lead if you need to.

[Overbyte]

Apparently ikarinokami, you have a very limited IMO view of what a (pure) mage is. IMO a pure mage is one that can astrally travel. That's it.
IMO you can be a pure mage and have 10 healing spells. We could argue if such a character is useful on a SR team, but that's a different story.
My main character.. a Rat Shaman had only one of the spells you listed and was very effective and well liked by our team since none of them could do magic at all. Rat by it's very nature eschews combat. Why would I take combat spells? I'm not a healer, so why would I take healing? And my Rat Shaman carries 3 pistols at all times although he almost never fires any of them. But he does have some pistol skill. Why? Because.. its in character. He comes from the streets, he grew up using guns before he ever learned Magic. And as zarak and Whiskeyjack said.. its s good fallback. I have a Roomsweeper for close encounters, A Browning for single shots, and a silenced pistol for sneak attacks.

Once again I refer to my early statement. It really depends on what your game is like.
In the games I play in, 5 in-concept spells are plenty to be a great character.
Having skills is never a "terrible idea" IMO and at our table always works well.
I think one should not confuse mini-maxing and/or optimizing with making a "viable", "playable" and "fun" character.
Nor should one confuse the type of game they themselves play in, with how all others play at their tables.

[ikarinokami]

Apparently ikarinokami, you have a very limited IMO view of what a (pure) mage is. IMO a pure mage is one that can astrally travel. That's it.
IMO you can be a pure mage and have 10 healing spells. We could argue if such a character is useful on a SR team, but that's a different story.
My main character.. a Rat Shaman had only one of the spells you listed and was very effective and well liked by our team since none of them could do magic at all. Rat by it's very nature eschews combat. Why would I take combat spells? I'm not a healer, so why would I take healing? And my Rat Shaman carries 3 pistols at all times although he almost never fires any of them. But he does have some pistol skill. Why? Because.. its in character. He comes from the streets, he grew up using guns before he ever learned Magic. And as zarak and Whiskeyjack said.. its s good fallback. I have a Roomsweeper for close encounters, A Browning for single shots, and a silenced pistol for sneak attacks.

Once again I refer to my early statement. It really depends on what your game is like.
In the games I play in, 5 in-concept spells are plenty to be a great character.
Having skills is never a "terrible idea" IMO and at our table always works well.
I think one should not confuse mini-maxing and/or optimizing with making a "viable", "playable" and "fun" character.
Nor should one confuse the type of game they themselves play in, with how all others play at their tables.

Why would any team ever hire a mage whose only ability is astral travel?
Your argument makes little sense.

Most of the spells I selected represent things that can only be done by magic, that's why you are mage. Combat spells because, area effect combat spells are way more powerful than any mundane since you get to add net hits, and -force to ap, why would you not use it? indirect combat spells, are very useful against high force spirits, which is one of the core responsibilities of the pure mage.

I didn't say having skills is a terrible idea, I said selecting  priority "A" for skills  is a terrible idea and it is, it's a horrendous opportunity cost for a mage, that cripples your ability to do magic( which includes drain, spell selection, edge, foci and reagents), and should never be done. The same hold true for "b" for skills, though admittedly to a much lesser extent . can you play Skills A or  B as a mage, sure, but it is absolutely not the best pure mage, period, and it doesn't matter what kind of game it is, the numbers are the numbers and they don't change period.

[Overbyte]

Why would any team ever hire a mage whose only ability is astral travel?
Your argument makes little sense.

I didn't say that. I said what IMO is the defining aspect of a  "pure" mage is the ability to astral travel, not having 10 spells as opposed to 5, or Magic 6 as opposed to Magic 4. If you can't astral travel you are an adept, or a mystic adept, or an aspected mage, not a pure mage.

Most of the spells I selected represent things that can only be done by magic, that's why you are mage. Combat spells because, area effect combat spells are way more powerful than any mundane since you get to add net hits, and -force to ap, why would you not use it? indirect combat spells, are very useful against high force spirits, which is one of the core responsibilities of the pure mage.

It doesn't mean you have to have all those spells or any particular set of them. I don't argue that the spells you list aren't good choices, just not all necessary for any particular mage. As I said.. the reason to NOT use certain spells is because they don't fit the concept of the character.

I didn't say having skills is a terrible idea, I said selecting  priority "A" for skills  is a terrible idea and it is, it's a horrendous opportunity cost for a mage, that cripples your ability to do magic( which includes drain, spell selection, edge, foci and reagents), and should never be done. The same hold true for "b" for skills, though admittedly to a much lesser extent .

Saying it is a terrible idea doesn't make it so. And saying it "should never be done" doesn't make it true.
Not in all games.

can you play Skills A or  B as a mage, sure, but it is absolutely not the best pure mage, period, and it doesn't matter what kind of game it is, the numbers are the numbers and they don't change period.

You are agreeing with me here that what you are talking about "optimization" and is no way goes to the classification of being a pure mage. What you are talking is what I would call "roll playing". I prefer to "role play".

I don't understand why this is difficult for people on these boards to understand. Squeezing out every little point and trying to mini-max / optimize a character is neither the goal nor necessary at our table. The goal is to have fun. Having more skills than spells is just as viable a choice as starting with Magic less than 6. Our game revolves around the players, not the other way around. And I assume that others might play this way as well.

[zarzak]

I don't understand why this is difficult for people on these boards to understand. Squeezing out every little point and trying to mini-max / optimize a character is neither the goal nor necessary at our table. The goal is to have fun. Having more skills than spells is just as viable a choice as starting with Magic less than 6. Our game revolves around the players, not the other way around. And I assume that others might play this way as well.

This is, effectively, the character optimization forum.  People post here to create the strongest characters, mechanically speaking.

On that note, just because one wants to create the strongest mechanical concept doesn't mean that the goal isn't to have fun, or to not role-play.  You're falling into the Stormwind Fallacy.  Making your concept as strong as mechanically possible doesn't mean you're precluding good role-play, or having fun, or not trying to revolve around the player.  In fact, I'd argue that most players find that having a build that can execute what they'd like to do is more fun than having a build that can't consistently do what they want to do.  This holds is even more true in shadowrun - the mechanics of this game punish you quite severely for not optimizing to a certain extent (as opposed to something like DnD 5e, which is much more open to a wide variety of concepts).

[Overbyte]

Zarzak, I find your post much more reasonable and I agree having a mechanically solid build doesn't preclude role-playing.
But that is really not the point of debate.

Back once again to the title of this thread: "Looking for a pure mage build"
Now the OP didn't define "pure mage build", and the opinion of some is that that means Mage A. I disagree. My opinion, which I think is better supported by the game rules is that a "pure mage" is defined by being able to Astrally Project.
Now. If you are a mage that can astrally project you have 3 choices of picks..A, B or C.

I do not agree that the only viable choice is Magic A for such a character and it is my opinion that some concepts and play at some tables is better served by B or C. My opinion is also that at some tables having more skills works as well (if not better) than more spells. So I don't believe that a character can be "mechanically optimal" for all tables, and certainly what spells to take would be changed by how the GM interprets rules and what situations your team finds itself in. Imagine an SR game underwater... wouldn't your choice of spells change? How about if there is another mage on the team? Wouldn't you want to have different spells than they have?

[Marcus]

Pure mage isn't defined by the system. It's defined by the players. When I do priority builds, I build based upon the presented concept. The concept present is pure mage. Not Combat Mage, Not Whiz Ganger, Not Harry potter wannabe, but pure mage. With such a short description there isn't a lot to go on. So I build from what is given, You can of course think differently, and there is nothing wrong with that. The majority of the our regular optimizers made the same leap of logic I did, which is hardly surprising. In the end the OP should pick the one that catches their interest.

This forums like many other operates with something of a SOP. This is really just general rules of thumb for good character creation, both in terms of mechanics and to a lesser degree RP/Story. Yes there are always times to break those rules for various reasons, but I think it is best to consider the whole situation and have a good reason to do so. The OP clearly is new to SR, and throwing up a rash of wildly variant builds isn't really doing the OP any favors. A couple similar builds with a few options helps him better understand the options more clearly. Which is why suggestion outlines my logic, that isn't to say other builds are bad, I think many of them are totally viable.

From my perspective Skills A is a trap many new players fall into, they see big numbers and they don't understand what they are losing to take it. Not everyone agrees with this, and that is as it should be. But the trap logic is why this forum tends to frown upon it. Mages with skill A tend to suffer from this even more, your not going to have enough of anything to do anything well if you go down that road. You cannot build a character that is strong every where. the more focused the more likely you are to achieve your goal. That doesn't mean you should dump stat everything that doesn't directly effect magic, but it does mean having a grasp on your limitation accepting them and determining how to use your strengths overcome, or avoid the problem areas

A mage can use spells to overcome many many weakness. Don't have stealth? Invisibility. Perception sucks? Extended Detect Enemy.  Can't climb worth a damn? Levitate. Don't have the cash the latest haute couture? Fashion.  So having the highest number of spells lets you cover the most ground. Make magic solve as many problems as possible. There are many things magic can do better than tech, healing being a prime example. So pure mage, with the most spells is going to mechanically the most likely to be the most effective and most versatile builds in the mage category. Experanced player can focus down their spell need very precisely, but folks new to the system need as many tools in the tool box as possible, and hopefully some of them will fit the job and their play-style.

[Overbyte]

Marcus... like your post and agree with just about everything you said.
If you look at my original post you will see what I was offering as an option was:

A - Stats - 24
B - Skills - 36 / 5
C - Magic - Magic 3, 5 spells
D - Race - Human (3)
E - Resources - 6000 ny

I wouldn't consider this "wildly variant", but maybe these boards do. As you said the original poster wasn't specific at all so I was presenting another option. And I advocated that the OP be more specific about their characters background in order to decide how to make the character best. The post I made about Skills A was trying to compare what happens when you simply switch Magic A and Skills C, since that is a simpler comparison than my build. I don't necessarily advocate Skills A for a Mage. In fact I think it is not great for almost all characters. I much prefer A Attributes since Attributes add to many skills at once, help with survival and are the most expensive thing to add later. Hence the build I was offering.

This whole thread is filled with absolutes like:
You must have Magic A priority.
You must have 6 skill in all major magical skills.
You can't be a mage with less than 10 spells.

I agree with none of those. You will be a perfectly good mage at our table with 1 or 2 less points in a magic skill or a few less spells or even a Magic stat less than 6. But in any case, the OP has long fled the boards and my failed attempts to explain how other build options for characters work well at our table (and perhaps others) are now just another "Internet Arguement".