Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

From: TopCat <topcat@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Chargen
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 18:20:24 -0500
At 06:03 PM 7/23/97 -0500, John wrote:
>Yes it IS simple, but the question is can a complete mundane take the
>magical talents. I've heard yes and no as answers.

The answer is no...

[pg. 33, Shadowrun Companion, bottom of page under the heading "Magical Talent"]

"Only magically active characters with active magic ratings of 1 or higher
can purchase any of the Magical Talent Edges listed on the table above. A
character whose magic rating drops below 1 loses all Magical Talent edges."

Pretty cut and dry, don't you think? First off, a character must have a
magic rating. In order to have a magic rating, said character must have
bought Magician or Adept with priorities or points (depending on how you
choose to make your characters). In order to have a magic rating above one,
said Magician or Adept must have at least 1 full point of essence.

Now where confusion runs rampant is when people say...

"But here's what (whoever) wanted!" or "It should be this way!"

This requires players to accept non-canon rules. If you argue rules from a
non-canon standpoint, you aren't arguing the rules of Shadowrun. If you
wish to use an alternate (non-canon) view, then please do not confuse it for
canon and do not argue that it is.

Even by Steve's rules, the character would've had to have put C priority (or
D if metahuman) into magic in order to get one of the Magical Talents (which
wouldn't have been edges under Steve's rules). Also, said character would
no longer be mundane as he would've put points into magic.

So, once again, the answer is no. Mundanes can't use the Magical Talent
Edge. There's the quote from the book which explains it, there's the
reasoning behind the words, there's the answer.

TopCat's right again ;)
--
Bob Ooton
topcat@***.net

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.