Wireless bonus rules suck., Lets write the tacnet rules they should have used. Options

[SpellBinder]

I still don't buy the premise that combat is some special snowflake part of the game that everyone has to have special snowflake "class-protected" abilities to participate in. This isn't a class-based game. I'd quote you Rhat but I'm lazy right now, please don't call me out and make me work for this (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I think that's what D&D4 was supposed to do.

[RHat]

I'm quite happy to explain the reasoning. Simply put, other then things that your archetype pulls you into (typically variants upon combat), combat is the one thing that's gonna kill you. Relying fully on the Face to handle negotiations is fine, because at worst it's going to start a fight. Relying on the hacker to roll a data search is fine because him botching it is at worst going to make things harder later. Basically, in everything but combat, should the specialist screw things up the consequences might be bad, but they're not going to directly kill you. Combat is a different animal from everything else in the system.

[phlapjack77]

I'm quite happy to explain the reasoning. Simply put, other then things that your archetype pulls you into (typically variants upon combat), combat is the one thing that's gonna kill you. Relying fully on the Face to handle negotiations is fine, because at worst it's going to start a fight. Relying on the hacker to roll a data search is fine because him botching it is at worst going to make things harder later. Basically, in everything but combat, should the specialist screw things up the consequences might be bad, but they're not going to directly kill you. Combat is a different animal from everything else in the system.

I see your reasoning and why you view combat this way. But I don't agree with this line of reasoning (and I don't think I'm alone (c'mon TJ!)), as it seems to include the unspoken premises that combat is the most important subsystem for every gaming group and that every "class" must have some special ability they can contribute to combat. And I don't think you can put your opinion forward as THE test that must be passed to discuss character relevance.

You still haven't answered why the "Hacker" needs special snowflake "hacker" abilities shat into the rulesystem for combat, when there are plenty of other ways the hacker can already be effective at combat. Not even talking about situational stuff, which is fun, but for instance the simple act of picking up a gun (just like every other PC).

[Shadow Knight]

I'm quite happy to explain the reasoning. Simply put, other then things that your archetype pulls you into (typically variants upon combat), combat is the one thing that's gonna kill you. Relying fully on the Face to handle negotiations is fine, because at worst it's going to start a fight. Relying on the hacker to roll a data search is fine because him botching it is at worst going to make things harder later. Basically, in everything but combat, should the specialist screw things up the consequences might be bad, but they're not going to directly kill you. Combat is a different animal from everything else in the system.

why can't you let the Sam's be the special snowflake for combat and let the Decker be the special snowflake foe hacking and the face be it for social? why do you insist on the Decker stealing the Sam's one place where they shine?

[SpellBinder]

Feels a bit like this edition nerfed everyone but the hacker, where the hacker pretty much is still doing the same stuff as before when it comes to clobbering time.

And as phlapjack77 said, what's wrong with just geeking the opposition? I've seen and heard of plenty of non-combat styled characters still kicking ass despite the fact that their specialty lied elsewhere.

[phlapjack77]

Feels a bit like this edition nerfed everyone but the hacker, where the hacker pretty much is still doing the same stuff as before when it comes to clobbering time.

And as phlapjack77 said, what's wrong with just geeking the opposition? I've seen and heard of plenty of non-combat styled characters still kicking ass despite the fact that their specialty lied elsewhere.

Right. And I'm not against adding some cool "matrix abilities" (note: not "Hacker" specific) that can be used in combat. They just need to make sense and not feel tacked on or forced down the players' throat. Basically, what this thread is supposed to be discussing and I'm totally not (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif)

I wish they had added these matrix (tacnet+) abilities, and then also expanded what a non-specialized PC could do in the matrix. Make it so the street sam can also be the guy hacking the doors open(Hudson!)*. Make it so the face or infiltrator can be hacking camera feeds.

*don't start yelling at me again ShadowDragon

[Epicedion]

why can't you let the Sam's be the special snowflake for combat and let the Decker be the special snowflake foe hacking and the face be it for social? why do you insist on the Decker stealing the Sam's one place where they shine?

It's not stealing the spotlight. It's augmenting a group's combat effectiveness. The samurai is far and away the most rapid and effective kill-the-enemy character -- even more so in this edition since magic isn't quite the combat powerhouse it used to be, and guns are more effective. The hacker can damage the enemy's combat effectiveness and make them easier to kill or less deadly, but the samurai is still top dog for putting them down.

By your above logic, magicians shouldn't be able to use stealth type illusions to help the group infiltrate, or manipulation spells to help the group influence people, because those are the realm of the group's Infiltrator and Face respectively. Hell, the mage can just about replicate anyone's specialty through spells, and that's apparently not a major concern.

[RHat]

I see your reasoning and why you view combat this way. But I don't agree with this line of reasoning (and I don't think I'm alone (c'mon TJ!)), as it seems to include the unspoken premises that combat is the most important subsystem for every gaming group and that every "class" must have some special ability they can contribute to combat. And I don't think you can put your opinion forward as THE test that must be passed to discuss character relevance.

I don't think those premises are fundamental to the case - frequency and importance of combat are not relevant to the reasoning at hand; consequence and combat's exceptional status in that matter are what's involved in the reasoning. And I am making every effort I can to be objective. As to the test I'm applying, it's a particular set of conditions, not simply a matter of opinion - I make every effort I can to be objective about these things, as approaching design problems on the basis of personal tastes is an especially terrible habit to get into.

You still haven't answered why the "Hacker" needs special snowflake "hacker" abilities shat into the rulesystem for combat, when there are plenty of other ways the hacker can already be effective at combat. Not even talking about situational stuff, which is fun, but for instance the simple act of picking up a gun (just like every other PC).

And as phlapjack77 said, what's wrong with just geeking the opposition? I've seen and heard of plenty of non-combat styled characters still kicking ass despite the fact that their specialty lied elsewhere.

Every non-combat specialty has in-specialty combat options of varying effectiveness. The mage can cast, the rigger can rig, the Face gets Leadership, the infiltrator can make use of his stealth, and so on. To repeat what I've asked on many occasions to get only silence in response, for what design reason do you think the hacker should be an exception from this?

why can't you let the Sam's be the special snowflake for combat and let the Decker be the special snowflake foe hacking and the face be it for social? why do you insist on the Decker stealing the Sam's one place where they shine?

I never suggested that he should be stealing the Sam's place - and you have absolutely no cause for thinking that's what I've been arguing.

Right. And I'm not against adding some cool "matrix abilities" (note: not "Hacker" specific) that can be used in combat. They just need to make sense and not feel tacked on or forced down the players' throat. Basically, what this thread is supposed to be discussing and I'm totally not (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif)

I wish they had added these matrix (tacnet+) abilities, and then also expanded what a non-specialized PC could do in the matrix. Make it so the street sam can also be the guy hacking the doors open(Hudson!)*. Make it so the face or infiltrator can be hacking camera feeds.

*don't start yelling at me again ShadowDragon

Yeah, that would be good - I would prefer a system where a cyberdeck helped you hack better, rather than being absolutely required to get in on the action at all (though, technically, it's apparently legit to use Edge to push the limit in order to hack with a 'link). Plus, actions using Computer or Hardware to be able to do things with your equipment that you normally shouldn't be able to would be kind of awesome.

[phlapjack77]

Hell, the mage can just about replicate anyone's specialty through spells, and that's apparently not a major concern.

Don't be misleading - it is a major concern for many how effective magic is. It's just not the topic at hand.

BUT I do agree with your points. I think most of the problems people have are with HOW these extra combat-augmenting abilities were implemented in the rules, which this thread is trying to address. Also, for my own part, I don't like how these new abilities are "hacker-only".

[phlapjack77]

Every non-combat specialty has in-specialty combat options of varying effectiveness. The mage can cast, the rigger can rig, the Face gets Leadership, the infiltrator can make use of his stealth, and so on. To repeat what I've asked on many occasions to get only silence in response, for what design reason do you think the hacker should be an exception from this?

I think you're still focused on "class-specific" abilities, something that shouldn't be considered in class-less SR. Ok, ok, there's the magic/mundane divide, but barring that, every ability you listed is available to every character. Leadership* isn't "Face-only". Rigging isn't "Rigger-only". Face/Rigger/Hacker are just shorthand to help easily describe a character's abilities, they're not rigid structures that wholly define a character and what that character is capable of. Sure, there are characters that might specialize, but that's different than noone being able to use these abilities in the first place.

* I won't mention how I think the Leadership rules are also dumb...dang, I just did (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[SpellBinder]

No reason. Just that it's silly to think that hackers only sat with their thumbs up their hoops when it came time to fight. And previously, if the opposition was foolish enough to have anything wirelessly active the hacker could still hack.

Unencrypted tac-net? Sniffer to listen in and give your teammates advice on what or what not to do. Encrypted? Okay, a speed bump to do the same.

Opposition has smartguns? Spoof orders to make them eject their magazines. They can reload quickly only as long as they have spares, and how many are they going to be carrying?

Other side's hacker's main commlink is identifiable? Crash it with various options, or nuke it to degrade its performance.

Oh, wait, most of these still apply, provided the opposition is foolish enough to have wirelessly active gear. The rest of the party should not suffer due to the unimaginative hackers of old.

[RHat]

And the point of wireless bonuses is in no small part to diminish that "if", so that having wireless on isn't strictly foolish. The implementation causes a bit of an issue for that, though.

[Epicedion]

I wish they had added these matrix (tacnet+) abilities, and then also expanded what a non-specialized PC could do in the matrix. Make it so the street sam can also be the guy hacking the doors open(Hudson!)*. Make it so the face or infiltrator can be hacking camera feeds.

Even the cheapest deck is pretty effective, so you can get into the hacking game for the occasional door lock or camera if you've got a halfway decent Logic and are willing to spend about 10 skill points on it.

For about 50,000 nuyen you can put together a deck running Virtual Machine (Stealth and Toolbox) and have 5 Sleaze, 4 Data Processing, 2 Firewall, and 1 Attack. Limit yourself to Hacking and Computer, and you're perfectly capable of the following Matrix actions:

Edit File, Format Device, Hack on the Fly, Matrix Perception, Matrix Search, Reboot Device, Spoof Command, Trace Icon

You'll get trashed if you try to jump into hosts and tweak off enemy deckers or IC, but that's the price of not actually specializing in the field.

EDIT: This is actually a comparable price for branching from one specialty into the base level of any other. Wired Reflexes set you back about 40k, and is pretty much the absolute bare minimum necessary to consider an otherwise mundane character combat-effective.

[SpellBinder]

And the point of wireless bonuses is in no small part to diminish that "if", so that having wireless on isn't strictly foolish. The implementation causes a bit of an issue for that, though.

Still a pretty big "IF" to me. The few characters I've made in no way rely on the wireless bonuses for gear (they have none), including the deckers save their cyberdeck and programs. And one gaming group I know of (same one where the decker has done more combat actions with a shotgun than his cyberdeck) is doing the same with their wireless: Keeping it all turned off as much as possible.

Bad implementation, bad enticement, same results as before.

[RHat]

Still a pretty big "IF" to me. The few characters I've made in no way rely on the wireless bonuses for gear (they have none), including the deckers save their cyberdeck and programs. And one gaming group I know of (same one where the decker has done more combat actions with a shotgun than his cyberdeck) is doing the same with their wireless: Keeping it all turned off as much as possible.

Bad implementation, bad enticement, same results as before.

Would you say, then, that if they were better implemented with stronger bonuses, it would be a better system? Perhaps with more specific consequences (such as a "bricked" line in gear description) would help, too.

[Epicedion]

Still a pretty big "IF" to me. The few characters I've made in no way rely on the wireless bonuses for gear (they have none), including the deckers save their cyberdeck and programs. And one gaming group I know of (same one where the decker has done more combat actions with a shotgun than his cyberdeck) is doing the same with their wireless: Keeping it all turned off as much as possible.

Bad implementation, bad enticement, same results as before.

What do you do when your opposition doesn't have the same bad feelings about running their gear hot, and outclass you by a few dice in attack and defense? Do you just say "aw shucks, I can't hit that guy who will soon murder me, but at least by my standing on principle no one can hack my eyes?"

[SpellBinder]

Honestly I think it was fine the way it was.

[RHat]

Honestly I think it was fine the way it was.

Can you provide a reason why? What sort of general case actions did the hacker have? Do you really think it was a good system where rather than having a real choice, the system was "Are you an idiot? Y/N"?

[Epicedion]

Honestly I think it was fine the way it was.

My take is that 'the way it was' is the way it never should have been. For you guys, it seems that the shift from SR4 style wireless to SR5 style wireless is causing the problem as it's a regression of the technology, while I see SR5 style as the way it should've been done in the first place and it's pulling the game back from a bad road.

[BigGreenSquid]

Maybe this thread needs to be broken into two separate threads. One for the endless, swirling argument of "5e sux, your stupid" vs. "Na'ah, your stupider" and a second thread for the development of a TacNet system that is uniquely 5e.

[Epicedion]

Maybe this thread needs to be broken into two separate threads. One for the endless, swirling argument of "5e sux, your stupid" vs. "Na'ah, your stupider" and a second thread for the development of a TacNet system that is uniquely 5e.

To be fair, the thread topic doesn't make any sense for its purported intent, because it's not "TacNet Rules Don't Exist Yet So Let's Make Some To Use Until That Book Drops." It's rather biased toward discussing the wireless bonus rules, what with being named "Wireless bonus rules suck" and all.

[Dolanar]

When I rebuilt my primary Runner in 5th Edition, if I eliminate the Smartgun wireless (cuz you still get the accuracy regardless) I'm still running a 13P -4AP 9ACC gun with 17 dice to use it. assuming I get maybe 5 hits, thats still about 17p they have to defend against with at least -4ap (those stats are without something like APDS ammo or something. Really, the 1 die I get from the wireless won't hurt me, it would be me up to 18 dice but really, thats not overly needed. (mind you thats at character creation)

[Irion]

Maybe this thread needs to be broken into two separate threads. One for the endless, swirling argument of "5e sux, your stupid" vs. "Na'ah, your stupider" and a second thread for the development of a TacNet system that is uniquely 5e.

Can't do the second without first getting it out, what it should do in the first place.

The reason this thread CAN'T be successful is, that for (I would guess) 80% of the "anti-wireless-boni-crowed" it is about "cyberware is too weak".
But thats a different kind of discussion.
How to see on which side of the 80% you stand?
Imagine there would be no wireless boni (the rules would have never been implemented). Cyberware just gets the Boni which are listed in the books.
Would you be OK with that?

If your awnser to this question is: NO. You should open a thread about "Cyberware is too weak, lets fix it".

RHat gave a lot of good points where to start from but most of them were just ignored, well because like I said for 80% it is NOT about the rule mechanic it is about balance.
And thats the lame foot of most of the arguments brought forward agaisnt the wireless boni. (There are some valid points against specific boni, I get that)

The whole thing is in a specific way silly to an extream, because it assumes you need to have a higher dice pools in every freaking edition. (I do not get my bonus-die buhuhu.)

[Dolanar]

Irion, that is part of the reason that the TacNet has not come to fruition, many people agree that adding an endless DP bonus just creates the engrossed DP's people saw in 4a. However, there has yet to be anything mentioned that didn;t in some way enlarge Dice Pools, even the Group Pool mentioned essentially still raises the DP's. However, without raising the DP or increasing the Limits or something along these lines, it essentially comes down to pure Fluff. If it comes down to Pure Fluff benefits, then there is little to no need for rules for it, or you have the issues such as the Exploding Cyber Eyes that do no damage.

[Sendaz]

Oh Spirits, that reminds me of the 'I Spy With My Exploding Eye' Fiasco of '59.

A couple of jokers at UO tweaked a bunch of their new alphaware 'OmniEye' line of cybereyes with a few hidden extras, so that at precisely midnight on New Years's Eve the cybereyes started flashing red from an internal LED strobe and the message 'Y60 Bug Detected-- Self Destruct Initaited- Courtesy of the One Eyed Bandit' scrolling repeatedly across their inner vision along with a timer in the corner of their vision counting down from 60 seconds. Normal shutdown/reboot was disabled so one couldn't just turn them off.

There was no actual explosives inside, at the end of the timer the eyes sparked a bit and just shut down and could be rebooted by any street doc/cybertechie, but the chaos it caused was a sight to see (no pun intended).

People trying to rip their cybereyes out, running around screaming for help, other people thinking they were either crazy or staying back in case they did explode...

Yeah, there was more than a few sacking at UO that spring.