sounds amusing, I could see a run behind that if it was actually malicious code, trying to find the culprit.

That was not the point. The problem is technological progression while having the same "limits".
You can't go with the assumption, that a changed system is in line with the system it used to be. It is impossible. So you can never know what one die actually means.

The new system went from everything just adds to the dicepool to the dicepool should consist of attribute and skill for the most part and ware gives mostly different "boni" on top of that.
(A totally different question form the system in general are the specific boni you get. It is like questioning the skill system, because you do not like how one specific skill is handled.)

As a mechanic the idea of wireless boni is good, because it stoped the no-brainer that was skinlink just keeping it offline. The functionality of some things might not be perfect but well, that depends.

And yet, Combat is where the Street Sam Shines, so why are you trying to take his niche away. The face can pick up a gun and contribute. The Rigger is probably contributing with the guns from his Drones. The Investigator is contributing with either his gun (if mundane) or possibly his spells (if awakened with Combat spells). The Mage is contributing with his Magic (or his gun, if not a combat mage). The Bounty Hunter? Guns. The Smuggler? Guns (or maybe a drone). The Ganger? Guns. WHY MUST THE HACKER BE A SPECIAL SNOWFLAKE here? His niche in combat is NOT Bricking devices or ware. It is coordinating the team, running their tacnet, tapping the enemy's communications, affecting the environment, pulling data from the environment, and oh yeah, GUNS.

The Hacker has more important things to do than screw with other people's gear and ware.

You have been answered many times, by me, if no one else. He is not exempt. His effectivelness is in controlling the availability oif information on the battlefield. It is in the coordination of that information in such a way that the team is more effective that the Hacker Shines. THAT is the power of the Hacker in combat, not his theoretical ability to screw with someone's smartlink or wired reflexes (which is just stupid, as that equipment should never be vulnerable to such crap in the first place).

This is an interesting idea - thanks! I'll be looking into making just this type of character now. If it works out, I can scratch one of my complaints off the list...

For anyone in a Security/Military/Shadowrunner professions, Wireless Bonuses are entirely Foolish, and are something that could get you killed before you even knew you were opposed. That is the problem with them. No one in the industry would have their ware wireless enabled, and only their comms would be detectable. Any other stance on that from a professional standpoint is just ludicrous. Who cares what the common man does, they are not the concern of the game.

I disagree with this thought too... Your Mundane can be combat effective without Wires.

Actually, it doesn't. Because you still have the No-Brainer of just keeping it offline. None of the characters I have made actaully have need of the idiotic bonuses that are provided. As such, Wireless would never be enabled. *shrug*

the problem with your premise is that the Decker does get to use his special ability. you just insist that the Decker get to always be able to apply it. even though no other character has that requirement from you. in fact you specifically make the Decker an exception with your test.not every situation is the place for the Decker to apply their abilities. yet you insist that be the test.

I would like to test other concepts against your test, I don't think we have heard all of the parameters that you test for Rhat, could you detail the requirements for the full test you are basing it on? (if it was already mentioned, I apologize, I don't remember it in the 21 pages we've gone through.)

I would say, it depends. If you think you are facing a decker worth his salt, you probably turn it off to be on the safe side. If you are just attacking a gang and you expect only physical resistance but a heavy one at that, well....

It is not the "no-brainer" it was before. Granted, some of the boni are very badly choosen, because you would not take the ware at all to begin with.

Aside from a small handful of the options, I can't see many that would make or break a build. In Fact aside from looking it over, aside from the pieces that are plain blackmail (Init cyber, & skillwires) require a wireless to get their full benefits, the only pieces I would consider turning on Wireless for would be my Vision Enhancement, & Audio Enhancement.

I would not enable Wireless for any reason, at this point, because the bonuses are moronic. So, sorry, still a no-brainer. *shrug*

I would do it for throwing Knifes
(And If You follow Logik the same Bonus MUST exist for Bullets(akin to Tracer Ammo ), but Logic and WiFi Bonus... two different pair of shoes...)

He who dances with two different Shoes
Medicineman

Chameleon stealth armor is fun too. Be sneaky, but make sure that wireless is on!

I can't really follow you on that one, because bullets tend to be quite different from knifes in a lot of aspects. The most notable would be size.

So going for the same explaination for bullets would seem odd to me. But a lot of things there seem odd.


As much as I like the idea of toggeling between to modes with costs and benefits it would have been even better if they would have started form a "fluff" point of view and then based the mechanical boni on that. If for some stuff a bonus would not have been possible ok.

Now it is just like "the matrix is magic". But on the other hand it has been "magic" in 4th too.

Yeah. Nothing helps me hide quite like having a pinpointable EM signature. I'm pretty sure everything my Missions character has except for commlinks and micro transceivers is a Throwback, since the Risk/Reward curve is so totally out of whack.

Also check the extra features, seriously turn off the green lights.

Well, maybe Throwing Knives...

I remember reading a story reference in one of the books to a character that went quite out of his way to ensure he could sneak into a rather secured facility. Almost got away with it too...

What gave him away was the RFID tag in his brand name underwear that he had forgotten to disable.

it does certainly lead to an odd mix of metagame and 'how would we play it if I was really my character". Metagame has 'tags are in everything", while character response is "Remove tags from everything. Make fake tags to not appear blatantly suspicious in the always-on-always-active commlink zone.

to the point that it should almost be like the 'common sense' quality which just sorta handwaves things a character would do unless they've got a flaw, because failing to do so would be DOOOM.

So... Things that require the GM to be nice, or for the opponents to be using specific things that many may not? Nowhere near general enough to count.



Or you run silent so that they don't see you - you're already doing the same thing with your comms, and the odds of having anything online killing you don't really scale up from one device online to as many devices as you can slave online.



A line of reasoning which suggests that you would have a different opinion if the bonuses were stronger. Is this the case?



No, actually the decker's not at all an exception, as you'll see in a moment.



I'm starting to wonder if I posted it in the first place - and if I have, it's gotten missed. So, in brief but semi-formal definition:

1) It must be general - meaning that it cannot rely on specific elements to function.

- For example, if spell casting required that the mage have access to convergences of ley lines or for the opponent to be using special items that were astrally targetable, that would not satisfy this test.
- It should be noted that this condition does not prohibit exceptional circumstances that deny the use of the ability - such as mana voids, to continue the magic example. What is important is that such conditions are, in fact, properly exceptional.

2) It must be possible for a specialist to make a direct and meaningful contribution to the team's success this way.

- Using Leadership as an example, extra Initiative could mean that the Street Sam gets another pass, or that he can take an Interrupt action that he might have otherwise had to sacrifice a pass for, or it might mean the team has the time to get away from the grenade where they otherwise might not; Rally is very valuable. Direct lets you make any member of the team better at what they do then they would otherwise be, which in a high defense environment can be the difference between the Street Sam wasting That One Adept or missing and leaving that enemy the chance to take someone on the team out. Inspire can be the difference between successfully ambushing the enemy and not, though that's in part due to weird surprise rules.

3) The barrier to entry from within the specialty cannot be very high - it can exist, but it must be minimal.

- To take Riggers as an example, all they have to do is take Gunnery and put a weapon on a drone; that constitutes about the highest barrier to entry.

4) The effectiveness of these actions should be correlated to the barrier to entry for the specialty.

- For example, what a Mage can do in a fight is more effective than what you can do with the Stealth skills alone in a fight, but as the barrier to entry of being a mage is higher, this is certainly acceptable.

As a more general design point (and not a requirement of this test), the action should be against the enemy or segue into action against the enemy. Some of the roles violate this point (such as the Face), but in those cases there's nothing you can do about that so there's no choice but to accept that..

Does anyone take issue with the above conditions? Leaving deckers aside, can you think of a specialty that fails these conditions?

The SR4A Hacker does not fail these Conditions at all.
The SR5 Decker IS NOT easily accessible at all. In fact, they are the epitome of NOT ACCESSIBLE. Of course, that has a lot do do with the Economics of the new edition, which are just horrible, in my opinion.

Problem is, all situations are situational, and not general, so I think your Definitions fail outright. We have provided you a plethora of situations, and you continue to lump them is as not general enough. Sorry, but others disagree. *shrug*

Hackers in SR4A could make Direct and Meaningful contributions in Combat. Again, I know this becuase I did it for 3 years. *shrug*

The Problem RHat is you assume things are not available that would generally be available in most situations in Shadowrun. IE cameras would likely be available most places and hackable. Unless you are way out in the boonies. Lights would be avalable in most places as well. Ditto for cars. Comms should be available for hacking in most situations as most people have commlinks including Gangers...

And in general the GM should be yes anding things...

Decker: are there camera's I can hack into around here?

GM: yes and they are here here and here. this one is a PTZ and these are fixed angles. This one appears to be currently being hacked by someone else...

Not so much the GM being nice as the GM playing the world as it is not as you RHat seem to think it is.

In many interpretations of the Barrens, working cameras or wireless controls for lights (given that much of what's out there is liable to be frigging ancient, hence why they need the toaster chains just to get access to the broader Matrix) are unlikely. And once you get into "the GM should be doing this", you've failed the first condition. It doesn't help that hacking someone's commlink isn't a productive enterprise if they're not using it for anything related to combat - and a lot of gangers wouldn't be, especially if they don't have what they'd need for instant communication via electronic means.

TJ: If you have a problem with the test itself, feel free to actually raise an argument. I'd also like to see you outline how the SR4A hacker meets those conditions.

your point number 1 makes many specialists fail your test,

Sniper's need a sniper rifle or suitable other Sniping weapon to perform their specialty,
Decker needs a Cyberdeck to perform their core roles.
Rigger's need an RCC or other suitable device to perform their roles to the best of their ability

on point number 2: This point is exceptionally variable, Direct & meaningful by who's definition?

on point 3: a Rigger who just shoots its probably not much of a rigger, also, a rigger who has a single unit probably isn't making a direct & meaningful contribution to the group.

on point 4: Who decides the effectiveness?

Great Spirits, I do not believe I am defending a section of the test but hey, stranger things and all that.....

I think what he means by specific conditions are those above and beyond the basics required for the task so the sniper, decker and rigger with the normal gear for each would pass.

If the rules said a Sniper can only shoot people so long as there was NO wind or it was coming up from behind him, because ANY crosswind would automatically make him miss that would be a fail.

At least that is how I was understanding that section of it, could be wrong.....

The Barrens are the Boonies. Of course the Camera's there have problems.

As to the GM bits If the GM is blocking a Decker from doing things they should be able to do that is a problem with the GM and your test.

Why are you assuming Barrens, RHat? The vast majority of Shadowruns do not happen in the Barrens. I think that is your issue right there.

I took it to mean "General" meaning it had NO special requirements, as in something that could be done by anyone with the right set of skills under any possible circumstance. a Sniper cannot Snipe without the right gear, if he pulls a gun & tries to shoot then he's just shooting a gun, not sniping, even so a Decker cannot Deck without his cyberdeck, under ANY circumstances. Commlinks are no longer capable of hacking so the use of a cyberdeck to take specific actions in the Matrx is no longer General (might I add the very act of owning a cyberdeck is wholly illegal according to Shadowrun Lore).

Maybe illegal according to lore, but now they're licensed gear for even the average wageslave that might be able to afford one. All nine listed are ##R, not ##F.

yes, but you'd get stopped by a cop, they'd check the license, recognize that its something that has Forbidden Electronics in it & arrest you anyway, the Hot Sim module's that come standard in every Deck are Forbidden, by now I'm sure every Cop knows about Cyberdecks, so they might as well be arrested if anyone see's a cyberdeck.

Except that that is not how it works. The hardware is constructed as a whole. Since it is that way, cyberdecks are NOT illegal, just restricted. As long as your Identity and Licenses check out, they have no justification to arrest you.

except that the Module's are also sold separately, I think this will come down to a Chicken & Egg discussion as Hot Sim Modules are illegal so any device with them (if they can be proven to have them) would technically be illegal, otherwise I could have anything illegal installed into something legal & get away with it yes?

In Arsenal, adding any kind of a weapon mount to a vehicle or drone was a felonious act (aka, illegal).

However, there were many types of drones that came with a weapon mount as standard equipment that the common person only needed a valid license for (Ares Sentinel "R" Series, Ford LEBD-1, GTS Tower, Wuxing Crimson Samurai, GM-Nissan Doberman, Steel Lynx, & two of these aren't even ##R).

1) Not having your barrier to entry gear would qualify as an exceptional circumstance.

2) As for operational definitions of direct and meaningful: Meaningful would be defined as having an impact on the result of the encounter; an example would be where Leadership bonuses have the potential to let the Street Sam make shots he might otherwise miss or giving people a chance to get away from a grenade (or throw it back) which they'd otherwise take heavy damage from can change, if not the actual success/failure involved, what it's cost you to win that fight (the damage you've taken and other resources expended). Direct refers to the difference between an effect versus the opportunity for an effect (which would be indirect).

3) Note that I'm specifically referring to the barrier to entry from within the specialty. Meaning the question of "what does it take for me to add this functionality to my rigger".

4) Perhaps level of impact is a better term - if we consider a continuum with, on one extreme, the Street Sam and Combat Adepts (at least, they SHOULD be the furthest extreme), and on the other, something like a scouting infiltrator (who is diminishing penalties and providing further indirect aids like information on enemy movement and composition), the relative positions on that continuum should be such that those with a higher barrier to entry should be farther on it than those with a lower barrier to entry. The mage, for example, is able to directly deal damage, but has a particularly high barrier to entry and damages himself to do that (which sets him back a bit on the scale of net impact). Essentially the weighted aggregate of damage dealt, damage taken/risked, dice granted, dice taken, and so on.



No, but being in the Barrens is not an exceptional circumstance - and thus for something to be general, it has to work in Barrens. Not everything takes place in a corp facility, and the mechanical design must account for the range in which the game occurs.

Not for Cyberdecks they aren't.
Everyone knows that Hot Sim Mods are illegal, but all cyberdecks have them as a necessity, by default, and are thus restricted to certain occupations. Since they are allowed for those occupations, if you can prove you are of that occupation, then no, you are not breaking the law. AS for Modifying anything with a Hot Sim after market, then you would be breaking the law, if they could prove that it was hot sim modified.

The fact that it contains otherwise illegal equipment is part of why it's restricted. If something is integral to the item, the item's statline takes precedence - and its legality overrides the legality of everything inside it.

Actually, if being in the Barrens is the exception, rather than the Rule, for Shadowrunning, then it is the Specific Case, rather than the General Case, don't you think? I would say that it is.

And Hacking DOES work in the barrens. Again, My Characters have always been able to hack in the barrens (even if it is spotty from time to time). Not sure why your characters cannot do so. *shrug*

As such, Hacking applies across the board, in almost every circumstance, and it has meaningful and direct results. But hacking is not so universal that it cannot be taken away from time to time, just like any other specialist's abilities (even a Street Sam can be rendered useless in the right circumstances).

First, it's not about where runs occur, but where events take place in the game of Shadowrun - there is a difference, after all. and a lot can happen in the Barrens (especially with the existence of Street Level games, which we do have to factor in here). And the difference between specific and general here isn't about rates of occurrence. A general case is essentially the set of all non-exceptional cases.

And could you please stop just saying that it works and actually outline what you've been able to do that you think passes the test, so that I can actually respond?

Meaningful impact...so like turning on your teams nightvision right after you hack the lights in a gun battle, causing your opposition to spend time not shooting at you & turn on their nightvision (assuming they have it) or take negative modifiers? or hacking a car & driving it into the midst of a gun fight to provide some much needed cover bonuses to your team so they can move up? those sound meaningful to me, & don't say that those are eceptions, they are only exceptions if your GM doesn't give you those options, or if the Decker themselves don't think to ask about those options.

Remember what I said about unimaginative hackers in a previous post?

They're too specific, only applying in cases where you have those particular things on hand to work with (and they cannot be assumed to be universal). There's various non-exceptional circumstances where those wouldn't be on hand. And once you're requiring the GM to put in environmentals, you've usually hit to point of being too specific.

Why do you guys keep coming back to this ridiculous argument, you might as well be arguing with rocks for all the effect you will ever have. You are dealing with company hacks and grognards (although you are now the grognards since they successfully reset the world with 5e), it doesn't matter how valid your point, they will never budge.

Enough specifics to cover a breadth of possibilities can equal a general benefit.

There's not always cars or cameras, true. There's usually cars in the Barrens, just like in the worst parts of Detroit, even when the cameras aren't working. In a corp facility, you can usually bank on a dearth of cars, but you'll typically find plenty of cameras to hack. In downtown, both are generally plentiful.

This isn't even covering other probabilities, such as drones (not every one is piloted by the enemy rigger, or guarded by the enemy hacker; there's such a thing as "incidental" presence) everywhere, except maybe the Barrens where they're scrapped for a quick buck. In this case, the Barrens IS the exceptional circumstance; even the boonies will potentially have unmolested weather-balloons allowing tactical oversight. Most runs won't be in the boonies or the Barrens, and as stated, the Barrens has vehicles.

Nothing can save you from a maliciously railroading GM (except maybe a credible threat against one of his overly-beloved NPCs). Such a scenario is, itself, an exceptional circumstance, and thus not applicable to the test. For everything else... there's still things to hack.

Here's a scenario for you: Meet's at a bar in the Barrens. Fight breaks out in the bar. What do?

This isn't in particular an exceptional case.

Knock over a table, use it as cover to make my way to the back room, then block the door with said table, then comm the team to radio me if they need into the backroom, after drawing my gun & watching the doors, I hack my way into the bar's CCTV system where I can watch everyone & radio my team as needed, If there are cleaning bots of some sort I will then hack them & send them into the main room as Decoy's assuming the fight isn't over yet. After that, I will try to hack the enemy's commlinks & listen in on their chatter then let the team know if there are any more with this group outside preparing an ambush of some sort, If they are I will hack the outside local cam network to find out where they are in relation to my team, this will all be uploaded to the team's PAN where they can see the information & act accordingly.

As far as calling me a Grognard, I have not once advocated the superiority of any edition, I like this edition, I just think there were some things that could be reworked to better make the system more intuitive to the larger base of player. I am personally still waiting for an idea on how to avoid making the TacNet into just another way to inflate Dice Pools.

So... Best case scenario, some indirect aids?

If its the McHughs the Decker hacks the two automatic Sentry Guns at the Exit to kill everybody , and the Face
persuedes/coaxes the Cook(which happens to be a Hacker with a 50.000 ¥ Deck) to hand it over .
Or he" Leaderships" the Adept to punch the Cooks lights out and pilfers it anyway
This is the new standard/default (Food Fight)Adventure to start Shadowrunning

with a kind of ....sad Dance
Medicineman

I think you keep adhering to this idea that there are classes in SR. Archetypes != classes

In your scenario, the character can: pull a gun, go into melee, fast-talk, hide, douse the lights, throw a grenade, cast a spell*, and I'm sure there are plenty of other things I'm not creative enough to think of (or too lazy and can't be arsed).

Notice how none of those things talk about a character class? Except for the magic/mundane divide, all those options are available to every character, if the player bothered to buy the relevant skills.

Now, I'll give you that it would (could?) be kinda cool if an option was available to every character to do "matrix-y" things during combat. But the whole point of this topic is that the rules as written are pretty dumb for this kind of thing. And that new rules can and should be written to give interesting and (more importantly) believable options.