Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: logic attribute... who needs programs?
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2
lunchbox311
QUOTE ( SR4 page 218)
When you are dealing with a particular device, you roll
Computer + Logic against an appropriate gamemaster-determined
threshold. When you are utilizing a particular program,
you roll Computer + program rating. Standard situational modifi
ers may apply, as decided by the gamemaster.


QUOTE ( SR4 page 223)
When you are directly
interacting with a device, make Hacking Tests using Hacking
skill + Logic. If you are utilizing a hacking program, makes tests
using Hacking skill + program rating.




So does this mean that if you have a really high logic you do not need programs? I would personally probably not allow this... but is this true under raw?

Am I missing something else here?

Obviously you would need some programs like stealth but it seems for most tasks this could work?!?
Dashifen
I only allow the Skill + Logic tests when a person is using a device without programs. Like sitting in front of a terminal with blinking lights and switches and trying to logically figure out what it does. But, if that same hacker uses his commlink to access the same terminal, he'd then be using his programs, thus the Skill + Program Rating tests.

The key phrase is in your second quote "When you are directly interacting with a device...."
lunchbox311
QUOTE (Dashifen)
The key phrase is in your second quote "When you are directly interacting with a device...."

So if I can find a way to plug my datajacked self into a device (something that has to happen many times when there is no wireless connection...) I can use my super cerebral boosted Einstein brain to hack better than say.... a SOTA hacking program?

Alright.
Dashifen
I would say yes, but I think you're assuming that wireless connections are rare and that wired connections are popular. The reverse is actually true. Even if something doesn't have a high wireless signal, it probably still has one. And, if it doesn't, it might mean that you can't control it directly, but only through the matrix.

For example, there may not be a good reason for the door locks in a secure facility to have a wireless signal. It would be a weakness that the savvy hacker can exploit. Thus, the locks might only be accessible through the matrix after hacking into the building security systems and locating the lock you wish to manipulate. This may require the right software to be undertaken because a datajack on a door lock would be a (perhaps greater) weakness, too.
sunnyside
No. I think this was in the FAQ. If a program covers it you absolutly can't fall back to logic.

What the drunk writers were supposedly trying to say in there is that if you want to do something basic with a device that isn't covered via a program you fall back to logic. They're trying to avoid a situation where a player can't do something if there isn't a relevant program. It's also for situations where you're using the device in more of a physical sense.

For example if a player found some electronic device that they hadn't seen before they'd use computer+logic to figure out what it is and how to use it properly. If you wanted to make it do something it wouldn't normally let you do by using it's own buttons and such it would be hacking+logic. This would all be heavily subjected to GM interpritation (through threshold if nothing else).
Whipstitch
Actually, you pretty much have it backwards. Many times it's much easier (and cheaper) to get by with a logic of 1 and appropriate high grade programs than it is to try and ride logic to victory. Logic+Hacking really only applies when you're directly operating a device you are not authorized to use. For example, if you physically get a hold of somebody else's commlink and for some reason need to attempt to gain full access to the accounts stored within it without the benefit of your own commlink/software, you'd use Logic+Hacking instead of Computer+Logic, since you're effectively trying to operate beyond the parameters of normal use. For just about everything else you're going to need a program.


[EDIT] Yeesh, enough quick replies for ya? smile.gif
Dashifen
This seems to be the FAQ entry that sunnyside is referring to:

QUOTE
Are programs optional? It says to use Computer or Hacking skill + Logic when "interacting with a device," but to use Computer or Hacking skill + program rating when using a program. So can I just use Logic, or is computer use/hacking impossible without programs?

In most circumstances, you will be using Computer/Hacking + program rating. In cases where a program would apply, but isn't available, the character must default.

Logic is used when you are utilizing a device within its standard parameters (Computer) or trying to bypass those parameters through the device's own OS (Hacking). For example, let's say your character finds an unfamiliar electronic device in a research lab. Computer + Logic would be used to identify the device, figure out what it is, and figure out how to turn it on. Let's say that device happened to be a new holo projector prototype. Computer + Logic would also be used to determine what features it has and how to use them. If the character wanted to bypass the controls that prevent the projector from playing pirated movies, porn, or media feeds from unapproved Matrix nodes, he would use Hacking + Logic. If he wanted to take it apart and see how it worked, he would use Hardware + Logic. If he wanted to edit a holo media file, analyze the device's Firewall, or search its usage log, he would use a program (Edit, Analyze, and Browse, respectively).


In other words, if you wanted to look at the door lock, from my example above, and understand that it requires a voice-print analysis of some kind, that's a Skill + Logic (Hardware seems appropriate) but if you want to make the door unlocked, then you'd have to fall back on programming tools like Spoof or Command (depending on the situation).
sunnyside
hacking+logic is harder to define. I think their idea is that if you wanted the above door to unlock without a comlink and all that maybe your char could figure out that if they wipe enough slobber on the biometric system the door realizes that it can't properly read samples, and, if they then turn on the fire alarm, the door will fall back on safety programming and open. Those kind of things. I'd suggest very high thresholds, and perhapse some physical feats like the above to make it happen, depending on what "it" is.

Something like getting curse words past the language filter on a billboard or something by using L33T speak would be low threshold.

Getting a plant watering drone to soak your boss by moving one of the beacons it uses for guidance would be medium threshold since you'd have to be carefull how you moved things to get it just right.

A real life example might be flipping the write protection tab on an old tape backup system so it isn't actually backing anything up (I think they had that, at least floppy disks did).
FrankTrollman
What's actually happening is that part sof the book were written by people who thought that Hackers were rolling Logic + Skill and parts of the book were written by people who thought that Hackers were rolling Program + Skill. Needless to say, the parts written with assumption A don't work at all with assumption B and vice versa.

Hopefully a unified mechanic will be introduced that makes Program Rating and Logic both important in Unwired. I think I'll start holding my breath until that happens.

-Frank
Whipstitch
Yeah, my GM has been considering setting it up so that the tests are all Logic+Skill with the hits limited by the rating of the program. It does end up nerfing programs a bit, but the way he plans on doing it, it'd actually give TMs a bit of a boost compared to vanilla hackers, since he apparently has no intention of making TMs roll Skill+Logic.
sunnyside
QUOTE (Whipstitch)
Yeah, my GM has been considering setting it up so that the tests are all Logic+Skill with the hits limited by the rating of the program. It does end up nerfing programs a bit, but the way he plans on doing it, it'd actually give TMs a bit of a boost compared to vanilla hackers, since he apparently has no intention of making TMs roll Skill+Logic.

I'd advise against that as it would mean systems with a lower rating can't possibly detect systems with a higher stealth (at least if they only get one roll)

I.e. if you're the standard decker after a handfull of runs you have stealth 6 going. If you probe a level 5 system under that rule it can get at most 5 successes and any patrol IC will also only be able to get 5 successes. All in all you'll get in cleanly for sure and probably stay hidden for some time.

But other than that roll it should work. I guess you could have the initial system stealth check be an opposed test instead of a threshold. That way at least there is always the chance the level 6 person will biff their roll and be at risk. Maybe apply a cumulative dice pool modifier for each system success when hacking on the fly.

i.e. first time you roll 14 (logic+hacking) against 10 (system+response?) You get 5 successes system gets 3 next time you roll 11 against 10 again. You get 4 system gets 3. Then you have to roll 8 vs 10, and roll 2 hits vs 3 and are detected.
Buster
That's how the magic system works, so it makes sense that's how the hacking system works. Therefore, most tests would be Logic + Hacking with the number of hits limited by the rating of programs.
Whipstitch
I'll have to ask my GM what he intends to do about that, but I imagine it'd be pretty simple to just apply the restriction only to Hackers rather than to automated systems (which is pretty much exactly what he's doing with TMs already anyway). Of course, that just potentially opens up a new can o' worms, but that's why these things have to be ironed out and inspected from time to time. One thing that I'm curious about is just how severely in practice this could tip things in favor of technomancers. Not that I'd lose any sleep over TMs getting an indirect boost, mind you; they give up an awful lot to achieve dominance in their realm.
lunchbox311
Thanks for the replies. I have a better idea now.

Hacking was just such a gray area in our group so I was rereading the section, (honestly I am the only hacker in it when I play,) to make sure I had the stuff down. I came across those parts and got confused as it did not mesh with everything else.

Frank, I believe you are correct about the team a-b mismatch stuff.


cool.gif
Aaron
QUOTE (Buster)
That's how the magic system works, so it makes sense that's how the hacking system works. Therefore, most tests would be Logic + Hacking with the number of hits limited by the rating of programs.

I used to think that way, too. I remember asking, "Why did they make up a whole extra system for hacking when they had a perfectly serviceable system with magic?"

Then I asked, "Why should hacking work the same way as magic does?" I mean, magic and technology are supposed to be mutually exclusive, or at least not very easily interfaced. Why make the systems the same?

In a system in which the meat isn't supposed to matter, I think it makes perfect sense to replace the Attribute portion of the roll with the program or device Rating.
deek
I've been using Hacking + Skill, limited by Program Rating (as it is a popular house rule) and it works quite well in practice.

I have allowed systems to ignore the rule, and just roll Pilot + Program Rating with no limits...and so far that has not played out to be unbalanced. Granted, I haven't really tested the extreme limits so YMMV.

My only suggestion for a hacker who is the lone techie in the group...pick up some firearm skill and dump some points in that combat skill...you GM may tailor more to you, but I know that if our hacker had to solely depend on matrix stuff to keep him busy, he'd likely just be playing guitar hero 2 and the wii when we get together:)
lunchbox311
QUOTE (deek)
My only suggestion for a hacker who is the lone techie in the group...pick up some firearm skill and dump some points in that combat skill...you GM may tailor more to you, but I know that if our hacker had to solely depend on matrix stuff to keep him busy, he'd likely just be playing guitar hero 2 and the wii when we get together:)

I do that anyway. Most of my characters seem to turn into covert ops/special forces types. This means they can shoot, sneak, hack, and talk their way through most things.

I guess my group is too reliant on my jack of all trades characters. In fact I basically retired one when the last mission he went on could have been done by himself because he has so much more experience than the rest of the group (had to play my hacker/face since noone else had one.)

Whipstitch
QUOTE (Aaron @ Jun 19 2007, 07:38 AM)
Then I asked, "Why should hacking work the same way as magic does?" I mean, magic and technology are supposed to be mutually exclusive, or at least not very easily interfaced. Why make the systems the same?

Because having unified mechanics that make sense and prevent someone dumber than Forrest Gump from being a pre-eminent hacker extraordinare are seen as "good things" in some circles. Magic and Technology can be thematically seperate while sharing many of the same mechanics. I beg developers everywhere: Please don't make your games more complicated than they have to be just to underscore purely thematic differences here and there. That way lies madness.
Kerris
It almost makes more sense to me to have Logic as the limiter. As far as I see it, there are two options:

We have a character with Hacking 4, Logic 4, and Edit 6.

1) Limit the dice gained from programs to your logic. This character would roll 8 dice on hacking (4 from Hacking 4, and 4 from Edit 6 (limited to logic 4)).

2) Limit the hits to logic. If the same character rolls 10 dice and hits on 7 of them, he only gets 4 hits.

I don't really know how balanced or useful this is (came up with it just now), but it seems to me that a script kiddie with a rating 6 program wouldn't necessarily know how to use it, but a character with logic 6 would know exactly how to use a rating 6 program.

Of course, doing it the other way around (limiting hits to program rating, as has been suggested) might be good as well.
kigmatzomat
QUOTE (FrankTrollman)

Hopefully a unified mechanic will be introduced that makes Program Rating and Logic both important in Unwired. I think I'll start holding my breath until that happens.

-Frank

I hope you've got gills Frank, cause I'm not sure anyone can hold their breath that long.

Besides, I think you'd do more good yelling.
Moon-Hawk
My group uses a very short collection of house rules for hacking based on Logic+skill, and treats programs more like spells. It also reconciles the problems with copy protection and makes casual hacking more accessible to the non-hackers, without removing the strategy from the hard-core hacker.
It works really well for us. I'll post it if anyone wants, but last time I tried everyone was too burned out on hacker debates to care. smile.gif
sunnyside
Really the "spell" type changes probably work fine in the normal ranges of hackers in normal hacking. In fact there may not actually be a noticible difference. Assuming you don't treat systems the same.

I'd say the general effects would be that the edge roll wouldn't be so effective. (i.e. if you have a system with a firewall over six, which you see in SR missions now and then, it cannot be hacked on the fly in one pass, meaning the hacker will almost certainly be detected)

And you can run some cheap progs where the successes required aren't generally so high. This would make life much easier for the technoshamen.

Dashifen
QUOTE (sunnyside)
I'd say the general effects would be that the edge roll wouldn't be so effective. (i.e. if you have a system with a firewall over six, which you see in SR missions now and then, it cannot be hacked on the fly in one pass, meaning the hacker will almost certainly be detected)

Is that necessarily a bad thing? There should be systems that are secure enough to catch a hacker now and again.

devil.gif
Ravor
QUOTE (sunnyside)
I'd say the general effects would be that the edge roll wouldn't be so effective. (i.e. if you have a system with a firewall over six, which you see in SR missions now and then, it cannot be hacked on the fly in one pass, meaning the hacker will almost certainly be detected)


Yet another reason not to consider the Missions as Canon.

Still it wouldn't be unreasonable to rule that just like spells, spending Edge would remove the Hits Cap.

*Edit*

QUOTE (Dashifen)
Is that necessarily a bad thing? There should be systems that are secure enough to catch a hacker now and again.


Sure, but I don't believe that the way to go about making those systems is to simply jack up the program ratings beyond anything that a Decker could ever hope to put on her commlink.
Dashifen
For those of you which have used the "spell" like house rule for hacking, how have you handled Technomancer threading? Seems like rolling 10 dice with a cap of 4 hits (for example) or rolling 10 dice with a cap of 6 hits (after threading a program) doesn't much matter, since you're still going to average around 3 hits, which is less than both caps. Granted, threading might allow a potential benefit, but in reality, you're still rolling the same number of dice so things should average out to the same number of hits regardless of program rating.

Perhaps both increasing the program's rating for the purpose of capping hits and rolling extra dice while threading would be a way to go?
FrankTrollman
It seems that the game would probably more easily accept a shift in paradigm where programs counted as equipment, thus making the standard dice pool Logic + Skill + Program. This would mean that Hackers would roll as many dice as medics or lockpickers, and substantially more than IC or Agents.

It would require a reimagining of the basic difficulties of Matrix tasks. But as far as I can tell the initial difficulties were never run through probability comparisons (heck, it appears that the different groups of authors and playtesters didn't even know what the others meant). So I'm not at all convinced that this would constitute a drawback.

So here's what it would look like:

Agents are capped at Rating 4, so they would be rolling about 8 dice most of the time. A Hacker PC on the other hand would be rolling about 16 dice (Logic 7 + Skill 4 + Program 5), so having a Hacker come out of the gate facing off against two different Agents would expect to win most of the time (which is actually fine, PCs are supposed to win in normal circumstances, otherwise the story doesn't continue).

An advanced character (~100 Karma) would be looking at Programs rated at 6, skills at 6, and a Logic of 9. Sometimes he'd be throwing down in his Specialization of choice and get another 2 dice or have a circumstantial advantage or whatever. So he's looking at a 21 die pool that'll go up to 23 or even more when you consider such things as Adept powers, Math Processors, Encephalons, and Aptitudes. At that point you really are just going to slam down on a Rating 4 Agent or five without much concern. But since you could plausibly be forced to deal with a number of Agent Smiths equal to the subscription limit of whatever node you happen to be logged onto, that's still not enough to get you through any possible Matrix security.

So just off the top of my head, that seems the direction that things ultimately want to go.

---

A serious problem I see is that really I don't think I've ever seen a serious Hacker actually take different values on his programs. The whole thing that's supposed to happen where people have Stealth @ 3 and Attack @ 4 just does not happen. PCs get programs at the best rating they can get and don't skimp. Programs that they don't get at max are usually simply left unpurchased for later. If a character has a Program capability at all they use it at the maximum rating. To that extent, I would kind of prefer it if the ratings of Programs were removed altogether. They don't actually do what they are supposed to do.

It was a step forward when spells were either known or not known rather than possessed at specific Force, and I think Programs should probably go the same way. Player characters don't use Rating 2 Edit programs, so it's kind of a waste for them to exist.

-Frank
Moon-Hawk
QUOTE (FrankTrollman)
A serious problem I see is that really I don't think I've ever seen a serious Hacker actually take different values on his programs. The whole thing that's supposed to happen where people have Stealth @ 3 and Attack @ 4 just does not happen. PCs get programs at the best rating they can get and don't skimp. Programs that they don't get at max are usually simply left unpurchased for later. If a character has a Program capability at all they use it at the maximum rating. To that extent, I would kind of prefer it if the ratings of Programs were removed altogether. They don't actually do what they are supposed to do.

Hey, that's what I do with my rules. You either have the program loaded into memory and roll your Logic+Hacking normally, or else you roll Logic+Hacking with the standard -4 penalty for not having the appropriate tools.

Here's my house rules, if anyone wants to see what I do:
[ Spoiler ]
lunchbox311
QUOTE (FrankTrollman)
It seems that the game would probably more easily accept a shift in paradigm where programs counted as equipment, thus making the standard dice pool Logic + Skill + Program. This would mean that Hackers would roll as many dice as medics or lockpickers, and substantially more than IC or Agents.

I like this idea. I think it would be fun to try out with my group.

Hmm... Time to brainstorm ideas for the threshold tie ins and such.
Whipstitch
I have to agree with the program ratings being mostly superfluous. As far as I'm concerned, any grade of program other than 3 or 5 might as well not even exist. And honestly, the only I time I take rating 3 (and only because rating 4 is when the price jump kicks in) programs is if I use AR, Wired 2 and a decent Agent to provide expendable backup firepower in matrix combat. My -real- hacker characters always have rating 5. Always.
Zen Shooter01
Yeah...

"You're staking your life, freedom, fortune, and reputation on this gear...would you like it rated at bad, better, or best?"
Big D
How about giving PCs Logic+skill+prog, but giving IC running on its "home turf" 2xRating? This also gives IC a huge advantage over PC agents, and forces the hacker to do his own dirty work when it comes to cybercombat (although an agent could still sleaze around and help out).
tehbighead
i think capping hits based on the program's rating is slightly unfair; while magicians can overcast, no such ability has been proposed so far for hackers.
Ravor
True, although I think the fact that Deckers don't have to resist Drain as well as pay Karma to learn their programs acts as a balancing factor in that reguard.
Whipstitch
I think it'd be best to simply leave the TM complex form mechanic alone. A complex form is an extension of the technomancer's will, and technomancers are already very much limited by their logic attribute, since that's what they use to determine the number of forms they get to have in the first place.

Besides, TMs really can't afford to get nerfed. They're pretty powerful when used right, but they give up an awful lot to get there as is and it's not like they can match Mages in overall versatility even when the fabled infinite karma horizon approaches.
FrankTrollman
QUOTE
Besides, TMs really can't afford to get nerfed. They're pretty powerful when used right, but they give up an awful lot to get there as is and it's not like they can match Mages in overall versatility even when the fabled infinite karma horizon approaches.


Technomancers cannot hack. They can't do it as starting characters and they can't do it at any reasonable Karma threshold that will ever see play. It simply cannot happen. There are far too many niche programs that you need in Cybercombat, Electronic Warfare, and Hacking for a Technomancer to ever be able to do that with Complex Forms.

There's stuff they can do. Sprites are in-your-face-crazy-awesome. They are like Agents with no Rating Cap (although technically you can't ever register a Srite of Rating 9+). They do crazy awesome stuff. They pilot drones and fire machine guns with effective skills that are really high.

But you can't hack. There is literally no way you could possibly have all the complex forms needed to replicate all the hacking and common use programs that you actually cycle through using in matrix missions. The program list is so divided and subdivided that it simply exceeds the caps on the number of CFs you can even have. It's a program to locate which node you need (Track), a different program to find that node (Scan), another program to identify what you need to do to get into that node (Analyze), another program to decrypt the node's signal (Decrypt), another program to actually get into that node (Exploit), another program to be in the node without it shutting you out (Stealth), and it's another program to actually find what you're looking for in that node (Browse). And now that you have found what you're looking for it's another program to take or alter it (Edit), activate it (Command), or bypass data security (Defuse). And of course, if the node you are after isn't an open node in the first place, you'll need to listen in on he priviledged data packets (Sniffer), and then emulate them (Spoof) before you can even try to get your foot in the door.

And of course, if you go into cybercombat and you don't have Attack, Armor, ECCM, and Medic, you aren't going to enjoy the experience. But that doesn't even matter, because we already listed off 12 mandatory programs just to be allowed to attempt to complete missions and that's already more than you're allowed to have.

Yeah, Rigger Technomancers are bad ass. They throw up some giant Sprites and put them in Steel Lynxes and stab people in the nut sack. I respect that. But the "hacker technomancer" just doesn't even exist. The requirements of the position actually exceed the caps of the archetype.

-Frank
sunnyside
The hacker technomancer works fine.

You're right that starting out they don't have a full suite of CFs. That's fine, they'll have the critical ones.

The sprites have the rest. For example I like having starting TMs not have any offensive cybercombat skills/CFs to save on BP and CFs. The sprites will do the job just fine, better than any hacker for sure. IF, and that's a big if, I get caught with my stealth of 12. (or 9 if it's a long haul and I have to rely on threading). Ok, a patrol IC might spot a sprite with their stealth 6, but at least it's them not me, and again that sprite is just as hard if not harder to spot than a hacker.

Basically the only thing a hacker TM needs to be able to do is have the exploit and stealth to punch a firewall on the fly and analyze to see stuff on the other side. Sprites can do everything else if you need them to. And since it doesn't cost any money to re-register them, those sprites are good to go as long as you get plenty of downtime.

Still it's nice to have the commonly used CFs for convenience starting out (especially ones that have consequences if they aren't done well like diffuse or sniffer). And in game you can get new CFs at low levels, and, by coupling threading and assist, you can get a CF from 3 to 12 in a hurry if you really need it.
bibliophile20
QUOTE (sunnyside @ Jun 20 2007, 02:26 AM)
The hacker technomancer works fine.

You're right that starting out they don't have a full suite of CFs.  That's fine, they'll have the critical ones.

The sprites have the rest.  For example I like having starting TMs not have any offensive cybercombat skills/CFs to save on BP and CFs.  The sprites will do the job just fine, better than any hacker for sure.  IF, and that's a big if, I get caught with my stealth of 12. (or 9 if it's a long haul and I have to rely on threading).  Ok, a patrol IC might spot a sprite with their stealth 6, but at least it's them not me, and again that sprite is just as hard if not harder to spot than a hacker.

Basically the only thing a hacker TM needs to be able to do is have the exploit and stealth to punch a firewall on the fly and analyze to see stuff on the other side.  Sprites can do everything else if you need them to.  And since it doesn't cost any money to re-register them,  those sprites are good to go as long as you get plenty of downtime.

Still it's nice to have the commonly used CFs for convenience starting out (especially ones that have consequences if they aren't done well like diffuse or sniffer).  And in game you can get new CFs at low levels, and, by coupling threading and assist, you can get a CF from 3 to 12 in a hurry if you really need it.


He's got a good point--this whole discussion has been ignoring the possibility of sprites, which can run roughshod over any system, especially when the TM goes nuts and scripts three or four offensive ones.

Oh, and, BTW, I'm pretty sure that by "diffuse" you mean "defuse"; while they sound similar, there is a favorite quote of mine that states that "defusing a bomb is one thing; diffusing it is quite another." (which I use as a signature quote for my demo-happy personal PC)

Oooh. And that gives me an Evil GM Idea ™: have certain defuse programs have a little backdoor trap that when that program tries to defuse data bombs, they diffuse them instead. Fun little trick for a corp to pull. vegm.gif

~*~

Edited to remove potential confusion--and to back up the point that I can be a grade A idiot. You'd think I could stop proving that by now...
sunnyside
And I'll assume you meant "sprites" instead of "spirits". nyahnyah.gif

And, before you get too excited, I'm a "he".
bibliophile20
QUOTE (sunnyside)
And I'll assume you meant "sprites" instead of "spirits". nyahnyah.gif

And, before you get too excited, I'm a "he".

Well, I've barely seen anyone today, and I still manage to get my quota of foot-in-mouth moments.

I'm not sure whether to be impressed or deeply saddened.

Oh well, time to hit the old edit button.
sunnyside
Actually I may have not phrased that quite right.

There are some few programs that your sprites can't have. ECCM and reality filter are the only ones I think though. There are also some other times when you don't want to use up a service to do some simplish action. Also you may simply not have the skill you need on any of the sprites you have. For example I could see "medic" getting written off.

Or it could be the first adventure and you haven't got the sprites heavily registered.

However part of the point of threading is that it lets you get up to speed fast and specifically can be used to give you a complex form you otherwise wouldn't have.

For example lets say that you find yourself wanting to heal someone elses matrix icon for whatever reason. But you haven't picked medic on any of your full set of sprites, don't know the CF, and don't feel like dropping the unregistered sprite (or fear a bad roll)..

You can quickly thread up a rating 3 program and there you go, there's a fair chance you'll avoid any stun damage. And medic having a lower rating might just cost you an extra turn of applying code fixes, so not a big deal.

The big deal here is you can have any sprite assist if you need to take it to 8 or 9. And there you go. But a lot of times a rating 3 may be plenty, such as when decrypting. Plus if you need a little more spice with the program but you don't have a registered sprite yet you could always drop the sustaining and try again. It takes a little time and risks fading but you should be able to whip up a level 5 from nothing.

The bottom line is that while they may have to roll against fading now and then a starting technoshaman can do everything.
deek
QUOTE (Dashifen)
For those of you which have used the "spell" like house rule for hacking, how have you handled Technomancer threading? Seems like rolling 10 dice with a cap of 4 hits (for example) or rolling 10 dice with a cap of 6 hits (after threading a program) doesn't much matter, since you're still going to average around 3 hits, which is less than both caps. Granted, threading might allow a potential benefit, but in reality, you're still rolling the same number of dice so things should average out to the same number of hits regardless of program rating.

Perhaps both increasing the program's rating for the purpose of capping hits and rolling extra dice while threading would be a way to go?

Easy, Dashifen, I don't allow TMs as a PC...

I didn't like them and no one in my group has really even looked at them because of my initial ruling. Not the way every GM would do, but it works for us!
Dashifen
While I respect that opinion, it doesn't really help out very much silly.gif
deek
QUOTE (tehbighead)
i think capping hits based on the program's rating is slightly unfair; while magicians can overcast, no such ability has been proposed so far for hackers.

I've actually thought about adding that mechanic to hackers in my game. Instead of having a Rating X program, you just have the specific program (and I would probably just use 6 for cost) and then you choose the rating that you want to run it as.

So, you could choose to pick a rating 3 edit or run it at rating 6. Now, using logic (as a magician would use force), you could "overcast", so a logic 5 hacker could run this program up to 5 (which just acts as a cap to hits), or they could pump it up to twice their logic (so they would be allowed to get 10 hits), but when "overcasting" there would be some "drain".

I never had figured out all the details, and I had even just thought of making these "special" variable programs, in addition to the normal ones...

I do really like SR4 magic, with drain and force caps, etc...and I think hacker is basically a digital magician anyways, so aligning the two, using the same basic mechanics, would really streamline hacking, which IMO, is a good thing!
sunnyside
Actually TMs CAN basically overcast. If they thread a complex form over their resonance they take physical damage. Such as if you wanted to stay stealthy for a long time, which would take up way to many services. So you thread your stealth up from 6 to 9.

They would then have to resist 3P damage using willpower+resonance.

A starting TM or a TM who raised their resonance but doesn't feel like getting all new sprites might also do that. For example if you have resonance 6 but only a force 5 sprite and a level 5 CF. They might thread it up to seven so when they add in the sprite they're swinging with a level 12 blackout. That would cost them 2P damage.
deek
QUOTE (sunnyside)
Actually TMs CAN basically overcast. If they thread a complex form over their resonance they take physical damage. Such as if you wanted to stay stealthy for a long time, which would take up way to many services. So you thread your stealth up from 6 to 9.

They would then have to resist 3P damage using willpower+resonance.

A starting TM or a TM who raised their resonance but doesn't feel like getting all new sprites might also do that. For example if you have resonance 6 but only a force 5 sprite and a level 5 CF. They might thread it up to seven so when they add in the sprite they're swinging with a level 12 blackout. That would cost them 2P damage.

Yeah, but I don't allow PC TMs, so this is a "new" concept for the hacker in our games.
FrankTrollman
QUOTE
Basically the only thing a hacker TM needs to be able to do is have the exploit and stealth to punch a firewall on the fly and analyze to see stuff on the other side.


That's completely untrue.

You seriously need:
  • Sniffer
  • Spoof
  • Scan
  • Decrypt
  • Track
  • Browse

And that's just to get to the point where you can Exploit/Stealth your way into the Node you want. Sure, these aren't needed for every node, but every one of them is needed for some nodes and if you don't have the right key you lose the entire mission. And heck, even with all that you can't actually do anything once you get to the choclately center of whatever node you're looking for, you can just get access and look at the pretty colors.

The problem is that Matrix Specialization does not work in Hacking. Hacking is inherently reactive. If the node only communicates with authorized nodes you must have a Spoof program. Otherwise you fail. If the node is Encrypted you must have a Decrypt, otherwise you fail. If the node is hidden you must have a Scan, otherwise you fail. And so on and so forth. There is no substitutions, no alternate pathways.

You cannot blow up the wall with C4 when you can't pick the lock on the door. In the Matrix as currently defined there are a series of potential security measures and each one has one and only one method of breaking it. If you can't do it, or can't do it well, you lose at hacking and accomplish nothing.

So the fact that a Technomancer can thread themselves up to a Stealth of 8 or 9 doesn't actually matter. While that is very impressive, the fact that she can't actually have enough keys to pass all the kinds of doors she will be required to go through in order to complete hacking missions means that she cannot complete hacking missions.

--

I don't know what the solution is. Possibly it's as simple as sitting back and telling Technomancers to expect to be the super combat backup to an actual hacker rather than a hacker in their own right (which is contrary to source material, but makes for an acceptable 5th man on a shadowrunning team). I'm a little out of my depth because so far none of the players in any of the games I have run has wanted to play a technomancer.

But it is a problem. A very real problem. Despite the genuine glory of chain registering sprites as big as your head for no nuyen.gif the simple fact that technomancers cannot compete in the arena that they are supposed to is sufficiently counter intuitive that I regard it as a bug, not a feature.

-Frank
Moon-Hawk
Hey Frank, did you take a look at my house rules a few posts back? You're pretty good at seeing the unintended consequences of rules, and I'd love to get some feedback from you on them, if you have the time.
sunnyside
Alright there are plenty of arguments you could present against technomancers, such as being BP/Karma holes.

But "not having the keys" isn't an issue.

Ok maybe my posts got a little long and your eyes glazed over. I'll try to be clearer, highlighting the important points. Hopefully this won't hurt the eyes, and will make it easier for you speed readers.

The bottom line THE TECHNOMANCER HAS ALL THE "KEYS".

In fact THEY DON'T NEED ANY CFs AT ALL. They make life a whole lot easier, but for any program I need I can thread it up to a basic level from nothing and then add an assisting sprite to take its level ABOVE A HACKERS.

i.e. Let say that the techno doesn't have spoof.

Roll threading, get 3 hits, roll 11 die to resist, take no damage. Call in one of many services from a registered level 6 sprite. I've got the program at rating 9.

I spoof whatever needed spoofing.

Later I want to browse for some paydata. Again lets say I've got no browse, or maybe no data search skill either. Well that kind of chode work isn't even worth my time anyway. Off goes a sprite WITH BETTER PROGRAMS AND/OR SKILLS THAN A STARTING HACKER. They find what I need for me.

Uh oh, they found a databomb on it.

No defuse? No Problem! I really want to make this roll, so I want a high program rating. When threading I can decide how many hits are applied after I roll, so I just keep using "zero" hits so that I don't risk any fading until I roll up a LEVEL 6 PROGRAM. I probably get tagged with a couple boxes of stun though, so I can't do that too much. Anyway I call down another assisting sprite to take the prog up to 12 and throw 20 dice at the bomb (12prog+6 hacking+2 VR bonus and no sustaining penalty if you follow the FAQ).

I think by now you get the idea of how a TM can operate CFless. CFs just make it so you can hack quickly and without suffering fading or burning through services.
Dashifen
I'm with sunnyside here. While I agree that a TM probably doesn't have complex forms at the rating most hackers have their programs, the ability to thread CFs they don't have and raise the rating of the CFs they do have make them just as powerful, if not more so with creative application of Sprites, than a Hacker. I've had numerous very successfully TMs in my games (okay, three may not be numerous but...) all of whom used threading/sprites to make up the difference between them and hackers.

Plus, the overlooked rule is the one that sunnyside highlighted: you can choose the number of hits to apply to your threading after you roll. If you have 8 dice to resist with, only use two hits and buy of the fading damage! Hell, you can try to thread the same CF again (unless I missed something in the RAW) and since is -2 per sustained threaded CF, you can test to thread the same CF for a static -2 per test up to the limit of Resonance x 2 if you wanted to. No drain at all. Then, tack on the extra sprite dice and you've potentially got Resonance x 2 + Sprite Rating + Skill as your dice pool. I don't see a good way for a hacker to do that.

Granted, I'm not sure it's in the spirit of the rules to allow a CF to be multi-threaded, but the RAW also seems to leave that option open. I haven't had a player notice that yet, so I haven't had to make an in-game ruling on it.
FrankTrollman
QUOTE (Moon-Hawk)
Hey Frank, did you take a look at my house rules a few posts back? You're pretty good at seeing the unintended consequences of rules, and I'd love to get some feedback from you on them, if you have the time.

OK, the most obvious quetion I have is: what you intend to do with the programs which are thresholds rather than merely dice pools? How much damage does an "attack" do? What is the threhold to find someone if their Stealth is unrated? Technomancers still suffer a -2 penalty while sustaining threads, right? That makes threading a missing form just as shitty as it is now by and large.

It mostly seems that you're charging an incoming Technomancer about 50 Karma for them to "catch up" to a Hacker after which they will have enough CFs to move on with their life and then be totally awesome all the time. So the TM will sit in the corner and cry for about 10 sessions, and then the Hacker will sit in the corner and cry for the rest of the game.

In a twenty session game, that's more-or-less "fair". But while it's a definite improvement, I don't think it's a final solution.

---

QUOTE
Roll threading, get 3 hits, roll 11 die to resist, take no damage. Call in one of many services from a registered level 6 sprite. I've got the program at rating 9.


Uh... whatever dude. How many rounds can you keep that up for before you die? Every time you register a Rating 6 Sprite you resist between 2 and 24 Fading. If it comes up 24 (or really anything kind of close to that), you die. Registering Rating 6 Sprites is like playing Russian Roulette.

Threading puts you at -2 on all other tasks, including defensive ones.

Your "solution" may or may not get you through a particular hurdle. But it will get you killed.

-Frank
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012