I think I have read the rules correctly, but I'm not sure, so I need some help.

As I understand it, Complex Forms are to Technomancers what Spells are to Mages.

Except...

From what I've read, if a TM pays the Karma and money, he can learn a Complex Form for any spell up to 2x their Resonance, and then use it without any Fading. So, if they have a resonance of 6, they could learn Black Hammer at 12, and use it and attack anytime without any Fading. If they had only learned it to 6, they could use it at 6 with no Fading, but if they wanted to boost it to 12, they would have to use Threading, which would result in Fading. Fianlly, they can use Threading to whistle up a Complex Form from scratch, and resist Fading.

I have this right?

-M&P

The rating of a Complex Form is limited to your Resonance, unless you thread it or use Assist Operation. You only suffer Fading when threading a CF or compiling/registering sprites.

Also, with Unwired, you can use threading to copy any program and option from any expansion, including smartlink, simrig, tacnets and sensor software. Fading works exactly the same though.

The mechanics are actually quite simple, you just need to forget the magic rules for a second

- Learning complex forms or buying programs means you have that program/form, at the rating you acquired it. The max rating for programs is 6 (normally), the max "base" (without threading and sprite help) rating for a CF is the character's Resonance
- Threading means you roll Software + Resonance, the hits are added to the CF rating if you already have it, otherwise the number of hits is the rating.
- Threading itself causes fading, after threading the CF and hopefully soaking the fading damage you may use the CF with impunity


And now you can turn your magic knowledge back on:

- You my choose not to use all hits scored on the threading test
- The maximum rating for a threaded CF is Resonance x 2
- If the new rating is higher than your Resonance, threading causes P damage

Now after you have that threaded complex form...what can you add next to that dice pool to get it up higher?

Errr how much higher do you need it? There's the things that everyone else can do, skill specializations, cyberware, and qualities. There's also sprite assistance in some cases.

Thank you everyone.

-M&P

Don't forget that when you have threaded your complex form, it must be sustained, that is where the similarity to magic comes in. For each threaded CF, you must lose 2 dice from all actions until you drop the thread. If you submerge (basically like initiating) you can get echoes, and one of these (swap pg 147 of unwired) will allow you to reduce this penalty if taken twice it eliminates it. Also, you can use a sprite like you would a spirit to sustain the CF for a number of rounds equal to Sprite Rating * # services.

All actions which do not directly use the threaded form

A threaded exploit CF can be used without penalties, however if you keep up a threaded Armor CF at the same time it costs you two dice.

Quick sense check question

Techno threads up Stealth by five
Then threads up exploit by five (to counter the sustaining penalty from the stealth thread)

Does that mean both threaded CF's are running at +3 of normal IE does threading a second CF put the negative on the stealth CF.


To me it seems that it would

If you use two complex forms at the same time (the example from the FAQ is smartlink and a Biowire'd Firearms skillsoft) you don't suffer a penalty for either of those...


For the Stealth + Exploit example that means:
- If you are just using one of the two, for example when probing a target or hiding inside a node, you get the -2 penalty meaning the relevant CF effectively operates at R3 instead of R5.
- If you are using both at the same time, like when hacking on the fly, both CFs are in use and hence you don't get a penalty.


Since that is somewhat confusing I changed my example in the posting above to "Armor" instead of "Stealth"

But stealth is not activly used is it. Once running its a background issue.

My understanding is that when they mean the sustaining penalty is not counted for the threaded CF I took it to mean in a action (simple or otherwise) You dont exactly use Stealth directly.

But its presence still gets factored into rolls, just like the presence of a smartlink CF.

In my mind the whole sustaining modifier is akin to concentrating on something.

You thread up a stealth CF to a higher level and you have to concentrate on it to do it. Next you use the Expolit (not threaded) CF and because your concentrating on keeping your stealth threaded you get a minus 2 to your roll.

Now say to compensate you thread the Exploit to a higher level too. When using the exploit you have your attention on it directly so no modifier for threading exploit itself but your still having to keep some concentration on the Stealth thats still there so you still have a minus 2.

But as you now have two threading negatives this would mean you not paying as much attention to the stealth as before hence it now having a minus 2



Otherwise your just saying I can thread two CF's and as long as one of them is Stealth I only have to worry about one modifier which to me sounds broken and doesnt track

...and now try that logic with the example from the FAQ: You thread a Firearms skillsoft and have to concentrate to do it. Next you thread a smartlink CF and again have to concentrate on that, as well as the skillsoft. The net resulting modifier is...zero, because you actively use both CFs at the same time.



...and you are using it actively. When you are just probing a target you don't use Stealth, so maintaining a Stealth CF gives a -2 modifier.

The actively which you so kindly made bold is the point. Explain where Stealth is actively used as a program not just a background program/CF

In the FAQ quote it makes sense because both are being used the pistols skill for the skill the smartlink for handling the data and displaying it in the Techno's minds eye.

You example doesnt follow the same reasoning. Stealth once running/threaded is a passive program/CF you dont actively use it or actively roll it.


Or following your logic does that mean in a cyber combat situation threading Attack, Shield, Armour all at the same time would not give any penalties because your actively using all three? Even though the only CF you are actively using in combat (IE using a action to use) is the attack CF

I always took the suspension of the sustaining modifier to be used only when making a die roll involving the threaded for or sustained spell. IE Threading steal always gives you the -2 penalty because stealth factored into your die rolls, it instead establishes a target for your oppoenent. Threading exploit + stealth gives you a -2 while using exploit and a -4 on all other die rolls.

This is much my understaning as well.

When you use it Actively (which to me is defined by something that would use a action Free, Simple or Complex) then you can ignore its modifier but the other ones still count. Sengir appears to be claiming that as you use Stealth all the time (its running in the background as far as i'm concerned) you can ignore its modifier. Now I could be misreading his position and if I am I am happy to be corrected.

I would use as a counter example: If we consider that sustaining Threading is similar to sustaining a spell (which I beleive was stated somewhere earlier in the posts) and we assume that while an effect is being used there is no sustaining penalty, that would mean that a Magician could do the following:
Sustain physical invisibility on the entire party, sustain Mindlink (as long as everyone is talking), sustain increase body (since the party is wearing armor, body is being actively used), sustain chaotic world on the enemy, and casting stunbolts with no sustaining penalties because all the other spells are being actively used.

This seems game breaking to me and against the intent of the rule. Again, I use spells as an example since the mechinic is similar/identical and ruling in one direction on one would influence use of the other.

Right: even if that's how it's supposed to work, it shouldn't.

IF you want a fluff explaination, the TM's mind constantly adapts to the ever changing nature of the matrix and enemy detection programs, hence it is actively used *waves hand*

And from an OOC view both are simply things assumed to be there which influence certain rolls. Again, same thing.


Yep, exactly. Because that sounds far better than having Armor, Shield, Stealth, EC( C)M, Reality Filter etc. give you a stright -2 each just because they are not directly used to knock the enemy cold. Yes, that means when in doubt the GM has to do some common sense judgement over what programs really count as active - that is what seperates RPGs from court cases

I really don't think the intention of the threading rules was to give TM's the ability to up their CFs at almost no cost with no negatives. I fully dispute your interpretation and I'm concerned that this kind of way of thinking is the reason that so many people think that TM's are way more powerful then they are.

Now if you're saying that a technomancer can only have 1 CF running at a time without penalties. Then technomancers do infact suck and I can live with that.

Hackers can have response - 1 programs loaded in memory at any given time. If they're willing to take a -1 penalty they can have (response*2)-1

So a Hacker can have Edit, Browse, Analyze, Exploit, Armor, Decrypt, Stealth, Biofeedback, Reality Filter, attack, medic all running on his commlink for only a -1 to response.

So Assuming a response 6 commlink, that shoots it down to response 5, so his programs run at 5 (unless of course all his programs have that fun Optimized thing)

Really a hacker with rating 3 optimized mod on all his programs, could run 23 programs all at rating 6?
Is that accurate?

How exactly did you get from "no dice penalty for threading stealth while hacking on the fly" to "the ability to up their CFs at almost no cost with no negatives"?

Similar yes, but not identical. Magicians do not get a free pass on the spell they are actively using. As long as the spells are sustained by them, there is a cumulative penalty, whether they actively use it (Control Thoughts) or have them in the background (Invisibility). Magicians get Foci however.

If you're going to compare TM's and mages like that, I think a more fair comparison would be to imagining if mages buy each category of spellcasting seperately. One Spellcasting for Combat, Health, Manipulation, Illusion, Detection. So just to do your thing, you need to buy a bunch of seperate stuff(except for tms, there are 20-some odd programs). And there aren't any groups or specialties - and that's only 5.

Mages already have sustaining foci to deal with spells, as well as being able to call up spirits to do them for you. Doing more than 1 at a time just costs money(binding)

Yes they do get foci, and TM's can get widgets and or sprites that can add directly to their tests. The point is that you should not be able to thread your stealth up over a 9 with no cost. The rules don't support it. The fluff doesn't support it. And the way other characters function doesn't support it. If you tried pulling that at my table, there would be a discussion about what you are looking for out of the game, because your expectations certainly seem to be bent towards roll-playing.

"For each sustained spell the magician maintains, she suffers a –2 dice penalty on all other tests." (SR4A, p.184)

"Sustaining requires effort on the technomancer’s part, so he suffers a –2 dice pool modifier to all tests for each sustained complex form. This modifier does not apply to use of the threaded complex form, but it does apply to all other actions the technomancer makes." (SR4A, p.240)

While the section for Threading is a bit wordier (and explicitly notes that the use of the threaded complex form is excluded from the penalty), the text for sustaining spells strongly implies that tests involving a particular sustained spell do not suffer the penalty for sustaining *that* spell. I've always chalked the difference in verbiage up to either different writers being involved or the rules team deciding to clarify it further because they felt that the wording for sustaining spells could be considered too vague.

That is accurate but is overlooking something. A technomancer can only have 1 THREADED CF Running at a time without penalties. The part you overlook is that every CF paid for with karma/BP runs without penalies. It's only when you improve upon those core CFs a TM has (It doesn't matter if it was threaded from scratch or improved by threading) that you begin to incur penalties. Furthermore, the penalties do not apply to that 1 CF, but apply to EVERY other action (even meatspace).

There are no tests where you use the spell. There is no Attribute+Spell test. The spell is cast, for this roll you don't get the -2, but for anything else the mage does, he gets the penalty.

The FAQ begs to differ...

Actually, you do use the Stealth CF/Program actively once you have penetrated a System/Node... any time you may be detected you roll a contested Stealth roll of Hacking + Stealth (or Firewall + Stealth for Programs/Nodes) vs the Matrix Perception of the viewing entity. See Matrix Perception, SR4A, 3rd Paragraph... it spells this out quite well.

Keep the Faith

Actually No... Response Degradation due to multiple Programs running does not degrade the programs as well... it only affects the Initiative of the User. All comparisons for Program functionality (as well as System) are from their base stats, not their degraded stats beased on useage...



Actually, no here as well... once you load a number of programs equal to your Response, you degrade your Resonse by 1. What Optimize does is allow you to run a Program at a higher rating than your SYSTEM would allow... so a Rating 6 Program with Optimize 3 allows you to run that program on a System of 3... You are still constrained by RResponse Limits.

Now, If you were to use the Program Option: Ergonomic, you would not count that particular program as counting for Response Load Purposes. However, you may only have a number of Ergonomic Programs equal to your Processor Limit/Agent Payload (Which is your Base Response Attribute, or your Agent's Rating for an Agent)...

Hope that this clears things up for you...

Keep the Faith

so degrading my response just lowers my initiative by how ever much I degraded?

wow, I've been playing my hacker all wrong. There's no reason not to run at least 1 degrade most of the time.

still, a hacker should have 9-14 or so programs loaded all the time with no major side effects.

So, you're really telling me that someone who hits Threshold 2 with Increase Reflexes (resulting in +1 Initiative) has the end result of rolling 1 less die on Initiative tests while they sustain it (since sustaining the spell, under your interpretation, causes a -2 penalty)? Really? Because that seems like a test that directly involves the sustained spell.

I would think that it would reduce your Cybercombat defense pool as well, though 1 die might not matter much.

You are correct, I had missed that in the FAQ. In reference to my thoughts posted in the "Argumented Maximuns" thread: Officially then, they say you can use any number of CFs and penalties do not apply if that CF is involved in the task. CF penalties only apply to other actions. I will however be house-ruling this if I ever have a TM at my table: "A maximum of 1 CF can be used at a time, on one specific action,without penalty". Yes, this limits the gun-bunny echoe based TM concept a tiny bit. Oh well. It isn't the official ruling, but its what will work for me.

With regards to Stealth, you don't often roll your stealth, but it is often what is used by the systems you are hacking to see if you are noticed. So, this means that it is being used, but its not a part of the action you take in my opinion. Exploiting is Exploiting, no matter how hard you are to detect. What this means is that yes, at my table a stealth boost will give you a -2 to your other actions (as you must concentrate on remaining hidden). If you have stealth and exploit both amped, you will suffer the same -2 to an exploit check as if you only had stealth. However, since Stealth is a target for the opposition, and not something you roll, then yes, your stealth would remain amped with no losses. I am okay with this.

Correct...

And yes, there is generally no reason not to degrade at least by 1, as a Hacker neads access to many of his programs in the course of a Hack, and it just wastes time to have to Load and Unload programs constantly, especially if you are thrust into a combat before you were expecting it...

Keep the Faith

Stealth is an OPPOSED TEST once you have hacked into the Node... Matrix Perception vs. Stealth + Hacking... I am truly amazed at the number of people who overlook this little tidbit.

Just Sayin'

Keep the Faith

I doubt that this is the intention of the rule, but by RAW, you are correct. BTW the wording never excludes the sustained spell contrary to the rule about threading, so whether the test involves the spell is of no import whasoever.
Just another point to Synaptic boosters for mages.

Which is what a sustaining Focus is for... Walla, no more penalty for sustaining that Improved Reflexes Spell... Other wise, You are indeed penalized by the Sustainment of the Spell...

Keep the Faith

I thought that while you're hacking on the fly the system gets a system+firewall extended test with the threshold being the hacker's stealth program rating.?

Yes that is what the system gets while your getting in. Once your in though anyone looking for trouble (and most folks should have their system set to analyze when their idle) are rolling the opposed tests. That means even that stealth 12 techno isn't unfindable if he mucks about a while under a security spiders nose.

You do. Whether you breach into a system with hacking - whether its through Probing or Hacking on the Fly - your Stealth rating forms some sort of threshold or test for the system to spot you automatically on the way in.

And once you're inside, then what, pray tell, does Stealth do?
Oh yeah. Helps you against everyone elses analyzers.

I think the word "actively" might be throwing people off.

To my understanding the TM does not receive the penalty from threading to any TEST involving said CF.

SR4A pp240
"Threaded complex forms must be sustained (similar to how magicians sustain spells). Sustaining requires effort on the technomancer's part, so he suffers a -2 dice pool modifier to all tests for each sustained complex form. This modifier does not apply to use of the threaded complex form, but it does apply to all other actions the technomancer makes."

The use of the word "action" really should be "test" for clarity's sake as the word "action" has two meanings, one of which means "do something" and the other is more specific to an act that creates a test. Regardless, the bolded line seems to overrides the possible interpretation in the following line.

So, lets say you have a TM that threaded up 2 CFs: Exploit and Stealth

The TM is hacking on the fly.
Action is Hacking on the fly. It has two tests, but only one made by the TM:
Exploit + Hacking(Firewall, complex action) extended.

The two interpretations are that:
This is subject to the -2 penalty for the Stealth Threading as Stealth was not used in the test.

This is NOT subject to the -2 penalty for the Stealth Threading as Stealth was used in the action, due to the Analyze + Firewall(hacker's Stealth) attempting to meet that threshold.

I don't agree with the "action" interpretation. To me it seems like both a misreading of the rules, needlessly making TMs stronger, and not RAI. But that's just me.

Yeah, it does not make a lot of sense to use the "Action" Interpretation at all... But that is just me (and a lot of others apparently)... Well Said Tagz...

Keep the Faith

I concur. The example in the FAQ is for threaded Firearms Activesoft CF threaded as well as Smartlink CF. In that sample, there are no negatives to shooting since both are being used. As I said above, I disagree. You can argue that both are being used at the same time (much as you can argue that stealth is being used in your example), but thats a bit much for me.

The main sticking point that I have with the idea that sustaining Improved Initiative applies a penalty to every test besides the initial Spellcasting roll is that the spell isn't being sustained *before* you cast it. The sustaining penalty can only exist after the spell is successfully cast.

Perusing just the main book, here are spells that act oddly if the penalty for sustaining them applies to them:

Analyze Device (SR4A, p.206): effective Threshold of this spell is Object Resistance +2 in order to suffer no penalty while using the device. For virtually anything that counts as a "device" you need to cast it at at LEAST Force 6 in order to ignore the penalty for defaulting. Awesome.

Combat Sense (SR4A, p.206): effective Threshold of this spell is 2 in order to get *zero effect* (as it adds to defense tests while active)

Increase Attribute (SR4A, p.208): gains an effective Threshold of 2 in order to get *zero effect* when the caster uses it on himself

Increase Initiative (SR4A, p.208): effective Threshold of 3 in order to get *zero effect* on Initiative rolls. (I won't deny that extra passes are always good, obviously)

Oxygenation (SR4A, p.208): effective Threshold of 2 in order to get *zero effect* to the listed tests when the caster sustains it on himself

Prophylaxis (SR4A, p.208): effective Threshold of 2 in order to get *zero effect* to the listed tests when the caster sustains it on himself

Armor (SR4A, p.210): effective Threshold of 2 in order to get *zero effect* on damage tests involving Ballistic or Impact armor.

(Side note: AS WRITTEN, it seems that *every* sustained spell inflicts a -2 penalty on Damage Resistance Tests -- which seems rather brutal to me, but...that's what they wrote).

Levitate (SR4A, p.210): effective Threshold of 2 in order to get *zero effect* when hurling Levitated objects at targets. There's also (arguably, though petty) an effective penalty of 2 successes in the opposed test to levitate either an object being held by a living being or an unwilling living being (both cases are an opposed test pitting F x 2 vs STR+BOD

Magic Fingers (SR4A, p.211): effective Threshold of 3 in order to use the spell *as written* with no additional penalty

Shapechange / (Critter) Form (SR4A, p.211): effective Threshold of 2 in order to use the spell *as written* with no additional penalty


On top of that, the assumption that the *only* test involving a sustained spell that is exempted from the penalty for sustaining it is the Spellcasting test (that occurs *before* sustaining the spell) means that willingly passing through a Mana Barrier while sustaining spells is beyond foolhardy (as you suffer a crippling penalty and *still* need to get 1 additional success for each sustained spell you want to bring through), while someone sustaining the same number of spells who is either forced through a Mana Barrier or walks through one unawares has a much easier time.

Using the stock Combat Mage (SR4A, p.99) sustaining a Force 5 Armor, Levitate, and Increase Initiative, here's the difference:

WILLINGLY WALKING THROUGH A FORCE 5 BARRIER
The Combat Mage rolls Magic (5) + Charisma (4) - 6 (three sustained spells) versus Force (5) x 2, or 3 dice versus 10. AT BEST, said mage is having one spell disrupted (as he can only roll 3 dice)

UNWILLINGLY OR UNKNOWINGLY WALKING THROUGH A FOCE 5 BARRIER
The Combat Mage player rolls Force (5) x 2 for each spell versus Force (5) x 2; even money for each spell (and far more likely for all three to make it through). Of course, I assume that the spells roll their full pool (since it's not the *caster* who is defending), but a particularly strict/obtuse reading might demand that the penalty for sustaining be applied...which is STILL likely to be better, as the spell is rolling 4 dice versus 10 rather than 3 dice versus 10 -- and there's an (albeit unlikely) chance that *every* sustained spell will make it through, versus the GUARANTEE that only two even CAN. (Plus, regardless of the outcome of the spell tests, the caster who is inadvertently/unwillingly walking through is getting through regardless of the rolls...assuming that he doesn't have the mis-fortune of Astrally Perceiving (and thus dual-natured) while somehow going through the Barrier unwillingly/unknowingly.

All those spells you quoted, as well as passing through Mana Barriers work absolutely fine if they are being sustained by Foci or spirits... If you are sustaining them yourself, then yes, you are going to have issues, as your attention is divided... that is why it is so nice to have those Foci and Spirits to use them... otherwise the Mage becomes something that completely dominates the field...

Think of it as a balancing issue... Because that is exactly what it is... You can Sustain them yourself (and suffer the penalty), pass the sustaining off to a bound spirit (which cost nuyen to bind), or use Foci (and run risk of Foci Addiction if you try and use them exclusively and in excess; and they also cost Karma and Foci to bond)... Each of the options costs the character something, as it should...

Keep the Faith

I understand that the sustaining penalty is there in order to balance Mages out so that they don't run around with 15 spells sustained (without, as you mentioned, using spirits for foci to sustain some of them), but I find that the extremely narrow reading of "all other tests" is flawed...if only because 10 of the spells in the main book end up having thresholds or penalties not spelled out in their text as written. (Not to mention the fact that it's doesn't make sense to even CONTEMPLATE the prospect of the sustaining penalty for a spell factoring into the initial casting roll; it should be rather self-evident that an uncast spell cannot be sustained, after all).

That being said, in looking at Third Edition, sustaining spells assigned a penalty to *all* tests (well, technically, it added to the TN, but potato/potato), so it's not impossible that the 4E rules were designed to use the more narrow (IMHO) interpretation of "all other tests", though it seems silly to me.