I haven't got a hardcopy of SR4.5 handy, but according to my pdf, you are wrong:

No. It's just like any other instance of 'shorthand stats' in SR4; when specific stats are given, they take precedence. Unwired (p48) makes this very clear.
This is right next to the Sample Peripheral Node table, which gives precisely such specific ratings.

This still makes no sense. According to the RAW/RAI, the rating of a device = the device rating. Otherwise, we'd never get Rating 6 Medkits.

No. Not even close.

In order to get a Rating 6 Medkit, we need Rating 6 software, plus a Rating 6 System (dedicated, we'll assume) and a Rating 6 response chip to run it on. So, not only am I close, I'm dead on target. The same thing applies to emotitoys.

Except there's that nifty chart that tells you what Device Ratings various devices have.

Pretty much the only things that have default Device Ratings of 6 are deltaware and commlinks.

Medkits, being commonly used devices, most likely fall into the "average" category of devices, and thus have a Device Rating of 3. Also, as a specialized device not intended to be used as a Matrix access point, it's a Peripheral Node, which means it doesn't get limited by the Response Rating.

Also, you missed this bit about peripheral devices: "If a particular device plays an important role in an adventure, the gamemaster should assign a full complement of Matrix attributes to it. If the item only plays a passing role, then a simple Device rating will suffice."

Further reinforcing that the Device Rating is just shorthand for the four Matrix Attributes.

A Medkit 6 might HAVE a System Rating of 6, but have all it's other ratings at 3 and be still considered to have a Device Rating of 3. But as a Peripheral Node, it can't run any other software except the Medicine profession autosoft built into it.

Or, that Medkit 6 may also very well be running it's Medical software with Optimization 3, which would allow it to run on a Device Rating 3. We don't know, as it's not detailed. For most of the devices that aren't broken down into their attributes, a lot of handwaving is used.



-karma

Why does a rating 6 medkit run rating 6 software? And what program is that?

Actually, the Medkit runs something non-standard, as it somehow can both add it's rating to your skill, or function by itself as if it has the medical skill at it's rating.

No other skill software does this.

So Medkits are kinda a special case anyhow.



-karma

To reinforce, just because something has a Rating, that does not mean it's a Device Rating.

Chemsuits have a rating too, but it has nothing to do with how well they would perform if linked somehow to the Matrix.

Medkits come in ratings 1 to 6. We don't actually know how much of that is due to the software and how much is due to any specialized hardware that is in the kit. It's generalized. For all we know that Medkit 6 could have a Medicine Profession Autosoft 3 plus some specialized software or hardware that lets it either grant six dice to the user's skill, or roll six dice in standalone mode.




-karma

Right, my point was that it doesn't work as an example of gear Rating = Device Rating.

Assuming the rating 6 medkit is running rating 6 software (and I don't see the connection. It just has a wider array and better class of drugs, devices, etc.), it still doesn't need a rating 6 system since it can have optimization. It also doesn't need a rating 6 response regardless of the system if it is a peripheral device.

That being said it would be nice is the medkit 6 price wasn't so cheap that it's practically mandatory.

I would have been happier if medkits were 1-3 as they are, but if you wanted 4-6 they were drone priced.

That's just it, though. You can't afford Optimization 3 at medkit prices. You can't afford a Response of 6, either, but that's part of why Device Ratings are so hinky. At any event, it's clear that the higher rating of the device, the better the computing power it has. So, rating of device = Device Rating.

Oh, and to answer your other question? I could hand you a jump kit from the back of an ambulance, and unless you have the skill to use it, it may as well be a box of band-aids in your hands. A medkit not only has better drugs and supplies at higher ratings, it has better software to help you use it.

There's no reason to assume that the medkit runs rating 6 of any program as a matrix device, though. In any case, companies can sell anything they want at the right market price. Maybe medkits have a proprietary hard-coded system that's easy to make in bulk. We have no idea, but we know they exist, what bonus they give, and what they cost. Those things are all facts, anything else is speculation and house rules.

We also know beyond doubt that Device Rating is not the same as the rating of a piece of equipment, such as a medkit. We further know that peripheral nodes can only run programs they're intended to use, so a fridge can't run Empathy software.

You could say the same thing about any device, at any rating. It all depends on the Device Rating, or rating of the device, as to what programs it can run.

Does it? Why?

Personally, I'd write one software package that did it all (because it's not like it needs to be fast processor wise, it's just showing people what to do, and I can store an incredible amount of high res video on a device rating 1 machine. Heck, I can store an incredible amount of high res video in my underwear.).

The rating of the device would be entirely dependent on the equipment inside the device. The more drugs, band-aid, defibrillator and similar toys, the better the dang thing is. At level 6 it may even have the machine that goes "bing".*

* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arCITMfxvEc&feature=fvw

No, you can't, Cain, because we *know* what Device Rating means, and we know what those devices can do. Device Rating explicitly refers to Matrix attributes, as a shorthand (just like Sensor Rating is a shorthand). When specific stats are available, they override that.

Neither of those has anything at all to do with the rating of various pieces of equipment. A camera (rating 1-6) costs 100*Rating Nuyen. This is in the most obvious possible conflict with the costs of a Node with the same rating. A security camera also has explicitly-listed peripheral node matrix stats, which don't change based on its rating. The rating of a camera also explicitly only affects the number of video enhancement mods that can be added; nothing else.

There are any number of examples just like this. This is so wholly obvious that I assume you're trolling me.

But as I showed, there's nothing saying that everything with a Device rating is also a peripheral node. And peripheral nodes don't replace Device ratings, otherwise it would have said so in the rules.

Fact is, anything with a device rating needs an increase in processing power to do its job better. That is shown by the increase in Device Rating as the rating of the device increases. A camera? As it gets better (better resolution, fancier vision options, pattern-recognition ability, etc) it requires more computing power to do a better job. A rating 6 medkit has better software, since it tells you what to do. In short, as the device rating goes up, the amount of computing power it uses goes up, and therefore the higher its matrix attributes. I had a problem with this in game, so I had to introduce a rule about "dedicated processors", which could only run certain programs at full efficiency. This was before Unwired, though.

As for me trolling you: If I were trolling, I'd be making snide comments, not trying to engage you in honest debate. No insult or disrespect intended.

The core book defines Peripheral Device pretty clearly.

Is it a matrix-capable device? Okay, it has Matrix Attribute ratings. Sometimes they're broken out individually. Sometimes they're referred collectively as a Device Rating. Sometimes they have both - a fridge is "dumb" appliance with a Device Rating of 1, but it's individual Matrix Ratings vary - it's Signal Rating is 3, for example.

It is a device commonly used as an access point for a user to surf the Matrix, like a commlink? If no, then it's a Peripheral Device.

Matrix-capable and intended to be used as an access point: Standard Device.

Matrix-capable but NOT intended as an access point: Peripheral Device.

Medkits CAN access the Matrix. However, they're not built to be used like a Commlink. Therefore, they are Peripheral Devices. And as such they can, say, have a Device Rating of 1, but still have other ratings higher than that.



-karma

Provably false.

SR4A pg 222. Alphaware is device rating 4. Betaware is device rating 5. Deltaware is device rating 6. Cybereyes have a rating of 1-4 (pg 341) and yet their rating doesn't affect their device rating and their device rating doesn't affect their rating. It's that way for any cyberware that has a rating.

Higher rated software may be "Better software", but "better software" doesn't need to be higher rated. Simply adding more instructional videos makes software better and yet it doesn't change the rating. In the meantime, you still haven't shown:
1) that it needs better software
2) That it's not a peripheral node (which uses different rules)
3) That the medkit isn't simply designer fiat (since it certainly doesn't seem built in the manner you claim it's built AND by the rules).

By your interpretation, hackers should be running all their software off of rating 6 medkits. Granted, it's a fun concept, but from a game balance perspective, replacing a Transys Avalon upgraded to response 6 signal and response (16,000:nuyen: before firewall and system) with a 600:nuyen: medkit (which includes firewall and system) is simply broken.

I keep looking for that rule but I can't find it.

When did that ever stop Cain... or anyone else here at dumpshock?

suoq:I think that entire page has been quoted by now. I wish people would just read it.

doesn't (to me anyway) mean
For example, I would expect the military has body-mounted tacnets. In my mind, a tacnet probably does "require the computing, processing, and networking capabilities of standard nodes" but it isn't a "commonly used as an access point for a user to surf the Matrix". My understanding is that a rating 4 tacnet needs 6 people with 8 sensors each. [Pg 125, Unwired] That's 48 sensor feeds MINIMUM coming in over the network and being processed and sent back out in realtime. That's not something used for surfing nor is is a peripheral device by the rule you're quoting.

Note that Tacnet software really does show some interesting processing power concepts.
Rating 1 = 3 people with 2 sensors each. = 6 sensors
Rating 2 = 4 people with 4 sensors each = 16 sensors
Rating 3 = 5 people with 6 sensors each = 30 sensors
Rating 4 = 6 people with 8 sensors each = 48 sensors
Rating 5, if it existed, would need to process 70 sensors and rating 6 would be processing 96.

The real trick here is the possible combinations of sensors needing to be matched up. Even just pairing on a rating 1 tacnet means 6 sensors are matching up, that's 15 pair combinations. A rating 4 tacnet is has 1128 possible pairings it needs to deal with in real time (minimum).

So we're not just dealing with minor increases in complexity, we're talking orders of complexity.

I have a hard time thinking the computational power required for a rating 6 medkit is close to the computational power required for even a rating 4 tacsoft.

Everything in SR has a "rating" - skill rating, attribute rating, loyalty rating, magic rating, armor rating, barrier rating, etc (e.g. do a search on "rating" in SR4a, Game Concepts section). Anytime there is any kind of number, it seems to be referred to as a rating.

SR4a, p69:


Gear rating never mentions anything at all about matrix stuff. So just because a piece of gear has a "rating" doesn't mean that equals the "Device Rating", where "Device Rating" will inform us of the System / Response / etc.

SR4a, p221


SR4a, p222


There IS some ambiguity, as the term "Device Rating" is mentioned in the Gear Ratings definitions sidebar-thing (I think this is just a mistake on the devs part):

SR4a, p311


It looks here like the flavor text is really referring to gear rating, and the author of this section didn’t realize the implication of using the term “Device Rating”. By this text, its saying that a rating 6 Medkit would also have Response, Signal, Firewall, and System of 6. Something that would costs 10’s of thousands of nuyen, but Rating 6 Medkit = 600 nuyen. This is pretty obviously not what is intended by the flavor text.

BUT…later on in the gear section, it does attempt to clarify about gear and Device Ratings:

SR4a, p313:


In the actual description and listing of the Medkit, it says nothing about Device Rating, only "rating", which therefore should be taken as the gear rating.

Arsenal is very careful throughout the book to use Device Rating correctly. Augmentation mentions it once…incorrectly, I think (Altskin, p113). Street Magic also uses Device Rating only once, but correctly (Possession and Vessels, p102).

So unless a piece of equipment explicitly lists a Device Rating (as Electronics do), it should follow the Device Rating table on p222. The long and the short seems to be, don’t use the term "Device Rating" unless you really mean the definition given on pages 221-222. Let’s pretend the Medkit mixup never happened.

Okay, I probably could have worded that better.

A Tacnet has a one of it's core purposes communication, generally over the Matrix.
Accessing the Matrix is part of it's prime function. It's a Standard Device.

A Medkit CAN access the Matrix. Presumably to receive software updates and such.
However, that's not a part of it's prime function. Therefore it's a Peripheral Device.

In modern day terms, I'd hazard a guess that Standard Devices are pretty much computers, including anywhere from palmtop systems to supercomputers. Probably also smartphones and the like. Maybe some of the later generation game consoles.

There's plenty of "other" stuff that can access the internet, like digital picture frames and clock radios (I've see internet-enabled versions of both), but 99.9% of those would probably be considered Peripheral Devices.


-karma

Umm, tacnet isn't a piece of gear, its a software you run on your comlink.

Bah, suoq started talking about Tacnets and then the second edition hardware-based version got stuck in my head.

Whatever. My point still stands.

Primary purpose REQUIRES Matrix access = Standard Device

Commlinks have a primary purpose of hooking to and interacting with the Matrix. They CAN be used in offline mode, but that doesn't change their primary purpose.

Primary purpose does NOT require Matrix Access but can benefit from such = Peripheral Device.

Medkits CAN hook to the Matrix but that's not their primary purpose. Their primary purpose is to help heal people.



-karma

Actually, the software is called a tacsoft. By tacnet, I mean a device that is intended to run a tacsoft. It's not an accurate usage in SRA4 because there doesn't seem to be such a device available anymore. However, it seems odd that tactical teams would run such a critical piece of software on something built like a comlink. I'd be much more likely to run it in something built like the black box in an airplane, except I'd probably add something like biofiber.

A spec-ops tactical team would probably be running commlinks that are BUILT like the black boxes, and dedicated for just the tacnet/secure intra-team comms.




-karma

With Corporate overrides and eavesdropping.
The ability to detonate mindwiping black ic in every operatives brain.
Possibly even cranial bombs slaved to a very specific code sequence.

A commlink is just a portable general-purpose computer/networker. It's exactly what you'd run a tacsoft on.

Anyway, this has nothing to do with the question. A commlink, vehicle node, home telecom, or nexus is a Standard Node. Almost anything else isn't; the GM should be able to tell.

Yes, but then we have to draw the distinction between standard node, peripheral node, and Device/Gear rating. Basically, what makes something a standard device, and what makes it have a Device Rating instead? The whole point of a Device Rating is to simplify matters, and yet it does the exact opposite. That's why, until I see something unambiguous on the subject, I will maintain that the rating of a device = Device Rating. I've seen a lot of twisting and spinning on this topic, but nothing clear and unambiguous.

I'm sorry that's what you've seen. I've seen multiple crystal-clear, good-faith explanations of this question, ranging from direct rules quotes to logical proofs. It's utterly beyond question.

Everything already has a Device Rating, unless its stats are specified (by the book, or by the players). There are tables clearly giving these ratings and stats in the rules. This is wholly in line with similar concepts in SR (sensor rating, etc.). It's solely so the GM can just ballpark something when it's not worth statting it out.

I don't find the peripheral/standard or device/gear ratings to be especially confusing or mentally taxing. It really couldn't be simpler without eliminating the concept of rated gear entirely; not a change I'd prefer. In the end, though, it doesn't matter to anyone what (totally unworkable) house rule you choose to use. :/

Actually, I've found that adding the concept of dedicated processors to be perfectly workable, logical, and simpler than the existing ruleset.

However, to point out one example of a factual inconsistency:

There is absolutely no table, anywhere in any of the books, which clearly lists the exact device rating for each piece of gear. There's a table for peripheral nodes, and a sample list of device ratings, but nothing encompassing. And there's a fair amount of evidence that the higher the rating of a piece of gear, the higher the computing power that goes with it. In other words, the higher the gear rating, the higher the Device rating.

There is a difference between "increase" and "significant increase". Just because it makes logical sense that the software may better, that doesn't mean it's so significantly better that it needs a much better (and much more expensive) processor to run.

There isn't a fair amount of evidence showing that better processors are put in higher rated devices. In fact the pricing of equipment across the board when compared to the raw pricing of response hardware shows the complete opposite. Likewise, the pricing of equipment doesn't heave that sudden leap from rating 3 to rating 4 that software has. (which means that the equipment isn't following the pattern for software or system either). The pattern of pricing clearly indicates "rating" is not "device rating" and that pattern of pricing is the largest (although not most significant) body of evidence available for either interpretation.

I'm sorry, I was referring to the sample tables. I didn't mean that there was an exhaustive Matrix attribute table for all gear; one is not needed, because the existing example tables are sufficient. Everything *does* have a suggested Device Rating on the DR rating, if you actually read it and use the examples.

Agreed: there *isn't* any evidence that higher gear-rating gear has higher Device Rating (=Matrix attributes). To give the most obvious example yet again, as suoq suggested: A rating 6 microphone costs 300¥, so it's impossible that it could have 6 Response, 6 System, 6 Signal, or 6 Firewall. It also has availability vastly lower than 6 Response, 6 System, 6 Signal, or 6 Firewall.

As a final note. The "Cain interpretation" has a pretty scary side effect. For example, if you assume a rating 6 sensor has a device rating of 6 then it has a signal rating of six and therefore a broadcast radius of 10 km.

This turns the Radio Signal Scanner into a tool of dangerous power. A well armed team that hasn't replaced the signal modules on their devices can be seen and pinpointed with ease.

"Boss. I'm picking up an emotitoy and a medkit broadcasting with the signal strength of a cell phone tower by the North Wall."
"More Shadowrunners. Full alert everyone. Don't worry about taking them alive, and remember, they'll all be using stick and shock ammo so don't worry too much if they start shooting back. Put on the Nonconductive Form Fitting Body Armor under your outfits and they'll be dead as squatters faster than we can get a pizza delivered."

Which is rather my point: prices and availability are borked for what you can get. By the base book, (Sr4.0, not 4.5, I don't have 4.5 handy)you have two classes of devices: Matrix devices, which have a full set of Matrix attributes; and Devices, which use a shorthand instead. There's nothing suggesting that you can't have a rating 6 device, and that it wouldn't also function at rating 6. Unwired adds a third category, with Peripheral devices. I just ignored that and added a "Dedicated processor" rule that eliminated the worst of the problems.

Suoq: That is what's known as Metagaming. It's the worst form of cheating possible, especially when a GM does it.

The prices and availability are only broken (vastly incredibly broken) if you insist on using your totally incorrect interpretation, Cain. That's the whole point: you are personally the one introducing the problem.

I wouldn't call it two categories to have Device Rating'd devices and specific-rating devices. They're the same thing. It's like getting a skill group versus having the group and 'breaking' it; those skills all function identically.

Peripheral nodes are different (that is, the second category of devices), and they're a welcome, useful addition to the game; it keeps people from trying to run empathy software on their cyberlimbs.

I disagree. The 'worst form of cheating possible' is probably just killing the other player, surely? 'I win!'.

That's "pulling a Cain" - and we love him for that.

Then please quote a direct and unambiguous rule stating that Device Rating != Device Rating. You won't find that rule anywhere.


That's literally criminal. Killing a player isn't cheating, it's murder. Metagaming, however is cheating-- and it becomes worse when the GM does it.

You're right: I won't find "Device Rating != Device Rating". Device Rating *does* equal Device Rating, because that's the same thing. However, you will find on SR4A p222 (I think it's been referenced several times), this rule: "The Sample Devices table (at left) lists typical Device ratings." Reading that table tells you that standard personal electronics (for example) have a Device Rating of 3. Because such electronics can have gear ratings from 1-6 (sometimes 1-3, 1-4, etc.), this is a direct and unambiguous statement that Device Rating does not equal gear rating.

In case you're not happy with the wiggle room of Sample Devices, some gear explicitly has a Device Rating; some examples of this are on SR4A p328. The problem is that they didn't bother to do this with everything, creating a bit of a mess.

The problem, and I assume the source of your confusion, is that the writers were a little lax about referring to the difference between Device Rating and the gear rating of a device. Taken in isolation (that is, without reading the rest of the rules), one could confuse the two. (See SR4A, p311; this is in the equipment section, and contextually refers only to gear rating of devices.)

Psh, you can't cheat by murder now? What's the world coming to. How about cheating by using loaded dice? That's gotta be worse than metagaming.

I don't have a copy of SR4.5 handy, and I'm not about to go digging for the pdf, but that list has been referenced. Check me on this but the term "gear rating" doesn't actually exist in the rulebook, does it? It's a term we coined here. The term the book uses to refer to the rating of a device is (drumroll, please!) Device Rating. So, Device Rating = Device Rating. The sample list is just for things without Device ratings, such as your underwear.

ANd while we're joking around a bit on this subject, I can deal with loaded dice. Metagaming is much more insidious and game-ruining than other forms of cheating.

And is there a sentence that makes it clear that the gear rating of a device = Device Rating? This shitty game can be played both ways, dude.

Yes, I'm referring to 'gear rating' for clarity. The book is, indeed, sloppy about the terms. In the Wireless section, there's Device Rating, the shorthand for Response, Signal, System, and Firewall. In the Gear section, there's Device rating, which is the rating of the medkit.

Nowhere does it say these are the same, and we know (again, several ways) that it's impossible for them to be the same. As I said, if you only read part of the rules, you certainly could be confused.

For fun, let's recap some of the several ways we know that the rating of gear can't be its (Matrix) Device Rating:
1. unreasonable Signal strengths
2. unreasonable price conflicts (e.g., microphone versus commlink)
3. unreasonable availability conflicts
4. unreasonable hacking resistance conflicts (e.g., medkit versus vehicle)
5. the existence of commlinks at all (this one is solved by the existence of Peripheral node rules, but you said you ignored them?)
6. rating conflicts for different grades of cyberware (e.g., rating 2 alphaware cybereyes)

(That's as many clearly broken consequences of equating rating of gear with Device Rating as I could recall off the cuff; did I leave out anyone's points from the thread so far? The interesting thing about these is that all of these game-breaking problem evaporate by acknowledging Device Rating as independent of the rating of gear.)

Wait... What? Really? GM's can't metagame? That is the definition of a GM... they are the ones who set up the scenario for goodness sake... To set up a challenging Scenario, they are by definition metagaming... Or are you seriously suggesting that the GM never take into account the capabilities of the group he runs the game for?

You mean it's actually worse than claiming an Emotitoy at rating 6 has, by the rules, a device rating of 6, a response, signal, system, and firewall rating of 6, can run all software, and comes pre-loaded with Empathy 6?

Cool. I'm actually proud of that.

As a GM, I consider it my job to cheat. I'll make up NPCs and equipment on the fly. I bump the heck out of the bad guys when there isn't enough of a challenge. I'll nerf the adventure to heck and back to give a collection of badly written characters run by new players a chance at success. It's my goal to make sure the players have an enjoyable challenge and to that end, I'll use anything in my bag of dirty tricks to get the job done.

Call me a a cheater. When I GM, I'm definitely guilty as charged.

----

(Side note. Please don't capitalize the S. "suoq" is actually an old nickname of mine spelled upside down. It's pronounced "bons".)

This isn't the thread for it, but I thought we established that NPCs remembering that all shadowrunners carry emotitoys and SnS, and therefore responding to that knowledge, isn't metagaming at all. Right?

Yes, metagaming is the worst form of GM cheating and asshattery, and I'll be glad to tell you why.

A GM is already empowered to bend the rules, and that's ok. But taking player knowledge and giving it to the NPC's is flat-out cheating, especially since you'd never let the PC's get away with the same thing. A problem GM I know in a 3.5 game had every NPC know the exact magic items, favored spells, and preferred tactics of the party, because supposedly someone spied on them once. Saying that you can infer from one high Signal rating that they're Shadowrunners, and know everything down to their ammo type, is CHEATING!! And not in a good way-- in a way that'd make me never want to play in your games, and tell others to avoid your games. I mean, come on! "They've got a signal rating of 3, so that means they're standard grunts with AR's, no special ammo, and armor jackets." Would you seriously let the PC's get away with that?

No one likes a cheater. And if you're not capable of telling the difference between GM leeway and cheating, I really don't want to play in your games.