NEWS

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
I'm very biased on the use of Editor Complex Form. I think Editor CF should bypass Data Bombs. If not, then I agree it is a show stopper. Using emulator (Edit) and the standard edit file action is using the matrix vs using resonance.   Similarly, outsider access is critical as there is no way to gain user/admin access without cracking.

My hope is that future supplements and editions will continue to clarify and separate the mechanics of the Matrix. There should be a way to attain the matrix results with different approaches.  Similar to Close Combat, Firearms, and Exotic Weapons for physical combat and Shamans with Spirits vs Mages with Spells for magical effects.

Editor doesn't say it ignores Data Bombs.  Heck, it doesn't even say it ignores file protection of the mundane sort that requires the Crack File matrix action (pg. 180).

Editor only says it does one thing: allows you to ignore any prerequisite access when executing the Edit File matrix action (pg. 181).
2
 I'm very biased on the use of Editor Complex Form. I think Editor CF should bypass Data Bombs. If not, then I agree it is a show stopper. Using emulator (Edit) and the standard edit file action is using the matrix vs using resonance.   Similarly, outsider access is critical as there is no way to gain user/admin access without cracking.

My hope is that future supplements and editions will continue to clarify and separate the mechanics of the Matrix. There should be a way to attain the matrix results with different approaches.  Similar to Close Combat, Firearms, and Exotic Weapons for physical combat and Shamans with Spirits vs Mages with Spells for magical effects.
3
Immunity to Normal Weapons is a bear.

A couple of things that can help mitigate the effective invincibility of spirits:

Street Wyrd has an allowance for mundanes to employ command-trigger alchemical preparations.  When any mundane can have an arcane taser, the ItNW loses much of its luster!

ItNW is tied to essence, not force.  Yes, the statline says essence = force, but as a GM you can alter that.  Allow a player or villain to have a high force spirit, but nerf the essence and the only thing that happens is ItNW isn't making the spirit invincible.

You can also assign weaknesses to spirits... whatever a spirit is allergic or vulnerable to bypasses ItNW.  By all means, assign a vulnerability to fire extinguishers for a spirit of fire, and then turn on the sprinklers...

4
Rules and such / Re: Does a Technomancer need the Cracking Skill in 6E?
« Last post by Xenon on <07-24-21/1023:37> »
Tasking cannot be defaulted to.

Tasking is used for Sprites. Compiling them. Registering them. Recompiling them.

Deckers don't have access to sprites and they do just fine, but this mean you no longer have access to sprite powers such as Camouflage, Cookie, Diagnostics, Electron Storm, Hash, Override, Phantom, Stability, Suppression, Trap and Watermark...... :-(



Same as Tasking, Cracking cannot be defaulted to.

Cracking is used for Crack File and Disarm data bomb. Which mean that without Cracking (and without Tasking) you don't have any method of removing the file protection nor disarming data bombs (to be honest, this is probably a show-stopper).

Cracking is used for Data spike, Tar Pit, Crash Program as well as Resonance Spike. Which mean that without Cracking (and without Tasking) you don't have any method of bricking devices or programs or generally causing matrix damage.

Cracking is used for Snoop. Which mean that without Cracking (and without Tasking) you don't have a way to eavesdrop on communications or snoop on live camera feeds.

Cracking is used for gaining access on networks (either via Brute Force or Probe + Backdoor Entry). This mean you can't take several Electronic actions (such as Format Device, Reboot Device, Trace Icon, Jump Into Rigged Device, ...)

Cracking is also used for random actions like the Hide action and the Jam signals action, but they are not really that important I guess.




Having said that, there are also a few actions you can sort of still emulate;

An alternative to Check Overwatch Score action would be to learn and use the Emulate (Baby Monitor) complex form.

An alternative to Spoof Command (and to some extent Control Device) would be to learn and use the Puppeteer complex form (if the device is on the inside of a non-public host then you also probably need to first establish a direct connection to the device).

An alternative to Edit File action would be to learn and use the Editor complex form (but I don't think there is a way to establish a direct connection to a file that is on the inside of non-public host and I also don't think it let you bypass data bombs or edit files that are still encrypted).



Overall I would suggest against skipping both Tasking and Cracking. At least if you are the only Matrix Specialist of the party.
5
Rules and such / [6e] Magic Weapons, Bullets and Spirits
« Last post by Smogg on <07-24-21/1005:32> »
My experience with 6e spirits is: They are even harder to deal with than 5e. A typical player summoned spirit will be 5-6 force that ignore 5-6 damage + body soak, and with the lower weapon damage values, it can be quite hard to deal any significant damage with a gun or a sword. Of course, it is also meant that spirits are significant foes that are trouble unless you have an adept or mage.

Unfortunately, in actual game, it seems to come down to if the players face a materialized sprit, most of the party is not able to contribute much while mage and/or adept do their stuff. Likewise, if the players encounter mundane opposition, sending in a beefy spirit, pretty much auto win the conflict unless there is something tailored to challenge the spirit, like… another spirit. I am not too fond of combats ending in summing wars.

With that, I am looking into how to use 6e rules in a sensible way to smooth things a bit and make it a bit more interesting for everyone at my table. But I prefer to work with the rules there are, rather than do some custom house rules that clash with the rules. That said I looked at what it takes to make enchanted weapons and bullets a thing that comes into play.

Of course, there are already the weapon foci for adepts. They are permanent, quite powerful and great for dealing with spirits, but it seems there is a large gap between mundane weapons and actual weapon foci. So, these are my thoughts (and here I’m NOT trying to use previous editions as guidelines, just what is in 6e)

So, what does it take for a weapon to count as magical? Immunity specifies:” all attacks that are not magical in nature; weapon foci, spells, and adept or critter powers". So, what about an item under the effect of a spell or an alchemy preparation? Would they count as magical or mundane in relation to normal weapon immunity?

Here I am looking a bit for balance. An alchemical preparation (in waiting) on a bullet or sword could somehow be considered magical, but on the other hand, it would allow for quite long-lasting magical weapons with unrelated effects that may never trigger, so I went away from that idea. On the other hand, an active magical effect on a bullet or sword requires a bit more, usually some timing and of course a relevant spell.

I looked in Street Wyrd to see, what would it take to make a spell that enchanted a weapon but had no other side effects. Let’s called it Enchant Weapon. It seems it would just be a basic manipulation spell without any ingredients added since it does not do anything beyond being magical. Opposed by object resistance and lasting net hits rounds. Seems like it would useful but also situational and a tactical choice. It also seems it would valid if used as alchemical preparation, allowing for the party to prepare before a run if they have invested in enchantment (often less tempting to do).

So, an Enchant Weapon spell like that could have two uses:
1. When in combat with a spirit, you could cast it on a weapon or regular bullet against object resistance 6, lasting net hit rounds, allowing the attack to be magical.
2. In preparation to a run, bullets or weapons could be prepared with alchemy and a suitable trigger. When triggered, the potency+magic vs object resistance would determine if it worked, and how many combat rounds it lasted.

This would give runners and NPCs a bit more options for handling medium force spirits, and it may encourage more use of enchantment skill.

I would love some 6e feedback on:
- If its reasonable within the 6e rules? Is it way off?
- Is my approach balanced? Too hard on spirits?
- Or just if it’s generally a good idea? or not at all. 

6
Rules and such / Re: Does a Technomancer need the Cracking Skill in 6E?
« Last post by Xenon on <07-24-21/0538:41> »
If you are the team's only matrix expert then I think you will limit yourself by not picking up cracking.

Technomancers are also in a really good position in this edition.

But can it be done? Sure...
7
Rules and such / Re: Attacks Against Players in VR 6e
« Last post by Xenon on <07-24-21/0352:42> »
I'd say your physical body can't really defend against physical melee and ranged attacks while in full VR or Astral Projection, but that you still soak with body as normal (then again there is no "Unaware of Attack" modifier in this edition (in this edition you get to defend against attackers you don't see or attackers you are surprised against) so I am not sure what the actual intent is here...


An advantage of going with the team (besides that it is often more fun for everyone) is that you can Spoof commands to maglocks etc by using direct connection. No need to first gain access to, and enter, a host. Having said that, it have been clarified that devices still get to defend with matrix attributes provided to them from the network they are connected to (even if under attack from a direct connection) which kinda limit the usefulness of joining the team.

In this edition handshake range is no longer unlimited - noise doesn't only make it harder to hack, it also put a hard limit on the maximum distance you can be at (which mean hacking from a stationary base of operations might be tricky, but hacking from a mobile base of operations seem to be highly possible or perhaps even encouraged).
8
RAW does a Technomancer need to spend skill points on Cracking, Tasking, and Electronics?  Reading through the 6E rules and inspired by the Advanced Matrix rules from 5E, I'm trying to theory craft myself through the options of different TM builds. My goal is to get the variety of builds within TM that Shaman/Mages have and ensure the TM plays differently than a typical Decker. One of those builds is intended to be a complex form sorcerer.  (No tasking/sprites, No "illegal" matrix actions).  Meet M3RLIN, the complex form slinging matrix specialist.  Can MERLIN conduct a simple data grab without an illegal matrix action; just using complex forms?

Example to test the theory...a simple data grab.
Using the basic Host Structure (Core pg186), M3RLIN starts in the Matrix with Outside Access to HOST A. Unfortunately, the data is in in the Office Host and nested behind A. So M3RLIN is stuck.  He can't see the Office Host and he can't "enter" Host A without cracking (e.g. Brute/Backdoor/Probe) actions.  (I assume there is no way for Puppeteer or Resonance Veil to give yourself user/admin access).  This means M3RLIN needs a physical back door to the Office Host (e.g. Workers Desktop PC inside the building).  With device access (such as Wireless Data Tap or Skinlink to a Office PC), M3RLIN would have Outsider Access to the Office Host.  He now needs to find and then access the file.  If it was "unprotected", it would be a simple Matrix Search / Matrix Perception then Editor CF to copy.  However, if the TM is looking for the file it is likely protected.  So, M3RLIN will have to use Hash Check to find it.  Bad News this is illegal. Good news, it uses Electronics versus Cracking.  So, M3RLIN now has an Overwatch score, but hasn't had to use the Crack Skill.  Now M3RLIN uses his Editor CF and copies/clones/resonance cheats the file. With the file "in hand", he uses Cleaner CF to remove the Overwatch as he walks away. Now that feels very TM-like per the fluff, but none of that was opposed.  The key is getting a team to get you to the device (which is crux of a Shadowrun data grab for the majority of the team).   

What RAW am I missing? If this mostly works, then you can add in a puppeteer and a resonance veil to "disrupt" some devices during combat.  This could be a subtle & useful matrix character without requiring the Cracking Skill or the Tasking Skill. This would open up a lot more karma/priority for TM build diversity.
9
I'd say the best practice is to let your players figure that out for themselves.

For rigging, a common thing is the rigger sits in the soccer mom van in VR and jumps into the drones accompanying the the team.  That way when the team is ready to make their escape to the getaway vehicle, the rigger's already there...

likewise, many hackers might reason they don't need to worry about sneaking and athletics and combat skills if they spend their time in VR on matrix overwatch.  it's hard to say that's a wrong way to play!

As you intuited, Noise works as a mechanic to encourage matrix users to physically accompany the rest of the team.  In the case of hackers, there are additional tricks to "encourage" them to physically come along... like hardlined security devices (no wireless signal to hack...) and nested host architectures (you can make a shortcut to the end of the VR maze by establishing a direct connection to the right physical device...)

Note that hacking and drone controlling CAN be done in AR...no VR is absolutely necessary!  (ok, VR *is* absolutely necessary to jump in, but you CAN control a drone without jumping in!  That's why you paid for a RCC...)
10
Rules and such / Re: Attacks Against Players in VR 6e
« Last post by Winky on <07-23-21/1926:50> »
Thanks, I appreciate the help!

As sort of a corollary, I'm a newish GM and I'm curious if I'm designing scenarios well with a rigger/decker in mind. Should I be forcing my decker/rigger player to be in the same physical location as the action is going on, or should I make it more feasible for them to operate from a safe base of operations nearby (either back at home base or in the van parked outside)? The major impediment to that seems to be the noise system. Is the idea that the decker/rigger will be right there in the middle of the action while the rest of the crew has to defend their VR-comatose body, or that the smart decker/rigger won't be in the way of combat to begin with?
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10