[X] My Assistant

[Smash]

Why not? If the mage wants to be useful in combat, he learns Combat spells, or any number of handy buffs. If the rigger wants to be useful in combat, he buys a combat drone. If the face wants to be useful in combat, he buys a gun and learns to use it. Why does the decker need to be able to hack in the middle of a firefight? What, precisely, is wrong with telling a decker who wants to fight to pick up a gun?

Huh? You're not telling the mage or the Rigger to pick up a gun. You're telling them to use their archetype specific skillsets in combat. Deckers now have one of these too. A Mage using powerbolt is the equivalent of a decker attacking your cyberware.

[Tanegar]

It really isn't. It goes back to self-consistency: mages casting Powerbolt and riggers using combat drones make sense within the established rules of the setting. A decker suddenly being able to brick your leg doesn't.

[Epicedion]

It really isn't. It goes back to self-consistency: mages casting Powerbolt and riggers using combat drones make sense within the established rules of the setting. A decker suddenly being able to brick your leg doesn't.

Except it does, as was less than clearly introduced in SR4. It was just really hard,had a terrible mechanic, and was laughably easy to prevent.

[kzt]

Except it does, as was less than clearly introduced in SR4. It was just really hard,had a terrible mechanic, and was laughably easy to prevent.

It still is all that.

[Dolanar]

I think the problem is that Mages were the Gods in 4a, & so to even the balance, the design team asked how they could make Deckers more like mages, & this is what we get.

[kzt]

I think the problem is that Mages were the Gods in 4a, & so to even the balance, the design team asked how they could make Deckers more like mages, & this is what we get.

Frank's Brainhacking does it better if you want that.

[RHat]

Why not? If the mage wants to be useful in combat, he learns Combat spells, or any number of handy buffs. If the rigger wants to be useful in combat, he buys a combat drone. If the face wants to be useful in combat, he buys a gun and learns to use it. Why does the decker need to be able to hack in the middle of a firefight? What, precisely, is wrong with telling a decker who wants to fight to pick up a gun?

The mage gets mage stuff, the rigger gets rigger stuff, the face actually does have face stuff (Leadership is actually pretty awesome), so why shouldn't the decker get decker stuff?

[Erik Baird]

Because like the face stuff, the decker stuff isn't generally directly combat effective.

(And why on Earth would someone link their cyberleg to the Matrix? I'm not seeing a purpose there.)

[RHat]

Because like the face stuff, the decker stuff isn't generally directly combat effective.

(And why on Earth would someone link their cyberleg to the Matrix? I'm not seeing a purpose there.)

Then combat effective stuff must be added, same as the addition of concrete and directly combat effective function to Leadership. That said, the greater minimum investment does mean that the decker stuff needs to be more substantial.

[Emil Barr]

Except the Decker *still* has to pick up a gun and shoot things. Cant hack a Hellhound and most people dont have cyber. When a Decker tries it, most of the time itll probably make them *less* useful in combat.

Even mages have should have a shooting skill, to slow their magical drain.

[Chinane]

Then combat effective stuff must be added, same as the addition of concrete and directly combat effective function to Leadership. That said, the greater minimum investment does mean that the decker stuff needs to be more substantial.

Combat effective stuff ONLY must (or actually should) be added, if there is a reasonable explanation WHY that wireless access is giving a bonus. Reasonable as in not achievable by any other means than matrix access.

Game->rules->setting might be ONE step in the EARLY design process, but then the setting absolutely needs to be checked for consistencies, modified where necessary and for the final product, setting->rules->game must apply.

Basically what happened is: they took that early game design concept, completely omitted the quality control part and finalized their product. (Same with limits, btw.)
In effect, SR5 as a product is actually in a pre-alpha state, but was published as final version.

[Tanegar]

Then combat effective stuff must be added, same as the addition of concrete and directly combat effective function to Leadership. That said, the greater minimum investment does mean that the decker stuff needs to be more substantial.

Why? Why does absolutely every archetype need to be able to contribute directly and concretely to combat? The whole point of being a face is to resolve conflicts without fighting. The whole point of being a decker is to subvert the infrastructure to avoid combat. You're falling into a trap that I fell into myself, not that long ago. Yes, Shadowrun involves combat, but that does not mean that every character has to be about combat.

[Epicedion]

Why? Why does absolutely every archetype need to be able to contribute directly and concretely to combat?

So.. no hacking nearby turrets, because that would be contributing directly and concretely to combat? No attacking drones, because that would be contributing directly and concretely to combat?

Be honest. You're really only complaining about one option here: the brute force attack on individual pieces of gear.

--

Put another way:

Street Samurai: "I use my axe to intimidate the guard!"
GM: "I'm sorry, but axes and street samurai are for combat. You're not allowed to contribute directly and concretely to social situations."

[Tanegar]

I admit, I hadn't thought of that. On the other hand, you've also successfully invalidated RHat's argument by demonstrating that even without the (stupid, setting-breaking, badly written) ability to brick gear, deckers still have plenty of "decking stuff" to use in combat.

[Smash]

Why? Why does absolutely every archetype need to be able to contribute directly and concretely to combat? The whole point of being a face is to resolve conflicts without fighting. The whole point of being a decker is to subvert the infrastructure to avoid combat. You're falling into a trap that I fell into myself, not that long ago. Yes, Shadowrun involves combat, but that does not mean that every character has to be about combat.

What you're advocating is that specific archetypes should suck at combat unless they approach combat in a way that's to your liking which is then ok? Why is it that as a Decker I should have to approach combat effectively in the same way as a Samurai? If the end result is they spend actions to neutralise the enemy then why does it have to be down the barrel of a gun?

If I'm in a combat situation where there's a cyber-troll with a grenade launcher and I can either shoot at him, turn some environmental system on him (which is totally at the whim of your GM putting these things in place) or I can brick the launcher, turn off his cyber-eyes, etc, what's the harm in having those extra options? It's hardly an instant success. I need to get past his comlink defences which can be quite good for minimal investment.

Then as has been pointed out, they still can't really affect critters or Mages (although bricking their optical magnification might be useful?), so the Combat goons in the group are hardly redundant.

The result of this opposition to Deckers getting these extra abilities is essentially pushing to put them back in the box to never be used. This might be fine at your tables but I'm personally sick of Deckers being the clerics of shadowrun (i.e. Completely necessary, but not that fun to play).

[RHat]

Combat effective stuff ONLY must (or actually should) be added, if there is a reasonable explanation WHY that wireless access is giving a bonus. Reasonable as in not achievable by any other means than matrix access.

Game->rules->setting might be ONE step in the EARLY design process, but then the setting absolutely needs to be checked for consistencies, modified where necessary and for the final product, setting->rules->game must apply.

Basically what happened is: they took that early game design concept, completely omitted the quality control part and finalized their product. (Same with limits, btw.)
In effect, SR5 as a product is actually in a pre-alpha state, but was published as final version.

Actually, no. If no sufficient explanation presently exists for the bonus, the explanation and/or the bonus needs to change until that sufficiency exists. Setting is no excuse for bad design, and it does not have primacy over having good mechanics. Fortunately, changes can happen within a setting - in this case, massive changes occurred with the Matrix that alter a lot of security considerations.

And if you think this is pre-alpha, you don't know what pre-alpha looks like.

I admit, I hadn't thought of that. On the other hand, you've also successfully invalidated RHat's argument by demonstrating that even without the (stupid, setting-breaking, badly written) ability to brick gear, deckers still have plenty of "decking stuff" to use in combat.

I've explained before, at length, why environmentals aren't sufficient. The short version is that that works only while those things are there, and in a wide variety of cases they wouldn't be - and certainly hacking a turret is a superior option than going after someone's 'ware, when the option is available. Environmentals modifying your options is a good ting to have, but if you need those to have options than that is not sufficient.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

I admit, I hadn't thought of that. On the other hand, you've also successfully invalidated RHat's argument by demonstrating that even without the (stupid, setting-breaking, badly written) ability to brick gear, deckers still have plenty of "decking stuff" to use in combat.

Which has been the contention from the start. There was never a lack of things for the Hacker to do. Adding in the ability to "brick" hardware and cyberware was just ludicrous.

[Emil Barr]

Im still not getting it. Its a choice, but... its almost a non-choice.

Its going to take 2 or 3 turns to hack and brick just about any piece of equipment. By that point, the Decker has no doubt already been shot, stabbed, blown up, shoved in a locker, given a wedgie, whatever.

And if they do manage to brick something, its not anything important. Anything worth bricking (eyes, limbs) have no reason to have their wireless on because they have no bonus.

And lets not forget, they can just turn their wireless off and on as a free action, setting the Decker back to square one.

So yeah, you have the choice, but... why would you? Still just seems better to shoot enemies.

[Tanegar]

What you're advocating is that specific archetypes should suck at combat unless they approach combat in a way that's to your liking which is then ok? Why is it that as a Decker I should have to approach combat effectively in the same way as a Samurai? If the end result is they spend actions to neutralise the enemy then why does it have to be down the barrel of a gun?

Do try not to put words in my mouth. I'm advocating that everyone should suck at combat unless they approach combat in a way that makes sense. If you go into combat with your grenade launcher and cybereyes broadcasting to everyone within a block's radius, you are an idiot and you deserve to have those things bricked. That is a feature of the setting. Any approach to combat which disregards that feature will and should get you killed.

The wireless bonuses, not merely the specific bonuses listed but the very concept of the bonuses, rests on an assumption that is patently absurd; namely, that teams of engineers with multi-billion-nuyen R&D budgets could not find a way to replicate the "bonus" functionality without exposing the device to Matrix attack. This is what I mean when I say that it breaks the Sixth World's self-consistency: the world has been established as populated by people who are smart and good at their jobs, and this mechanic assumes that the world is populated by people who are stupid and suck at their jobs.

[RHat]

The wireless bonuses, not merely the specific bonuses listed but the very concept of the bonuses, rests on an assumption that is patently absurd; namely, that teams of engineers with multi-billion-nuyen R&D budgets could not find a way to replicate the "bonus" functionality without exposing the device to Matrix attack

That is not at all absurd.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

What you're advocating is that specific archetypes should suck at combat unless they approach combat in a way that's to your liking which is then ok? Why is it that as a Decker I should have to approach combat effectively in the same way as a Samurai? If the end result is they spend actions to neutralise the enemy then why does it have to be down the barrel of a gun?

If I'm in a combat situation where there's a cyber-troll with a grenade launcher and I can either shoot at him, turn some environmental system on him (which is totally at the whim of your GM putting these things in place) or I can brick the launcher, turn off his cyber-eyes, etc, what's the harm in having those extra options? It's hardly an instant success. I need to get past his comlink defences which can be quite good for minimal investment.

Then as has been pointed out, they still can't really affect critters or Mages (although bricking their optical magnification might be useful?), so the Combat goons in the group are hardly redundant.

The result of this opposition to Deckers getting these extra abilities is essentially pushing to put them back in the box to never be used. This might be fine at your tables but I'm personally sick of Deckers being the clerics of shadowrun (i.e. Completely necessary, but not that fun to play).

The problem is with the definitions being used and the ludicrous assumption that someone would even HAVE their cyber on the Matrix.

Go back and read the Author's actual descriptions of what Bricking does (along with the Definition and effects thereof, as well as the examples)... Then try to reconcile that with having the effect happen inside of someone's body (1/2 Million Nuyen cyberware is a valid target after all). And then, when the ignorance of what was actually written was pointed out, the response was "well, we did not really mean that." Which is tripe. It is exactly what they meant, because that is exactly what they describe in the setting. And then, somehow, with all that melted metal and plastic within the body, they say that all it takes is an hour and waving your hands about, and viola, you are repaired (because you do not have to go to a specialist to have your body cracked open to remove all the burned and damaged hardware, along with all the cooked steak/hamburger surrounding it). Which is again tripe. The issue is with a Line Developer who forced something into the system, with absolutely no idea how that would affect the verisimilitude of the world (I don't even think he really cares, honestly). It was done solely to patch a hole ("Hackers have nothing to do in Combat") that never even existed in the first place.

The result of this opposition to Deckers and the addition of the ludicrous Wireless bonuses is that a large group of players are pointing out that that those rules as they stand are idiotic, and that no sane professional [shadowrunner or professional Security/Military] would EVER operate the way, even while the Developers are still insisting that they do. And then, turning off any of the stupid things that were added because they were "Cool" (in the writers own words and with no thought to actual usefulness or technology limitations - since there is still no explanation that you (generic) can give to explain how a direct wire of 3-4 meters or less is less efficient than some trumped up wireless remote mass computing two-way communication is). The verisimilitude of any such explanations falls flat (even though some have tried). And a lot of people are simply disgusted with it.

Simple and easy fix... Go dark (that is what my characters will do in SR5 - no need to ever put Cyber on the grid, or even 99% of one's electronics), or Just play SR4A, where that insanity never got a foothold.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

That is not at all absurd.

It is ENTIRELY absurd...

[Nath]

Why? Why does absolutely every archetype need to be able to contribute directly and concretely to combat? The whole point of being a face is to resolve conflicts without fighting. The whole point of being a decker is to subvert the infrastructure to avoid combat. You're falling into a trap that I fell into myself, not that long ago. Yes, Shadowrun involves combat, but that does not mean that every character has to be about combat.

Street Samurai: "I use my axe to intimidate the guard!"
GM: "I'm sorry, but axes and street samurai are for combat. You're not allowed to contribute directly and concretely to social situations."

As far as the rules go, the street samurai would still need to roll Intimidation+Charisma, which are specifically social skill and attribute, only adding some modifier for the axe (though the Face could get the same modifier with a pocket knife) and possibly for being more physically imposing than other characters. And that merely allows him to contribute to specific social situation in which intimidation can be used.

In this regard, a cyberdeck is equally useful in close-quarter combat as an improvised club, allowing the hacker to deal more damage than he would with his bare hands. This may require the hacker to spend points in Agility and the Clubs skill that are not part of his core abilities, just like the example above may require the street samurai to spend points in Charisma and Intimidation to work.

The relationship between combat archetype and the other archetype fields is asymmetrical. To contribute to social situations, you need Charisma and social skills, or mental manipulation spells. To contribute to astral recon, you need to be a projection-capable awakened character. To contribute to Matrix action, you need a cyberdeck or being a technomancer. To contribute to combat on the other hand, you may use weapons, or combat spells, or spirits, or drones, or cyberdeck, or Leadership (even though how someone could enjoy making the same exact roll every combat turn is beyond my understanding of the game).
The rules are intended to allow all archetypes to contribute to combat. But the other aspect of the game remain more or less exclusive (the price of cyberdecks typically makes the Matrix more exclusive than it previously was).

Now, the issue people may have with wireless hacking of individual equipment is that it's not different in their mind from allowing street samurai to use their wired reflexes for fast-talking, rigger to tail mage in an astral quest with a drone, or hacker to use their cyberdeck as an improved throwing weapon accurate up to 300 meters that return to their hand, in that they view it as something silly that makes no sense.
There really are two different problems here. I mean, maybe allowing riggers to fly drones inside the astral planes (because mana level rise or new technology or whatever) would make the game experience better, entice people to play more riggers, balance things out and allow for quicker resolution. That's a different question from knowing if it makes sense.

[Tanegar]

That is not at all absurd.

Sorry, do you have an actual argument to make? I mean, apart from sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling, "Nuh-uh nuh-uh nuh-uh!" at the top of your lungs?

[RHat]

Sorry, do you have an actual argument to make? I mean, apart from sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling, "Nuh-uh nuh-uh nuh-uh!" at the top of your lungs?

Do you? Saying that it is absurd does not make it so. If doing some particular thing depends on something as insanely powerful as the Matrix, it's entirely conceivable that it could not be replicated without it, or at the very least not replicated within the constraints of something that can actually be produced, sold, and used. Throwning R&D money and engineers at a problem doesn't automatically mean it can be solved.