I just looked it up, pg. 239, and you're right:

"A drone controlled in this manner acts on the rigger’s
Initiative—the rigger and the drone are treated as a single unit.
Any tests are made using the rigger’s own skill and attributes."

I think it really should read:

"... own skill and mental attributes."

What is considered a mental attribute is debatable, but Body and Strength are definately not.

EDIT: I noticed drones/vehicles don't have a strength attribute... silly... some need it.

Yeah, we need strength scores for drones that have anything resembling arms for SR4 (like the Steel Lynx). Unfortunately it's not there because they really intended the rigger to use his own strength score, which is silly.

There is a company that hold the trademark for Duck Tape http://www.ducktapeclub.com/downloads/wk_history.asp and though it was born from military applications, it's first main civilian use was for air ducts.

http://www.3m.com/intl/CA/english/centres/...nformation.html

Notice the Professional HVAC product. That stands for Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning.

That could work for agility, but what about strength? Having the rigger's charisma become the drone's strength doesn't make any more sense than using his strength in the first place.

Regardless of whether the riggger's Agility or Logic would be used while the drone is rigged, I think it should be somehow influenced by the drone's handling attrbute in some way.

EDIT: Sorry for hijacking the thread, I'll stop now.

That's cool. I'm done with the original purpose of the thread anyhow. Now I'm really interested in the rigger issue.



The Horror

Actually, the mental attributes are defined.

Rigger rules need a refit. Anyone ever tried sensor targeting?

The whole reason for "Jumping into" a vehicle is that your character's attributes and skills CAN be better than the drones, and she gets to replace the drones attributes and skills with her own in vehicle tests.

Compare:

-----------------

Drones acting on their own use their own Pilot and autosoft (see p. 239) ratings for all necessary tests, and act on their own Initiative (see p. 239).

The sample devices table lists drone as average with a device rating of 3 (p 214). This means the standard values for Response, Signal, Firewall, and Pilot is 3. All the drones in the gear section list pilot 3.

System serves as the limiter for the maximum rating a program can be run on that node (a higher rating program functions at the System rating instead), as well as the number of subscriptions allowed (System x 2, see Linking and Subscribing, p. 212). System also determines the number of programs that may be run before the system is overloaded and Response is affected (see Response).

Pilot functions as the system in a drone.

Maneuver Autosoft: Drone rolls Pilot + Maneuver for vehicle tests (page 240). With a Rating 3 Maneuver Autosoft a drone rolls 6 dice for vehicle tests.

Drone Initiative equals Pilot rating + Response, and they receive two extra initiative passes (p239). There is a hardware upgrade table (page 240) that shows you can give your drone up to response 6. Pilot rating + response for a drone is 3 + response or 6 to 9.

-----------------

Jumping into Drones (p239). A drone controlled in this manner acts on the rigger's Initiative... Any tests are made using the rigger's own skill and attributes.

Character Initiative = Reaction + Intuition which can be as high as 15 with Reaction 6, Intuition 6, and wired reflexes or synaptic boosters.

To make a vehicle test, the character rolls Reaction + the appropriate vehicle skill +/- the vehicle's handling. (page 159). This can be as high as 15 with Reaction 6, Pilot [appropriate vehicle] 6, and wired reflexes or synaptic boosters. The Gear section lists vehicle handling values ranging from -3 to +3

A character can have up to 4 initiative passes.

When observing through a drone, a rigger uses Perception. A riggers Perception can be as high as 6. A drone acting on its own uses the Clearsight autosoft which can only be as good as the pilot.

Of course, a rigger can get extra skill die via reflex recorders, control rigs, spells, adept powers, etc.

-----------------

Note1: The only character attributes used above are Reaction and Intuition, one physical and one mental. House rules are not needed.

Note2: Reaction + skill is the very same test a character uses when he is physically piloting a vehicle. The only difference between sitting behind the wheel of your Westwind, and remotely piloting a rigger adapted version is the observation. A remote rigger uses Sensor + Perception, and a "driver" uses Intuition + Perception.

-----------------

My understanding is that anything done using a vehicle or drone is a vehicle test. Infiltrating with a drone would be a vehicle test using infiltration instead of pilot, where maximum infiltration is limited to the vehicle skill [pilot vehicle].

They don't use physical initiative when jumping into drones. Just like when rigging a vehicle, your initiative depends on whether you're running hot or cold sim, wired reflexes wont help you at all in that regard. But maybe you're only refering to the bonus to reaction and how that helps you get more dice for your vehicle skill. I wouldn't necessarily allow that either.

I think you're right concerning the "using your own attributes" deal. I believe that line only implies that the rigger uses their own skills for tests and therefor uses the linked attributes for those tests. This seems ok to me, because having some other attribute than agility and reaction link to the tests you make would be more trouble than it's worth. When it comes to strength test someone refered to, that's just a silly complaint. If you give a drone arms and use them to lift things you'll just have to decide what strength they have.

If an adept tried to do that drone-with-knife stunt someone mentioned, I would just limit the melee skill by the pilot skill, simple as that.

The current rigger rules reflect a MAJOR refit. What kind of sensor targeting are you referring, and what is your beef? Are you complaining about the complexity of the rule, the suckiness of your vehicles sensor, or the evasiveness of your target?

The rules are simple.

Passive targeting means the gunner uses the vehicles sensors to aim, and then shoots.
The attack role uses Sensor + Gunnery dice.

Active targeting means the gunner tries to lock on to the target first using a sensor test. If he succeeds in locking on to the target, then Tom Cruise exclaims "I've got tone!', and can shoot. If he fails to lock on, then he either doesn't shoot, or reverts to passive targeting. The targeting test uses Sensor + Perception.

What sucks.

1. Sensors are designed to detect the "signature" of other vehicles, and suck against low emission vehicles and organic targets.

2. If the target is attempting to avoid detection, then locking on becomes an opposed test.

Note: Infiltration (Vehicle) is a skill specialization. It does not default to Infiltration. How many NPCs have this specialization? How many PCs? Answer: The Drone Rigger and the Smuggler sample characters don't even have Infiltration without the specialization.

Conclusion: Locking on to another vehicle is easy unless the target is trying to evade. Then it is the attacker's Sensor + Perception vs the target's Reaction +/- Handling [+ infiltration(vehicle) if the target has that specialization, or -1 if he does not and defaults]. Locking on to Sydney Bristow dressed in a chameleon suit is harder.

You don't default from specializations if you don't have them. You just use the base skill, or the skill group - without the bonus dice from the specialization.

Okay. Maybe that explains why the sample riggers both have reaction enhancers, and also why they don't have wired reflexes.


What a concept?: Rigging in full-VR. Your PCs drone becomes his persona icon, and the target drones looks like... running dobermans, and flying dalmatians against a virtual landscape!

As the PC rigs his GMC Step-Van through the sprawl, his commlink's filter doesn't show pedestrians - information overload. Rush hour traffic looks like quicksand.

I read the section on Matrix initiative this time, and that explains a lot. If you have wired reflexes, then you can just operate your drones using Augmented Reality at meat-body speeds, and keep up with the hackers using full-VR

In that case PCs are issuing commands to the drone, and operate the drone using Command + Vehicle skill. The Command program is limited by the rating of the commlink's system (rather than the drone's pilot), and the System is limited by the commlink's response (rather than the drone's response). The stock maximum for a commlink is 4.

Command + skill maxes out at at a measly 10 dice vs. 15 dice for a full-VR Rigger with Reaction 6 (9) from reaction enhancers. It is still better than the 6 dice the drone gets went it's on its own. Plus, with improved reflexes 3, an adept using AR mode gets one more pass than the full-VR Rigger.

One more compensation is the fact that AR allows the PC to choose between AR and the real world for each action, while the hacker uses a simple action to log off, and a complex action to log back on unless he wants to accept a -4 modifier in the real world.


Of course, I have been calculating maximum possible values. Actual values will be below maximum.

You can't use a base skill IF the test calls for the specialization; you can't default from one skill to another. The Sensor test specifies the infiltration (vehicle) specialization for the opposed role in the case of a vehicle. It calls for the base infiltration skill for metahumans and critters.

The way to default to the base skill is to get out of the vehicle and infiltrate on foot.

On the other hand, the book seems to suggest that you can't default at all when the test calls for a specialization. The example that they give is brain surgery.

It IS easier to rule that a vehicle can't oppose a sensor test unless the operator has the infiltration (vehicle) skill.

I'm pretty sure they just say Infiltration (vehicle) to let you know which specialization applies (if you have one)

I have to agree with Rotbart. If a character isn't specialized in, say, revolvers, that doesn't necessarily mean they don't have the skill to shoot revolvers. A revolver is a pistol, and so the pistols skill is sufficient. By your reading, one of two things would happen: (1) a character with Pistols skill (and no specialization) couldn't shoot any pistols, because every pistol is of a specific kind (a hold-out, a revolver, a semi-automatic, or a taser); (2) a character with a specialization in Revolvers would still roll his Pistols skill even when shooting a revolver (since that is what the rules literally call for) and thus gain no benefit from the specialization.

Oh, thats very interesting - I wasn't able to find such rule, yet.
Would you mind presenting a reference?

While your defense is charming, I defer to the dictionary. Webster's, dictionary.com, and the free dictionary all confirm that the term is "duct tape" and not "duck tape." Of course, you probably already know this, but then why call it a "common misconception?"

There is such a thing as the "etymological fallacy" in which one assumes that the meaning of a word is dictated by its etymological root. For instance, I cringe at the word "epicurean" since it has little to do with the philosophy of Epicurus, however there is nothing incorrect about it.

If you search for duct tape on wikipedia the article will begin with

The term duck tape is now a trademark of Duck Products, while duct tape became the catch all term for the item due to its use on ventialtion ducts (despite some states, including California, finidng the material inadequate for the purpose).

While I wouldn't say that calling duck/t tape duct tape is an error or misconception, the original name was duck tape and it is no error to call it so (the dictionaries might not report the duck version due to the fact that it is a trademark and thus indicates a specific product and the other term became of common use, much in the same way they do not report coke or pepsi, despite the fact that often these names have become synonims with soda)

Okay, you win! A revolver is a pistol, a drone is a critter, and you would let a cosmetic surgeon operate on your brain tumor; a doctor is a doctor.

That is the problem I was referring to in regard to full-VR rigging. Your commlink portrays the oncoming Abrams tank as an armadillo, so you figure your shotgun equipped drone can take it out. But it keeps on coming.

Wait a sec, the commlink is portraying my shotgun as a pea shooter. The spitballs are just bouncing off the armadillo. Maybe I should switch to AR and see what I am really dealing with.

Time to retreat. Not to worry, I know how to crawl on my belly. I can use that skill to default on the infiltration (vehicles) test. The tank won't be able to lock on to my drone. Looks good in full-VR.

Now my drone looks like an ant crawling away from the oncoming armadillo. Uh oh! An Armadillo is an ant eater, isn't it. Frack, it's got a long tongue! It caught me. Lucky shot I guess.

GAME OVER!!!

Nothing virtual about that dumpshock. Frack and double frack!

Other examples (among many) include: "Band-Aid," "Kleenex," "Xerox," "Escalator," and "Windows" (in the Microsoft sense) being synonymous with "adhesive bandage," "facial tissue," "photocopy," "moving staircase," and "an independent graphical object."

Your link proves that there is such a thing as "Duck Tape brand duct tape." Companies are precise in distinguishing between their products and the brand names that refer to them because otherwise they are in danger of losing their trademarks. For most purposes, either name is good enough for me, but I give preference to the one that is more precise. It hardly matters what the product was originally called, or that the original name persists as a trademark.

I'll defer to someone else to start a thread about the Barrier Rating of duct tape. Until then...

Most of this is incoherent to me, but I'm going to take a stab at replying anyway.

As I understand it, when you learn a skill (in this case Infiltration), you are in fact learning all of the subskills which are encompassed by it (in this case Urban, Vehicle, Wilderness, Motion Sensors, etc.). You are a "jack of all trades" with regard to Infiltration.

If you specialize in a skill, on the other hand, that just means that you've spent more time learning one aspect of it, hence you earn a rating that is 2 points higher than the others. That one skill is your specialty--you are a "master" of it. But at no point do you "unlearn" the other aspects of the base skill.

Therefore, if you need to make an Infiltration (Vehicle) test, there is nothing stopping you from using your Infiltration skill to do so, since possession of Vehicle Infiltration is implied by possession of the Infiltration skill.

At this point, you might complain that it makes no sense to group Urban Infilitration together with Vehicle Infiltration, on the grounds that the two are largely unrelated. That would be a fair observation. However, for the sake of simplicity it does not seem like a terribly important objection.

Sometimes, the test requires a master - the brain surgery example.

The only question is: is evading sensor lock in a vehicle such a case?

Picture Will Smith evading the Alien in Independence day. Shadowrun would call that a infiltration (vehicles) test if the Alien was flying on instruments with the i-forget-what-they-called-them shutters closed.

Keep in mind that as a rigger, your PC is (hopefully) the alien in this scenario.

To me, it is a long stretch to call that "sneaking". This is not the general case where the target is evading detection. The sensors have already detected the target; otherwise, there would be no test. This is a special case where the target is evading sensor lock.

The fact that there is no infiltration test involved during passive targeting confirms that the target has already been detected. If the target hasn't been detected, it would have no avatar on the vr landscape, or no IFF identification in AR.

Forget this for a moment, and think about the sample drone rigger as Will Smith. He doesn't have the infiltration skill. What test does he use to avoid sensor lock? Do you agree it is Reaction +/- Handling - 1?

My original point is that I don't think this rule needs a refit. I think that the tests are much less complicated than before. Whether success is harder, easier, or the same is an entirely different matter. What do you think? Do you like the new rigging rules? Do you like Sensor targeting?

I'll shut up and listen for a while.

There is a good reason why the HVAC duct tape is listed seperately for standard 'duct tape' The original formula simply doesn't meet building standards for air ducts.

An experiment for home. Put some plain old ordinary duct tape over your mouth and try breath through it.

No I'm not suggesting you suffocate yourself, so don't tape over your nose too or do this if you have a cold.

That was the first civilian use for it. Ducts I mean, not gagging people. The military product it evolved from might have had the nickname duck tape with some military personal, I don't know about that. Sounds a bit sketchy, but sure it could be true too.

But to suggest that it isn't used for ducting, even stuff that isn't the higher grade Professional HVAC, just is flat out wrong. I've seen it used. I have used it. It works fine to make a seal airtight enough as long as you are dealing with just air and not high pressure gases or something like that.

While rigging in full VR you don't experience any metaphors. Instead, you experience drone sensor data piped directly into your brain with no filtering except the minimum required for your brain to process it. When a rigger is jacked into the drone the rigger is the drone.

Second, skills in SR are generic. They always have been generic. When you lean infiltration you learn every type of infiltration equally. Specializations only serve to add dice to a test and you can only have one specialization in a particular skill.

This is not the best example to use, because the book does not say that brain surgery is a specialization. Presumably it is a base skill, because the context of the passage is about defaulting from a base skill to a linked attribute. To remove any further doubt, it says "These [overly complex] skills may not be defaulted on, as noted in the skill descriptions starting below." It then proceeds to list base skills and whether or not they can default to their linked attributes.

The point is that there is nothing acknowledging the existence of a base skill which cannot "default" to a specialization. There only appears to be base skills which cannot default to a linked attribute.

This is somewhat beside the point, but notice that a character with a skill of 1 will have 2 dice more than a similar character that is forced to default to an attribute. Similarly, a character with a specialization will have 2 dice more than a similar character without a specialization. I don't think that's a coincidence. One could say that the penalty for defaulting on a specialization is "built in" to the base skill.

You picked a movie that I saw once in the theater and vowed never to see again. But it sounds like you are describing Chase Combat, which is an opposed Vehicle Test. The attack test would then be done separately, but of course there is no need to use sensors (though it helps). Sorry if I'm completely misunderstanding your example.

In active targeting, the Sensor Test is used to lock onto the target, not to detect it. Big difference. Therefore (for the purposes of making a Gunnery Test) the presence or absence of a Sensor Test says nothing about whether or not the target is detected. I assume that if you are trying to shoot someone that you are already aware of their presence: you are merely using the vehicle's sensors to improve your aim.

As I imagine it, active targeting is like a cheetah running down its prey, whereas passive targeting is like a trap door spider waiting in ambush. In active targeting, the computer (actively) acquires its target and keeps the gun pointed in that direction. In passive targeting, the computer just senses when the target has moved into its crosshairs and reacts by firing the gun. Admittedly this is a somewhat inventive interpretation on my part but it seems reasonable.

With the rules as written, that sounds right. But it is odd to see Reaction paired with Infiltration (rather than Pilot) and/or Infiltration paired with Reaction (rather than Agility). It might be an errata, or it might be devised to reflect a hybrid of Piloting and Infiltration.

I haven't formed an opinion yet.