This ! .. but not only this, the key thing is for the GM to know the rudimentary rules to get the job done and
for the players to not be Ass-hat rules lawyers when he tries to speed it along for non-important on the fly hacking.

if it's fast it's fun if it's fun .. let it slide

Indeed... Lots of things for the Hacker to do other than screwing with the Meat Opposition.

Clearing a buiding was an IRL example, and probably not entirely accurate, because yes, you do not tend to Clear a Building in Shadowrun. I guess my point is that when you are in combat in an environment that is not your own backyard, you are at a Disadvantage, while your opposition is at an Advantage. The ball is in their court, and not yours. So, they harrass and wait for the HRT, as you indicated, and then attempt to reduce you in place. So, if combats are only taking 1-3 passes, then you have an issue, as far as I am concerned.

As for the Hackers; yes, everyone MUST know the rules, and/or they must have immediate access to the rules for a quick judgement call when a question arises. If you can do that, Hacking is quickly resolved. Fortunately for us, this is how it is at our table. Rarely do we ever have a Hacker montage while the other players are bored (might have happened once or twice over the years of 4th Edition, but only once or twice).

So...15 dice is "really really good" and your character has....15 dice. 15 dice is not "really good" it's "average" for your table. Provided by example of an average character who has an average of 15 dice.



Whoa, mid-20s? I haven't heard of ANY REAL at-a-table character played by ANYONE on this forum that has "mid-20s" for skills. In fact, I know from personal experience that the only time that's happened at MY table is when it was a new player who was provided a twinked character by the GM so he didn't have to worry about his character dying from player stupidity. Specifically, he had like 20 ballistic armor.

I've even made reference to the characters I've built which top out at around 14-16 dice in primary skills at chargen. Maybe that's higher than your table, but those values also tend NOT to rise from karma infusions. Other numbers rise instead.

Where did you get that that character was average? He has 350 Karma. He is a Prime Runner. It is also not Average for our table. The group he belongs to is also running 15-18 DP's (with teh Technomancer occasionally going over 20 DP's due to Sprite Assistance... again, 350 Karma). *sigh*



Really... I have seen many forum topics here that detail the characters with Mid 20 DP's AS STARTING CHARACTERS, let alone one with 350 Karma. And then you get thet crazy level of characters with 40+ DP's.

Starting Characters at our table rang 8-12 dice in Primary Skills and less in secondary/tertiary skills. You might see one with a 13-14 DP on occasion.



So, Obviously, I was not referring to you or your table directly.

15 Dice is more than almost every archetype and statted contact possesses (And yes, I know, many Dumpshockers think that they are created poorly, but that is neither here nor there; it is an indicator of the relative DP's that should be represented). I like having a challenge through my shadowrunning career, rather than starting out as best of the best of the best of the legendary characters; you know, those builds that have 20+ dice that we constantly see here on dumpshock; some of which are admittedly thought experiements, but not the vast majority of them. How often have you seen the following comment? "If you are not throwing at least 20 dice you are not doing it right." And how often do you see concept requests that quickly devolve into how to get the highest DP possible.

I tend to build out, rather than up. Once I hit a level of professionalism I think I should be at (Skill at 3 (Professional) or 4 (Veteran)) I tend to add new skills. Occasionally, I have a concept play long enough that I actually have skills in the 5 range, and heaven forbid, maybe even a 6 or two (My 350 Karma Cyberlogician STILL has no skills at 6, but he does have 3 skills at 5). But they are characters that tend to have several hundred Karma; not characters just coming out of the blocks. Yes, I know, Unique table and all that.

Shadowrun characters and thus gaming groups have wildly different dice pools. Been there, done that. Now back to topic.

Indeed... That being that you can run hacking concurrently with combat. I know this because we do this...
The problem being discussed, Grinder, and the reason why DP's are relevant, is that when you have a table with combats lasting a mere 2 passes, well, Hacking cannot be represented concurrently at those tables. DP's have a direct bearing on how long combat will last (of course the other factors are the scenario itself, and how intelligently the opposition is played).

To put it differently...

If there is a high DP disparity between factions, the scenario is poorly laid out, and the opposition is played as stupid, then yes, combats will last but fleeting moments as no one but the combat gumbies will act. If, on the other hand, the DP disparity is low, or non-existant, the scenario is layered with complexity, and the opposition is played smartly, then combats will take far longer, while everyone does their things concurrently. I prefer the latter over the former.

A lot of the comes down to play style. In my group, only one other player has a firm grasp of the matrix rules. Unfortunately he did not play the rigger/hacker this last time.

That being said, how many groups have the rigger and hacker roles in a single character?

Very true...

Our group often combines the roles to a degree...

The Technomancer/Cyberlogician pairing in our Prime Group cover each other pretty well, but my Cyberlogican is much better at the Drone/Communications side of things, where the Technomancer rules in Cybercombat (The Cyberlogican does not do Cybercombat often, that is what the Baitworms and IC are for, while he completes the mission and runs. )

The character I play tomorrow night is a straight Rigger (Vehicle, not Drone), with little capacity for Hacking at all. And we expect there to be a Combat Hacker present.

For us, it really depends upon the group dynamic at the time. If we are lacking focus in one, the roles of Hacker and Rigger tend to coalesce into a single character representation. If we have enough diversity in the group, they become separate characters, played by separate players.

TJ. I partially agree with you on the time issue. However, in my experience, SR tend not to conform quite that close with reality, when it comes to matters of time. In general I agree with you. IRL combat takes longer than it does in SR. Especially if you factor in all the stuff you mention (cover etc.). My experience with SR, however, is that combat is FAST. Characters who operate at 3-4 times the speed of regular humans can let loose an awful lot of firepower in a very short amount of time, and unless the opposition is significantly armoured and has ready access to cover, the average street sam can in my experience, take down 1-2 people per IP, if using an SA weapon with a resonable DV. Anyway, I don't need to tell you that. I do have a question though. What is an average length of a combat at your table? And how do you manage to drag it out to that? The reason I'm asking, is because so far, I don't think I can recall ever having had any combat break the 1min. (in-game time) mark. In terms of combat, I think of an engagement involving a single set of opponents. Having i.e. a 1+min. in-game time break, before the next set of opponents show up would be termed as a new engagement.

People rarely miss in SR, vs <0.1 to maybe 10% (at the high end) hit rates in the real world. In real world combat, armies on average expend sufficient small arms ammo per enemy killed in combat to outweigh that enemy. And yes, 150 pounds of 5.56 is a LOT of magazines.

In SR, Stunballs, grenades and neurostun tend to end fights very quickly. Having a F6 fire spirit materialize behind your occasional really dug in opponent is usually sufficient get their attention. Win or lose, they are probably not going to be paying a whole lot of attention to you for the next few seconds.

I think I was generous by reading the last couple pages of this thread and the first 5-6.

But on-topic, this is essentially what I want to see. Every corp should have some sort of Wireless access, but a second-tier of Wired-Only access. The second tier could of course be accessible via a very tight security measure. That's when the benefit of hacking on-site comes into play. You can jack in and bypass that level of security.

I also want to just see less complicated rules for hacking. For example, I'd like hacking into a system be as simple as attacking with a firearm. Roll to hit, Target tries to Dodge, and then rolls to Soak.

Cybercombat definitely needs to be more interesting as well. If it's similar to another basic system in the game (such as ranged combat) it doesn't need to be over-complicated.

For example, why are all Attack programs simply a "Rating" and that's it? Why can't we have a "Rocket Launcher" Attack program that does area damage to icons, or have "Machine Gun" attack programs that do long bursts?

I also think you should be able to "take cover" if you are operating in VR. Hide behind a data-stream or another Icon.

Fair Enough...

We have had combats (and by that I mean an actual encounter, not a Surprise engagement where everything went our way and we eliminated the single guard or whatnot) last as short as 4-6 Turns, to one where we went actual minutes (running engagements lasting 20 or more turns) to Long engangements (including the chase scenes and crossing multiple jurisdictions, guns blazing) lasting 10-30 minutes of in-game time. Yes, that is a lot of Combat Turns (not all of which see the same amount of detail as others do).

The average time I would give out (over the course of a lot of years in 4th Edition) is probably 10-12 Turns or so for the Prime Group on Prime Runs, against opposition equal (or very close) to us and played intelligently. If we are using these guys and have a random dustup, it occurs faster if the opposition is vastly inferior/superior to us (yes, we have lost, probably as often as we have succeeded).

And yes, Sometimes it is one engagement after another, coming failry close together, creating anothyer form of run and gun.

Now, again, it is fairly rare for a combat gumbie at our table to have more than 3 passes (many of which only have 2 IP), while a Hacker may have 4 or 5. Average IP for the Prime group is 3.17 or so (2 at 2 (Face and Combat Gumbie), 2 at 3 (2nd Combat Gumbie, Technomancer), 1 at 4 (Mage), and 1 at 5 (Cyberlogician)). By contrast, the mid level group had an average of 2 (1 at 1 (Combat Gumbie), 3 at 2 (Assassin, Mage) and 1 at 3 (Hacker). It does vary greatly depending upon composition of the team.

Atrack programs tend to be depicted by their Power level, so a Rating 1 Attack Program is a Knife (for instance) while a Rating 4 Attack Program is a No-Daichi. You cannot have a rating 6 program look like a pea shooter.

As for options. You do have those already, in Unwired. You have the Area Effect Program Option (do not remeber the name off hand) that can attack multiple targets at once.

Also keep in mind your average combat soldier is a 3 skill, 3 agility (six dice). In shadow run +2 for smartlink, +2 for various cheap cyber and your already at a 66% higher hit rate. Training and doctrine have an impact as well. That 10% hit rate may apply to the US in Viet Nam, but not in Iraq or Afghanistan. Using suppressing fire is also one item that tend to expend massive amounts of ammo.


Back OT: I agree, they should simplfy hacking. My personal request would be that there be no more than 20 programs and deck attributes and any expansions be extra options for these programs.

Also very true... Especially for Suppressive fire, which is not really meant to kill the opposition, but make him keep his head down (a tactic we tend to get a lot of mileage from in game)

Less programs would not be bad, but adding more options at that point does not really solve the issue. You go from 26 Programs with 10 Options to 20 programs with 20 Options. That does not really cut down on anything, in my opinion. It just gives you more options to do what you are already doing in the first place.

I mean, look at Cyberpunk 2020. Pages and pages of programs that do mostly the exact same thing with no real difference other than how powerful the action/program is. Which Shadowrun has already established based upon Program Rating. However, the simple Menu system (of CP2020) is very elegant and powerful, allowing instantaneous control of devices and other things (Vidboards, Remote Guns, Vehicles, Doors, etc.). Hacking is only used for data steals and computer infiltrations in Cyberpunk 2020. Everything else is handled by the Menu (and wireless technology). I would love to see this approach taken in Shadowrun.

Of course, if it never changed, I would be okay too... I like the current Hacking System. *shrug*

Cover in SR does not make you immune to weapons, it just gives you a minimally larger chance to survive those three bursts. And even if you move out of the firing lines completely, the opposition still has grenades (used liberally in RL building clearings as well).

Your table being so different in my opinion invalidates your experiences when discussing the quality of the general rules for the people playing by them.


You can have any program look whatever the hell you like in your metaphor.

It is called Area, unsurprisingly enough (p.116).


Also, as for simplifying hacking, I think it'd be reasonable to make hacking periphery nodes like cameras, doors or smartlinks a simple success test (or, if the hacker so wishes, an extended test with a very low chance to fail instead), and keep the hacking of complex nodes (like the central node of a building, or a car brain, or whatever) about as complex as it is now.

Because as everyone knows, every gaming table always rolls Pun-Puns.

The system design should account for a wide variance of characters - just because many people don't play optimized characters doesn't mean you get to decide that optimized characters don't matter any more than the fact that many people don't play non-optimized characters means that you get to decide not to account for them.

The fittest survive.

The high level group I am playing with has the 20+ DP sniper at 4 IPs, with the rest of us (including the hacker, I think) at 3. I am not too sure about the hacker: in combat, he is usually slower than the rest; by the time he gets to do anything, the targets are usually dead already. My character is the party scout with 20+ DP Perception, my character and (IIRC) most of the other PCs also have fair to high tactical knowledge skills. We find it quicker to simply blow the door instead of hacking it in a combat, killing the drone instead of hacking it; most of the time if some Matrix interaction begins during combat, we would be waiting for the hacker to finish up because physical combat has already ended.

"Physical, clear!"
"Astral, clear!"
...
...
"Dude?"
...
"Matrix, clear."
"All clear."

Someone didn't catch the sarcasm.

I caught it just fine, and inferred that you were claiming that highly optimized characters did not need to be accounted for because many people don't play them.

That wasn't my point at all. TJ claimed that the characters posted on Dumpshock (which tend to be over-optimized) are indicative of characters played at various tables, whereas that is not necessarily the case.

It's like pointing to the D&D forums and saying that "everyone must play pun-pun" because that's the only character type posted.

So, all the character requests to help optimize a character that end with DP's in the stratosphere are just thought exercises then? Does not seem so to me. Otherwise the players would not be asking for help to generate characters with DP's in the stratosphere. Seems I am back to that tired ol' song and dance again, so I apologize. It is just a hot-button with me, and I often fail my compulsion roll to not talk about it.

And yes, I agree with you. Many of the characters posted on Dumpshock are vastly over-optimized. But that seems to be what a lot of people prefer, to somthing a bit more grounded. I think it is because people tend to not like having DP's that are within the same realm as (or weaker than) their opposition. They want to outclass the opposition.

just trying to keep it a little on topic, isn't this optimisation down to the class-less SR system ?

Where a Hacker needs to optimise to be a hacker and at least perform his role as per his associates expectations

where the Troll must be doing 20DV with unarmed or a bow

where the mage must be able to resist drain from a 20DV fireball all day long ?

or is it the evolution of the game from role play to roll play because GM's find it difficult to find challenging scenarios without trying to "Defeat" the players group, whereby it has become a competition rather than a means to have a fun few hours.

... I need a drink !

It's easy. Optimization is roleplaying in-character competence. Minding that the runners are touted as the world-class specialists at what they do (at Skill Rating 6, he), naturally people try to be as good as possible.
Why would that prevent comprehensive roleplaying is beyond me.

Way I see it from a Decking PoV .. is that they are being asked to optimise in too many areas and end up being too generalist to compete in their areas compared to the other "classes" in their respective areas

Or even that all players do it. Dumpshock is hardly an average slice of the table top population.

There is a difference between in-game competence, and player expectations, though. In game, a Skill of 3 is Professional grade (yes, I know). Yet, the majority of Players complain if if they are not touting Rating 5+ skills because they "Can't compete." Which I call BS on. It seems to me that the Player is generally unaccepting of the lower dice pools brought on by having a lower skill, because it might mean that he might not succeed at what he does (my perception of the issue, based upon responses from a lot of people that I have played with over the years). They equate failure with losing the game and so stat their build in such a way so as not to lose (resulting in the GM having to keep up to provide adequate opposition, making it an Arms Race). In my opinion, this results in a very boring and bland character/campaign. If you cannot fail, why are you even there? I really do think that it is a trust issue at work here. If the Player does not trust that the GM has a goal for the campaign, he/she may feel that if the character fails, it means the character dies. This may be the case, I do not know; But what I do know is that most of my greatest character developments came not from success but from how they handled the failures that occurred to them.

As for competence preventing roleplaying. That is a tough one. Many of the best roleplayers I have ever seen could care less about the actual stats on the page (and rarely even purchase any books beyond the Main book, unless it is a game they are devoted to). Some of the worst ones (roleplayers) I have seen were totally obsessed about their DP's, complaining that they were never enough. It is the nature of the beast, I guess, to have a correlation there, but for the life of me, I do not know why it is.

For me, I tend to come with a background first, and then fit the stats (based upon 4A's Skill descriptors) to the character (for Shadowrun, obviously), and then develop from there. Fortunately, our GM's feel the same way I do about the DP's/Skill Descriptors, for the most part, so the lower DP's are rarely an issue at our table.

This is true... But it is a representative slice of the Table Top Population. And since we DO have developers\Freelancers present here, I think we have some pretty good representation of the game at large (or at least a lot of relevant view points).

And from what I have witnessed at conventions (when I actually go to them), the Dumpshock attitudes do tend to fit the Convention players as well. Unfortunately, I have not been to any major conventions in the last few years, and never to one where the Developers and/or Freelancers are actually present to run games at (for SHadowrun, anyways). One of these days, maybe, I will get lucky to experience such a game. But, sadly, not any time in the near future.

TJ, I agree with your sentiment however I have to side with the "larger dice pool crowd" for a couple of reasons.
One: losing regularly isn't fun, and small-ish dice pools will make you fail nearly as often as you succeed.
Two: most teams consist of three to six characters; they are going against companies that spend millions if not billions or trillions of nuyen each year on security. If the characters are not the best of the best at what they do, they should fail often and die regularly. If Average Joe security guard suddenly decided that he had had enough of his job and turned to crime against his company (or others like it) I would expect him to be caught in short order, because he is Average Joe.

I know the skill descriptors in SR4 set up a 3 skill as trained professional, and in groups it does work. However if an average person (or three) is going up against fifty average people, or even fifteen average people, you should expect the smaller group to fail a lot. Failing occasionally can be good for character growth and sometimes for player growth, but looking at quasi-realistic numbers failing 25%+ of the time (and you should if your group is mostly "Average Joe") isn't fun, it's frustrating.

This applies to decking as well as every other area of the game. A company that spends even a paltry one million nuyen a year on matrix security (and that is a tiny amount) should be nearly impossible for a skill three (or four) hacker to get even close to, let alone actually crack open and see what's in their network.

I do actually agree with you on most topics (even if I don't post about it), just not on this one I guess.

I think that the GM needs to see what the characters can do and understand his players motivations for having such characters. If you are going to build a flawed/fallable character, then why are you even here? In my opinion this results in a trainwreck of a campaign that while exciting is the kind of exciting I want to avoid.

I have the opposite experience. The worse roleplayers I have seen could care less about the actual stats on the page and the betters ones make sure that their DPs are enough to achieve what they and the rest of the group want them to be able to achieve.

For me, I find a game mechanic I like and/or a set of game mechanics I want to base my character concept on. I have the structure, the skeleton of the character, then I flesh it out and develop from there. Fortunately for me, my GM does not feel that he needs to "challenge" us or provide "adequate opposition" in order to have a good story. So for the most part, higher DPs make for better gameplay and a more enjoyable experience.

Toturi and DMiller, you both have good points, but DP's are relative. If the world actually abides by the skill descriptors, you will not often see 15+ Dice Monkeys to start with as opposition. I have no problem with a Character having a Professional or Veteran ranked skill (3 or 4) and then having 12-15 Dice. It is when everyone has those damend Rank 5-6+ Skills (because "I can start that way because the rules tell me that I can"... never a good excuse in my mind), with a primary Specialty approaching 20 DP (if not over) and then has absolutley no supporting skills to back up the assertion that they are the Best of the Best of the Legendary (Player perceptions of their characters never seem to line up with their actual capabilities). That breaks immersion for me. Completely. Being a Savant (in a single skill) does not make you the Best of the Legendary. Let alone the fact that their reputation does not align with their supposed expertise. *shrug*

I would far rather see a "Professional" or "Veteran" character with the skills that make up that status (and realize that these are not flawed/fallible... they are just people), than see a Savant in a single skill, with everything else in the Pre-Professional stage. For me, the first is believable, and the second is a trainwreck (even if the first has less dice overall in his specialty than the Savant does). Having a 6 in Longarms (for example) does not a Sniper make. A Sniper is far more than just his ability with a Long-gun. Same goes for a Special Ops operative, or Prime Hacker, or whatever Elite/Legendary concept that you want to come up with. There are just not enough points to make such a character at game start; there are too many skills involved. And the rationalization that "I just want to save points so my Karma curve is less steep for later development" is crap, in my book. It just does not fit the world. *shrug* The only difference between a Professional "X" and a Shadowrunner "X" is that he shadowrunner is likely to have augments the non-runner does not, and the runner is a deniable asset (non-citizen), of course. Their skills are still the same, they are both professionally rated.

It is interesting that the main argument against this philosophy is that it is no fun to fail. The issue, as I see it, is very different, and I think is alluded to by both DMiller and Toturi. It is the perceived correlation that failure equals losing. And I totally disagree with that.

If the World adheres to the philosophy (of the skill descriptors), then you won't see as much failure as people seem to think. I know this becuase our table has used this paradigm for quite a while now. Yes, we do get characters that push a little beyond from time to time, that is inevitable; but the paradigm does indeed work. You can Fail... and not Lose. Failure is a learning experience. If you always succeed, you never learn anything. I do understand that a lot of players equate failure with death. My question would be - Why do you think that way? There are many, many alternatives to death in Shadowrun. And they are all things that you can get past, in one way or another, given time. Perhaps this is the part you find not fun, Toturi?

Remember that once play begins, there is nothing stopping a player from advancing his character to the level of competence that he desires, it just takes a while longer when the character is more cohesive (probably not the term I am actually looking for) rather than being a Savant. Yes, I understand that many people design characters with the idea that they want to eliminate inefficient Karma expenditures, optimizing their character advancement. I just find that approach rather unrealistic. *shrug*

Damn... there goes the soapbox again... Apologies.

The problem is that the skill descriptors don't match what those people are capable of. Your professional soldier (we're talking a guy who's been in at least one combat tour already, not your new recruit shipping out for the first time) doesn't outright miss a stationary target 5% of the time. I'm not saying "got the bullet off center" I mean did not hit a man-sized stationary target at 10 meters.

Your 4 AGL, 3 Firearms "professional" in Shadowrun will miss a non-moving target 5% of the time.

I disagree that the Skill Descriptors don't match. *shrug*
No They won't. Specialty makes that 9 Dice, Smartlink makes that 9/11 Dice... Now the numbers are not so horrible, are they?
Besides, you would be surprised how often, irl, Soldiers actually miss their mark in combat, even at close ranges. *shrug*

But we're not talking "in combat", and a RL professional soldier doesn't miss his man-sized target without a smartlink.

You are not quite right... IRL. Having been in the Marine Corps, and having Qualified Expert every year, MANY shooters do indeed miss their targets on the Qualification rifle range (200m, 300m, and 500m with an M16 and Open Sights and plenty of time to aim and shoot). Most of the grunts in my Unit were not qualified Expert; in fact about half barely qualified at all (The Dreaded Pizza Box... Ratios were approximately 5% Failure to Qualify, 45% Marksman, 30% Sharpshooters, and 20% Expert, give or take a few percentage points in each category. I left the Marine Corps in the early 90's, so this ration may be different today than it was back then). Put them on a pop up range with varying ranges to target and limited time to fire and they miss the target even more often. So, yes, IRL, professional soldiers are not as proficient as you want to believe. *shrug*

In LIVE Combat, the Hit Ratio is even less. *shrug*

An SR professional with an assault rifle would miss those in 19 (200m, 300m) an 66 (500 m) percent cases respectively. Whenever they miss the latter, horrible things would happen to their rifle (although with M-16s this part is realistic eh? :ь)

Ah yes, roleplay versus rollplay....

Truth to tell, my worst player thought he should make up for crappy rolls with roleplay. Problem was, he tended to assume that because something was in his backstory, he was that good in play, and whinged whenever things didn't go his way. He burned karma twice on Escape Certain Death.

The best roleplayers care about their characters. Stats and all. They make damn sure the stats on the page match what their characters can do, and don't try and cheese things by trusting in roleplay to cover their weaknesses. I've seen a couple of Cha 1 "faces" like that-- players who relied on their personal roleplaying skills instead of using stats. And guess what, that's just as cheesy and metagamey as the reverse.

Yes, this is true. I commented upon that a bit earlier... Player perceptions of their characters are often a far cry from what they are mechanically.

When I was talking about the Best roleplayer I know, it is not that he ignores the stats, he just does not care what (role) you hand him, or what game system you are using. He will play it, to the utmost of his ability. Whether it is a Mundane Thaumaturgical Professor or a Whacked out on Drugs Mercenary. It does not matter to him. And you never have to coach him or goad him to play to stats or qualities. He does it instinctively (it seems).

I agree with you that someone who completely ignores the stats, relying upon his innate abilities, to make up for his deficiencies is not someone who roleplays well.

How do you figure? At 11 Dice in SR, even a -6 gives you 5 remaining Dice at extreme Ranges. Against a target that does not move. If you are buying hits (and at the Rifle range, why woudn't you be buying hits), you still hit each and every time. And that does not account for those individuals who have interesting abilities like the Hawkeye PQ (who will have 8 Dice at Extreme Ranges, which is TWO hits bought). As for your assertion that when you miss at extreme ranges bad things happen to you and/or your rifle, that is just crap. There is a big difference between failing a roll, and Critically glitching a roll.

Besides, the stats for the AR (all weapons, in fact) in the Game are way off when it comes to Ranges of weapons (or other relevant statistics). The M-16, for example, is capable of accurate shooting out to 1000 Meters (I know this because I have done it, static, at the rifle range). In fact, Many of the Snipers I knew practiced at that range with the M-16 when qualifying each year. Now, that is not to say that ALL Assault Rifles can do so, but the point does stand. Stats for weapons in Shadowrun are often at odds with reality. One of the things that I hate, but have come to live with (becasue accurate modeling would get very tedious, very quickly; though I think it could be better than it is). *shrug*

There is a far cry from static target shooting (which I would not even require rolls for in game, because they are not dramatic, nor important), and actual combat. And combat is uncertain enough that I have no issues with an SR Military Professional not always hitting (4 of 5 shots successful (by your stats) is still excessively accurate in my experience, in combat). It would be extremely unrealistic if they DID hit with every pull of the trigger (which even your stats claim to be mostly the case... 81% accuracy at ranges beyond Close is amazing in combat, with 34% accuracy at extreme ranges... Who are these amazing combat gumbies? The reality is far lower), and is the crux of my point (you are arguing that the game stats are atrocious, and yet, they are far better than the reality they model). If you cannot fail a roll (which sounds like you are arguing for), why are you even rolling dice? Just narrate it and move along. *shrug*

The M-16 A2 was an amazing AR, as long as you cared for it well. I never had problems with my rifle, even in combat. But then, I was usually maintaining it when I was not doing other things.

Wow... from hacking to shooting... These forums are amazing.

At 7 dice. Agi 4, Skill 3 is an above average professional, and he should be able to hit a barn's door without the clutches of smartgun and whatnot.
Failing a roll of 1 die results in a critglitch each and every time.

Gee, last I looked, I could Aim for bonus dice, I could specialize in my Weapon of choice, and IN SHADOWRUN, Smartlinlks are ubiquitous, especially for PROFESSIONAL SOLDIERS. Your arguments fall flat on a lot of levels. That 7 Dice goes to 11+ Dice pretty damned easily for that skill 3, attribute 4 Professional. *shrug*

And no, Failing a Roll of 1 Die DOES NOT equal a Crit Glitch each and every time.. YOU MUST ROLL A 1 ON THAT DIE. But you fail on a 2, 3, and 4 as well. *shakes head).

It's also easy to get the skill past 3 and the ability score past 4 with implants. This is beyond the point, however, since a professional soldier should be able to hit his target without those, if he is as professional as the book claims.

Okay, so the rifle is exploding in your hands only each nine shots on average.

Again, you discount many things going on here. *shrug*
The Professional Soldier IS hitting his target, more often than he rightly should be, in fact, using the Shadowrun system. *shrug*
In addition, part of being a Professional is knowing when a task is beyond your capabilities. If you can barely qualify on the static range, why would you ever waste ammunition beyond your effective engagement range? Would be kind of pointless, don't you think?

Besides, since when does Professional mean "Never fail at your task?" And why, exactly, is the rifle exploding in your hands on a failure? Are they all made of explodium. Or are you asuming that all weapons use EX-EX Explosive or Explosive rounds exclusively, and that failure means crit glitch?

Since when is hitting a static man-sized target at 500m from an assault rifle in the bright day a task a professional soldier is failing two times out of three?

All rifles have explosives in them, but you can fit any other catastrophic critglitch effect you find more suitable.

The reaon might be hidden in the problems with decking in SR4.5... wait, not? Maybe slightly off-topic here?

Perhaps...

Only if he tries to take each shot under 1.5 second. Otherwise he would get the benefit of +1 modifier from the Take Aim action.

I think basic requirement for US Army is 23/40 at 300 meters, four series of 10 shots fired under a minute each (not sure, anyway long enough to aim). A dice pool of 4 is required to achieve this result, or 6 if buying hits. And I would expect most soldiers to take a Specialization in their issue rifle at some point.

The threshold effect between long and extreme range in SR4A, and the limit put on the Take Aim modifier are more to blame for realism issue than the size of dice pools.

I think most similar issues (like the "everyday driver") would be best solved with a general rule similar in effect to Take Aim : doubling time to get a +1 bonus (though I would rather limit it to full skill, rather than half). But hacking would actually one of the few cases for which I wouldn't use it, since to me hacking into a system is more of a all-or-nothing type of action : you cannot take more time to exploit a known vulnerability and decipher a file ; you fail and retry with a different approach, re-rolling dice until it works, or admit it's too tough for you.

Nath doesn't agree with us here.