Burn it to the ground?
Honestly, with the implementation explanations currently present, there is not much you can do. Easiest way, I guess, would be to replace all mentions of Wireless Bonuses due to Matrix Connection, with Functionality that relies upon Interconnectedness, through either DNI or PAN connectivity. That removes most of the lunacy that is Matrix Wireless Bonuses. Then, Hacking requires you to bust the PAN prior to screwing with anything inside the PAN. Again, that layered defense (Can't touch the Smartlink, until you have access to the PAN and found the connectivity).

In the End, you take the Underlying Principle of the Matrix Rebuild (the Grids, the way programs work now, fix Technomancer issues), re-introduce layered Defenses on Hosts/Devices (because having everything on a single layer is stupid), Remove Wireless Bonuses that are completely ludicrous (Things like Communications make sense to be wireless, obviously), and then scrap the stupid economy that came along with SR5 (Decks are stupid expensive), and that is a good start.

And we're apparently back to SR4 being the One True Edition, even though in the context of the game as a whole it presents itself as an extreme deviation from the norm. Wonderful.

Epic, I would love to see why you consider cyberware hacking a good thing. Or a necessary thing. Perhaps if the total effect of a cyberware hack was needing to spend a simple or complex to reboot, sure, that would have been acceptable (and pretty nifty), but the way it's presented makes the entire thing useless. I don't mind combat hacking at all. There's a scene in Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex where the Major hacks Batou in order to make him punch himself that always struck me as something supremely cyberpunk, but as it is, a decker can seriously fuck a samurai's day up without a second thought.

Yeah, RAW says all it takes is an extended test with a toolkit - but that just doesn't hold when it comes to implanted fucking 'ware. I'm not even touching the wireless bonuses, the idiocy of some of those have been covered in long length on other threads. Once again, the issue isn't the goddamn combat hacking itself, it's the absolutely atrocious implementation of such.

Here's a few thoughts on how to implement it a bit better - refine the bonuses into something not retarded, allow a WAN to be networked between a crew and provide situational bonuses, and make combat bricking action denial rather than a trip to the cyberdoc after every encounter with a secdecker.

I am thinking of just changing the words "wireless" to "DNI link" for most of that seeing as if its connected to my Pan, chances are my pan is connected wirelessly to the matrix.

Also as a quick thought: any given wireless device has a damage track of 8+(1/2 DR). Aside from commlinks & Decks & a few other things the highest Device Rating you can have is 5 which makes a total Track of 10. Meanwhile a basic Decker's Rating 6 Program does 6+net hits (limit) damage. so on average, a hacker can possibly one shot any given peice of Cyber assuming he's not fighting another Decker.

Considering the evasiveness of this bodyware implant, you'll probably become a quadriplegic. That is, assuming you survive the mild electrocution and handful of third degree burns inside your body.

I see cyberware hacking as something that PCs will be doing to NPCs more often than the other way around, for starters. Most standard security doesn't have 100% decker overwatch, so I don't fall into the apparently common trap of thinking that enemy deckers will always be waiting to pounce on the PCs' gear as soon as they put anything online.

In situations where an enemy decker does show up to attack the PCs' gear, it's going to heavily encourage decker vs decker Matrix fights in the middle of other encounters. An enemy decker can't feasibly crash all your gear while your team's decker is Black Hammering him in the face.

It provides a host of explicit options that don't rely on GM leniency regarding affecting the local environment. Instead of hacking the lights or turning on the fire suppression system just to cripple an enemy's vision, you can instead go after the gear or 'ware they use to see. It's much more clear-cut what you can and can't accomplish.

I am not of the "burn it all" persuasion when it comes to SR5. In fact I think there are some really good things about SR5. Once pointed out to me, I could definitely see the benefit of raising skills from 6 to 12 and subsequently the need to impose limits. Other changes to fit the "rule of cool," do not improve the game. Those are the area's I would like to see addressed. As a consumer, I would like to ask the Dev's, just how did the 4th edition of D&D work out for Wizards of the Coast? I have purchased the SR5 pdf and at this point have no desire to purchase anything else of the 5th edition.






One problem that a futuristic settings face is the encroach of the present. When present technologies begin to outpace the "future" the suspension of disbelief becomes very difficult. I have loved the previous editions in their time, however by the time SR4 came along, if an extreme deviation (read realignment of technology with current trends) was not made the entire setting was dead.

Now, 5e is printed and this is the turd we have to work with. I think it can be recovered in the splatbooks without burning the core with the introduction of carefully crafted additions.

One idea towards that end:

So, the corporate court has made a decision, and for some stupid reason all of the mega's implemented it before consulting their InfoSec guys. Judges are not techies and make stupid decisions, like creating a single layer matrix. Tada, the boys at Cisco have developed the PAN router. It has a single matrix attribute because it is primarily a firewall. By using VPN tunneling, all devices subscribed to the Cisco router are hidden from the matrix, while still gaining the full benefit of wireless. However, as a result of tunneling, once the Router is cracked, a hacker has free access to all subscribed devices.

The guys at DD-WRT see the real potential of the Cisco router, and after rooting it, load it with a custom ROM that also has a sleaze rating to hide the router.

By ignoring it !
give the Bonus (f.E.Smartlink +2 Dice & +2ACC) without any Wireless connection (make it work like it did in SR4A )
some Boni/Bonusses could be added with other explanations (F.E. recharging of Tasers happens via Gridlink, or extracting Strap-on-Blades is via Muscletension a free Action) or via DNI ( like it was in SR4A)



I can confirm Tyleaus
not only across the US
also here in Germany there's lots of Groups (including my own 3 ones)that have/had no Problem with Hackers in Combat doin' useful things
And we know that JH's claim that Hackers were useless in SR4A is.....Wrong


I have to disagree with Tymeaus here
for a Combat Char the Wireless-throwing-knife-Bonus is great !
But if You follow Logic You have to give the same Bonus to Wireless Bullets too ,which is a huge invitation for Powergamer (and since CGL said that everything (including Bullets) is WiFi...... )

He who Dances without invitation
Medicineman

And were those hacking things that contributed to combat specifically? If so, what? The basic test here is that the uses need to be general case - not specific to particular environments or enemies. Gear/ware hacking means that the times where there's no hacking actions to take are extraordinarily rare - same as for everyone else.

do street samurai get special options to use while the Decker is hacking? and I already mentioned several social n things a Decker can do during combat. Decker were already special snowflakes with plenty to do during combat. they do not need to always have the spotlight.

The Street Samurai gets to spend copious resources and skill points on being faster, stronger, and better at shooting and stabbing people. He's still the front-line combatant, and the decker gets a set of support options. There's a big difference between having the spotlight and being allowed on the stage.

For fuck's sake, how many times do I have to say it before you can be bothered to directly respond? Combat is not like other parts of the game - for a very large array of reasons, combat is a special case. You'll notice that the design of the game reflects this by allowing every specialization to contribute to combat. That does not, however, constitute stealing the spotlight - that would require you to match or outweigh the Sam's contribution.

Protecting Your own Tac-Net (Boosting all kinds of pools)
Attacking Enemies Tac-Net (lowering their bonus)
Attacking /taking Over Drones ( Drones meant LOTS of Firepower and Surveillance !!)
Scrambling Enemies Communication (No Reeinforcements, no coordinated Attacks)
(in one of my Rounds I played a Hobbit Hacker/Reporter. His Job in Combat was to secure the Tacnet and Survillance with Drones Plus Sniper Drone Plus psychol. Warfare (He had 2 Facehugger drones which he used to scare the Conguards) )

He who Dances on LV426
Medicineman

None of those qualify general case, and some of them don't even qualify as hacking (see: everything involving drones - that's rigging).

thats ....Cottage Cheese !

Working with/using Drones can be done by anyone ,not only the Rigger
Using/protecting the Teams Communication and/or Tacnet qualifies totally for general case
In battle I had so much to do, that one Fellow Player (who played "Siren" our female Elven Face (I know its a Clichée but he was always fun)) opted to take over the Sniper and the Surveillance Drones so that I (as a player) could cocnentrate on the Tacnet & Communication and ....wreaking Havoc with my 2 Sweethearts ).
Both of our chars stayed back in our Turtle Van(armored-up Team Van) while the other 3 or 4 Runner ...."went in"

with lots of Dances
Medicineman

1) Tac-Nets aren't a thing right now, and we haven't seen how those are going to work with the hacking rules.

2) Tac-Nets still aren't a thing right now, and we still haven't seen how those are going to work with the hacking rules.

3) That's implying that hackers should be stealing the spotlight from riggers. Insert pissing and moaning about how street samurai riggers are useless because hackers can walk all over their cyberware drones.

4) Hacking communications is great, but actually really hard to do effectively in combat. Shutting down one commlink in a squad still leaves a number of other commlinks in the squad. Unless you get all of them at once, you're probably just being annoying.

@ 1) & 2)
They WERE a Thing in SR4A (and this is also what this Thread is abaout and is an answer to Rhats question)

@3)
Riggers were allways best at gonig INTO the Drones.
Black Jack(the Hobbit) only used them via Remote Control
Its not stealing the Spotlight. Chars can always Team Up (like Siren did) if part of the Job is to big

@4)
I was more occupied(IIRC ,its been 5-6 Years ago since I played Black Jack the last time) with our Tacnet and Supressing Panicbutton Alerts and using Miscommunications/Misdirections

HougH!
Medicineman

First, drones are rigging - you can cross over into other roles, sure, but that fails this particular test.

Second, it has not been my experience that tacnets are at all as common as you seem to thing - not at all common enough to be general case, at least. And if the GM has to throw an opposed hacker into every fight to give you something to do, it DEFINITELY doesn't qualify.

I would argue that usurping drones and other rigged devices IS the Decker's job. Whether it's hacking into a mainframe or that drone trying to give your street sammie a high velocity enema, the Decker is well suited to the task.

The rigger's job is to be running/organizing his own transports & drones, which can keep him plenty busy. Yes he has a moderate amount of defense for his devices and can try to take over some opposition devices, but again most of his focus is on you know shooting people with his own drones or getting people in and out via vehicles.

Decking/Rigging are two sides of the same electronic warfare coin and despite many people trying to claim them as two totally separate things, there is too much overlap to support that idea, especially when so much of the devices are operating via wireless connections. So unless your rigger is running many many yards of wire to each and every drone/device, he will have to contend with deckers/riggers messing with those.

That said, cyberware can and should be hackable if online. It's a device like any other and if open to the web, well you run the risk. But as has been pointed out, many will choose to just turn it off rather than run the risks, because it seems pretty one sided as it is written right now. And that is perfectly sensible thing to do in some situations.

If you as a player could turn magic to off, ie turn wiz-fi off and make it so an enemy wizard could not mind control you or burn you with the simple flipping of a switch, how many players here wouldn't jump at that switch right before a fight against a guy chanting and waving his arms around? Unless it's MedicineMan, as that is just how he says Hi.

It's trying to find that balance point between being able to operate and being totally vulnerable that is the tricky bit. Yes the game is a team effort so we should rely up to a point on our decker to cover us, but at the same time many players do not want everything to ride on someone outside themselves, especially in regards to their own body (installed cyberware), hence the feeling of vulnerability which has triggered a lot of this debate.

Slaving devices is a good step to improving personal defense, and maybe Commlinks should have the ability to run a basic form of an agent or something for a more proactive defense. Rather than removing wireless we need to look at options to work with this to keep the flavour that was intended, if not well defined by the RAW.

Subverting an enemy rigger's drones is a decker's job (which works ONLY when the other side has drones, which causes it to fail the test). Operating your own drones is a rigger's job.

And that is what I said if you had looked at the whole piece.



You would not go usurping your own team's drone, unless you are a dick, so by default the usurping was meant against enemy devices.

As for passing or failing this supposed test, I think you are beating it a bit to death.

Plus you will note again if you read it all I do agree that cyber can and should be hackable.

But wait, if the target does not have any cyber does that mean this also fails your test?

I am not trying to pick a fight as I do respect your opinion RHat, but the circular arguing going on both sides is not going to find us an answer.

Am just pointing out that we need to expand on what we have to maybe find something that can be more agreeable to both parties.

It's a bit like Mind Control, it's awesome until it's used on you and there is damn little defense against it so most tables have a house rule of so long as players don't use it much, neither do the GM's but that is just a gentlemen's agreement to avoid the issue itself rather than providing a better answer.

If you beef up the defense on devices too much it will slow the Decking to a crawl, but if we do not find something to offer a bit more defense for the other players, they are just going to go offline.

Just not sure what would work well.

Remote Control :!:



Maybe not Yours


I can't really follow Your thought (I don't see where You're comong from).
Do You (as a GM) always throw in a Mage into every fight to give the Players Mage something to do?
Do You always throw in a full fledged Cyber-Warrior for the Teams Streetsam ?
What about an Adept for the Teams Ninja....?

with a qualified Dance
Medicineman

1: Remote Control is still a form of rigging.

2: Not mine, nor many reports I've heard - nor, in fact, SR4 or 5 core. If you need a specific element from an expansion, it does not satisfy the test.

3: You don't need an opposing mage for the mage to be casting spells and conjuring spirits. A street-sam can fight without top-flight opponent. And so on. The same, however, does not apply to a decker securing a tacnet - there is nothing that needs doing there if there is not an attempt being made to subvert it, which means an enemy hacker.

Here are some Tac-Net rules that would solve many of your individual problems:

A Tac-Net is a computer network that consists of a Master unit and a number of Slave units.

The Tac-Net Master establishes a miniature Host. If a Slave unit is within 100m of Master, it enters the Tac-Net. Outside that range, the Slave is on its own.

The Tac-Net Host has no Attack rating. It has Data Processing, Firewall, and Sleaze ratings. These are configurable, with an Attribute Array equal to the Master's Device Rating, Device Rating +1, and Device Rating +2. The Tac-Net Master can handle a number of Slave units equal to its current Data Processing. The Tac-Net Master can run a number of Tac-Net Programs equal to half its Device Rating (round up).

A Tac-Net Slave unit can establish a link with a number of devices in its owner's PAN equal to it's Device Rating x2, as if creating its own Master-Slave relationship. These devices merge with the Tac-Net Host icon and can only be accessed via direct connection or from within the Tac-Net Host itself. The Tac-Net Host handles all Matrix traffic for its connected devices, so as long as the Master is able to connect to the Matrix (wirelessly), all connected devices are considered connected to the Matrix for the purposes of wireless bonuses.

A persona may enter the Host, but is never considered to be a part of the Tac-Net. Drones may not normally enter the Tac-Net.

Some Tac-Net Programs:

Adaptive Defense -- This program automatically reconfigures the Tac-Net in order to maximize its defenses. Generally speaking, if a Tac-Net realizes it has been infiltrated (or if it's told by its owner) it will reconfigure its attributes to maximize Firewall and then Sleaze. In its basic mode, the Tac-Net will not reduce its Data Processing if that action would drop members from the Tac-Net, though it can be configured to allow this. The Adaptive Defense program may also swap out the Tac-Net's active programs with another set, as configured by the owner.

Audio/Visual Processing -- This program allows the Tac-Net to provide audio or visual data from a connected sensor to any member of the Tac-Net, so long as they have a receiver that can provide that sensory input (glasses/cybereyes/etc for visual, headphones/cyberears/etc for audio). Such a member can use the best relevant bonus (or least penalty) available to any of these sensors.

Drone-Net -- This program allows one drone to become a member of the Tac-Net as if it were a Tac-Net Slave, thereby becoming part of the Host. This program can be run multiple times to allow multiple drones.

Enhanced Targeting -- This program allows one member of the Tac-Net to use another member's Take Aim dice pool bonus, so long as both are using connected smartguns.

Purge -- Once at the end of each Combat Turn, this program emits a barrage of Matrix damage to any and all personas inside the host (including authorized personas), with a DV equal to the Tac-Net Master's Device Rating. There is no defense test to avoid this, but it can be resisted normally.

Scrubber -- This program is essentially an Agent, with a rating equal to the Device Rating of the Tac-Net Master. It patrols the interior of the Host, removing marks, attempting to spot intruders, and running Trace Icon actions on any unauthorized visitors, the results of which it will display for the TacNet members. It cannot take any actions against targets that are not inside the Host. Since the Host has no Attack rating, it cannot perform any Attack actions (though it may Hack on the Fly to gain marks for the Trace Icon action).

Stealth Plus -- This program uses a predictive and adaptive algorithm to plot optimal routes for sneaking past guards, drones, and sensors, providing a +2 dice pool bonus to Stealth tests. This requires at least one visual sensor available to scan the area to be traversed.

Tactical Awareness -- This program provides a static +2 dice pool bonus to (physical) defense tests, and allows an unaware member of the Tac-Net a defense test so long as at least one other member of the Tac-Net is aware of the attack.

ther's always something to do for a Hacker (If he knows the Rules & the World, If he's not a complete Newbee)
even without a Hacker Attack, just as there is always something to do for other Chars....*Shrug*





Ok now I know that further discussion is moot
because I consider ordering your Car or a Drone via remote control NOT as something that only a Rigger can/should do

@Epicedion
this looks fine

With a final Dance
Medicineman

Always, you say? What is "always" there?



And grabbing a gun isn't something only the Sam should do - but neither are in-specialty for the hacker, who has just as much right as everyone else to in-specialty combat actions.

is the Translationfor:
Es gibt immer was für den Hacker zu tun

Which Means the Hacker is (usually ) quite Busy doing something


A Hacker (If he knows what to do) has soooooo many chances for Spotlight Action in a Combat Szenario
Yes he's got the Same rights for Spotlight and much more opportunities in a Fight as a Face, Driver,Safeknacker, Info-Gatherer so (ImO) ther is no (was never) a Need for Special (crumpy ) Rules to add even more spotlight chances for a Hacker.

So, I gotta Go to Concert
(Rock im Pott with Tenacious D,Volbeat and SOAD)
With a Dance to Gelsenkirchen
Medicineman

.
And I'm asking what things under the purview of hacking are consistently available.

Which does him absolutely no good in a Social Situation... A Situation where a Hacker still has uses. Wow, Imagine that, A Street Sam with nothing to do. Hmmmmm.....

The team has just escaped from the facility, macguffin in tow, the escape was a lil messy, the ninja adept raised the alarm & the team decided it was better to get miles away before the KE Pigs arrived on the scene. As the team runs down an alley to meet up with the Johnson, a shot rings out, the Sam narrowly dodges a shot. The team notes the sound of more movement in the adjoining Alleys. There's no way out of this without a fight. The Sam picks up his biggest gun, getting ready to fight it out, but stepping out into the alley with an unknown number of enemies could be suicide. The Adept ninja is already climbing a gutter to get a better look at the scene from above, a small handgun ready to shoot.

This is a typical "Low Decker Environment" for a Decker to be in, feel free to take from both sides what either group thinks is available to the decker in this situation. If you feel this is not worth your time, then perhaps we should end the discussion as neither side will be able to fully understand each group's perspective without such a thought experiment.

This is a typical street with several alleys on either side of buildings, lets assume since they are only about a mile or so out of range of a facility, decent city upkeep in the area. if anyone wishes to participate in this thought experiment to better understand this, feel free to ask questions & I will fill in additional details as needed.

It takes all of two seconds for me to come up with 'Hacker hacks local CCTV cams to provide situational awareness.' Or he runs scan to find nodes in the adjacent alleys. Or he hacks a car (Gridguide, natch) and tells it to roll into an alley at max speed. Or he scans for enemy communications. Or he uses a knowledge skill to figure out who the local gangers are and fakes a message saying that a war has started to provide a distraction. I can go on, if needed.

OK RHat, what's the Face doing DURING Combat?

The Decker hacks the local cameras and feeds the data to the team, while getting his MGL-6 grenade launcher pistol with Airburst link ready to drop some narcojet mini grenades on the enemy.

He really cannot answer without undermining his position. Sucks to backed into a corner, but there you go. Sad, Really.

Exactly what I would be doing, though not with a Grenade Launcher.

Life is much easier with a grenade launcher!

Not to mention the occult investigator, the infiltrator, the mechanic, the smuggler, the bounty hunter / tracker ... their primary expertise, skills, equipment cannot contribute to combat or contribute only in a very small direct way (like having a minor combat skill and a weapon or able to use minor magic or calm down team members after a fear attack for example). All their strengths are outside of combat or in setting up combat in a specific way to control or ease the way of combat.

However short time "combat hacking" is indeed used sometimes in modern cyberpunk (GITS was a given by that charming author of the wifi bonuses (you know where he admitted that he thinks the wifi bonuses are garbage (and not knowing the basic matrix rules ...)). However as it was often said before: this could have been done with beefed up manipulation of micro/mini drones (short term control), radio communication (voice manipulation for wrong orders), tacnets (reducing bonuses and inflicting disadvantages like rerouting or shooting each other) and devices who are usually online (like your commlink).

SYL

I chose to post that example to use as a thought experiment, I thought it best illustrated combat in a location that wasn't...Pro Decker to show what sort of options were available based on the players on the board. Decker's really are only limited by their imagination & the GM when it comes to what they can do, even if they don't directly contribute to the reduction of opposition's health monitor's with their skills all the time.

Please read the rules for using Leadership.



Design-wise, that's a variant mage, variant Sam (who uses his stealth to achieve surprise), variant rigger, variant rigger/Sam, and variant Sam. Put another way, casting spells or summoning spirits is inside the specialty of the occult investigator (notice the SR5 archetype has Flamethrower and Armor). Catching someone unawares to take them out of the fight is inside the specialty of the infiltrator. A mechanic, if he's going to be able to be on a runner team as a "mechanic", is gonna have the vehicle skills to be able to rig, placing that within his specialty. The same applies with the smuggler, and if they're the Han Solo type then combat skills are actually central to the theme ANYWAYS, which makes shooting the enemy in specialty (notice the Muscle Toner on the SR5 archetype). And if you think for a second that subduing a target isn't in the domain of a bounty hunter, then I would politely inquire as to what you are smoking and where I can get some.



So, how much damage do you have to soak after failing a Negotiation roll at your table, anyways?

Except that you are making assumptions about what the Character archetypes mean here. An Occult Investigator need not cast spells at all. And your assumptions that an infiltrator is just a variant Street Sam is just laughable. Same with your Smuggler assumptions and whatnot. No, not every archetype is a variant combat gumby. It is sad that you think they are.



That really depends upon what the consequences of the failure to negotiate are. Sometimes we just do not get what we want... sometimes, well, someone gets shot. It happens. I don't complain or cry about it. But then, the vast majority of my characters can at least make the roll. From what I hear on this forum, that is apparently pretty unique, so... *shrug*

Oh, there's a few forms of the infiltrator, certainly, but we're talking about a high Agility, high Intuition character - their primary combat option is to achieve surprise and do something, which in almost all cases will be some form of direct attempt to subdue the enemy (and I've yet to see an infiltrator build that doesn't have a reasonable chance of success at doing so against a surprised enemy). And the Occult Investigator does have options other than spells - but as a character type defined in part by Magic, what's in-specialty for them are the magical options (conjuring, sorcery, and enchanting).



Someone gets shot, or does combat start? There's very serious difference.

Again your assumptions are getting in the way. If I am making an Infiltrator, I will concentrate on my Infiltration abilities, not my combat abilities. Yes, he will have SOME capability, but I would say the same for a Hacker as well. Apparently, in your view though, a Hacker should never have to pick up a gun. Why would that be? If you are going to assume that all other archetypes are combat capable, why would you exclude the Hacker from being combat capable as well?



Yes, Sometimes, and Sometimes yes. Not really a difference to me.

You are trying to argue yourself out of a hole that you created. If your argument is that all other archetypes be combat capable, then your Hacker should be as well, for, you know, those times his hacking must take a back burner to actual combat. Just like your argument for all the other archetypes.

We have ... both in SR4 and 5. They do not contribute to combat in the same way Sam with an assault rifle. You cannot kill someone with leadership. You can influence someone under fear, guide him, gather your team, direct it. Just to be sure that you know that leadership does in SR5



Again: that was the hackers job in SR4, for example manipulating the radio communication or spoofing the tacnet. Now, the decker was deliberately enabled to *damage* the enemy. Not to influence him, to guide his team, to debuff or buff - to damage him (by setting his spine on fire for example (you have read the fluff description of bricking, right?).



And how does he take the people out? With the "sneaking around" skill? Or with combat skills?



Mechanic, not rigger. I am not talking about a drone rigger or combat rigger. I am talking about an assault with the hardware or mechanic skill.



No, hiding, knowing, sneaking, disappearing, faking, forging - not Han Solo. Han Solo was a samurai with rigger as second.

So, as you see: no one of the other archetypes can really contribute to combat like a Sam can with an assault rifle - as in killing human being almost instantly. The drone rigger can do that, the combat decker, the various sams, tanks, combat adepts and combat hermetics with spells or spirits. But the rest are "out of combat" archetypes with minor applications inside of combat (which mostly depends on the rating of their agility attribute and combat skill). Why is is perfectly acceptable for these archetypes not being able to contribute to combat in the same manor as a street sam, with their primary skillset, (like sneaking or con) why was it not acceptable for the hacker just to follow the same advise you have just given the infiltrator "take out a guy before combat starts" or the face by buffing or debuffing the enemy communication? Your own argument regarding the infiltrator is exactly the same argument which could be used against the SR5 "decker must be able to brick your spine" argument.

Whey can "hacking" kill someone and why is that ok, but its not ok for the face to spook someone to death with con? Or to sneak someone to death? Or to repair someone to death? Because it sounds ridiculous?

Perhaps now you can imagine how ridiculous the defense of Jason Hardy and "deckers must brick everything" sounds to rest of the sane people.

And btw, just if it was lost, even in SR4 a hacker could contribute to combat with his primary skills. This makes Jason Hardy and his blog either incompetent as in not knowing his own game (something which is unfortunately shared by some of the authors) or a liar.

SYL

As to the infiltrator, you've already got the attributes - but combat actions are just the example. The point is that the infiltrator can drop out of sight and do whatever it is that he wants to do without opposition, which is a huge advantage. Keep in mind that a hacker with an Agility of 2 or even 1 (which are fairly probable builds - there are going to be a lot of people who build their decker by taking low attributes and keeping their physicals very low as a result) has one hell of an uphill battle doing shit all with a firearm. All that said, my argument ISN'T that a hacker shouldn't ever have to pick up a gun - simply that it isn't in specialty, and every single character type has combat actions that are in-specialty for them, and the question I have posed, which nobody has to date bothered to answer, is for what design reason do you think that the hacker should be the only exception to this?

Actually thats not the point.

The point of the entire discussion is why is ok for the hacker to contribute directly to kill your opponents with this primary skill (decking) and not using a combat skill, when every other archetype except mage, drone rigger (indirectly) and sam, have to take a backseat, are reduced to buff/debuff or cheerleader dancing with their primary skills (like con, hardware, sneak etc) ... or have to use a combat skill?

SYL

No, not the same way - but contributing the same way is not part of the test. The combat specialist's contribution is and should be largely unique.



First, those methods fail the test being applied here, as they operate only in specific circumstances (where your enemies are relying on radio communications or a tac-net - against a certain subset of opponents, this can be assumed, but that is too specific to satisfy the condition).

And no, the decker doesn't damage the *enemy*. He damages or subverts the enemy's *gear*, denying or impairing the use of it - certainly sounds like a debuff to me, which you just implied is acceptable to you if we're setting the specific implementation aside.



There are many options - the most basic and general of which is to act as a scout to provide information on the enemy's position and movements, opening up tactical options and making it easier to target them with indirect fire. A plethora of other options open up depending on your other skills and the enemies you're facing which tie directly to your stealth abilities, which given the low cost of entry (while it is relatively difficult to build a character who's just an infiltrator, but comparitively easy to do so with a sam, decker, rigger, or mage) is certainly sufficient.



Tell me how that character fits onto a run in the first place, and we'll talk.



Maybe so - but the smuggler as seen in the SR5 archetypes is a combination sam/rigger, and thus both direct combat and rigging are in-specialty.



You will find you've been misreading my argument - and frankly, I feel I've been perfectly clear.

Bricking someone's gun could be considered a 'debuff' - setting their spine on 'SPLODEY' is definitely an attack.

I'd love to see a Face Negotiate with an enemy's grenade to make it explode in said enemy's hand.

I really like the direction you have taken this. I have been so underwhelmed by the 5e matrix/wireless rules I didn't even think to expand on what was already put in place. The idea of a TacNet with its own set of programs is great.

* Another program that might work well with a TacNet would be an Orientation System when loaded with the applicable mapsofts.
* A TacNet with access to a MathSPU could provide indirect fire capabilities and bonuses to weapons not normally able to indirect fire.

* Any of the sensor software from 4A would work as well.
* A skillsoft/tutorsoft might be able to give a teamwork bonus in the form of AR overlays with instructions on the task at hand (might be a bit of a stretch on this one).

RHat, I'm just curious, are you on Catalyst's payroll?