Hoy chumbrowskies! Little while lurker first time poster. I'm trying to build (for lack of a better term) a Decknomancer: A decker that is such a sneaky little $#!% he might as well be the Greased Up Deaf Guy of the matrix. (Hence, a high edge and the Ninja Vanish quality for emergencies.) As such he is pretty much only going to use Hack On The Fly (HOTF) instead of brute force and will always use baby monitor. Now, here's the question. This is essentially my first decker. I usually play sammies or mages, so I'm pretty new to the matrix. What is driving me crazy is specializations. Its says under the computer skill that you can specialize by matrix action, so I want HOTF. Yet, HOTF is a "Hacking" skill action. And you can only specialize by Devices, Hosts, Files or Personas under the Hacking skill. What am I missing?

(This is 5e by the way)

You could always take the Codeslinger quality for it. Unfortunately, there is no rules-legal way to get a specialization for it, despite the fact that the decker archetype has it (the archetypes are riddled with errors).

There is nothing wrong with taking "Hacking on the Fly" as a Specialization.
The listed specializations in the books are simply suggestions, they are not the sum total of specializations you could take.

Ahh... I see. Yeah... already have codeslnger for HOTF. I was hoping to stack it with a specialization. As my GM says, "Strong with the munchkin, this one is..."

Oh. Alrighty then!

I would not necessarily take TJ's opinion as carte blanche for how most people interpret the rules...

Unless some new rulebook as come out recently with more detailed information on specializations, the current options for hacking are a different level of detail: devices, files, hosts, personas. Given that certain skills have "none" listed under specializations, I would argue that those specializations (at least in 5th edition) ARE exclusive, and not 'whatever you'd want'.

More to the point-

if your GM has concerns about munchkinism, this is a VERY favorably way to interpret the specialization rules, and I don't think how most commonly do. I'd just make sure they're on the same page around specializations.

That all said- your game, play how you want! I am not looking to get into a long argument- My reading of the rules on specializations (at least in 5th edition) indicates they are exclusive to the options listed in the book.

-DrZ

So what you are saying is that you would disallow "Hack on the Fly" as a Hacking Specialty (for a Single Matrix Action applicable to both Hosts and Devices) as opposed to "Hosts" or "Devices" for Hacking which covers ALL HACKING MATRIX ACTIONS in a Host or On a Device?

Wow - Interesting take on the rules, which say absolutely nothing about limiting Specialties. Specialties have always been open ended in Shadowrun, limited only by your imagination and applicability. Yes, it is the GM's duty to police such things, but I see nothing Wrong with the inquiry into using "Hack on the Fly" for Hacking. It is far less powerful of a Specialty, in the Long Run.

Allowing it would still be a house rule, though. I am familiar with the bit about specializations you were referring to earlier, but that was for SR4 - SR5 has no such text.

Given his GM's attitude, it might be a hard sell, although again, he could point out that the decker archetype has this unlisted specialization. And if the GM argues that this would give him a +2 bonus from a quality and a specialization, he could point out the catlike and natural athlete qualities.

Yes; because those are the options in the book. HOTF spec would be better all the time, devices, hosts, etc are mutually exclusive and thus occasionally not useful. Would he be better with a Host spec? Probably. I'm not arguing which is better, I'm arguing the ones in the book are explicit, so why would deviating make sense? Especially since other skills with "none" indicate those are meant to be exhaustive?

End rant.

DrZ

Double post.

Alrighty, I see both sides of this and I have to say this might be turning into the age old RAW vs RAI argument. (Which is like, every rules argument with shadowrun...) Either way, I thank everyone for their contributions! My gm and I worked out that I could have the specialization on top of the quality so long as I took a -2 dice pool to brute forcing for flavor and balance. And because he is a master at creating situations that force his players out of their "comfort zone" (and incidentally into the fetal position, sobbing...) So either way I'll pay for it! Also changed a lot about the character: instead of being a running joke with a cyberdeck, he now has a much darker, tragic past and the qualities to match (Amnesia, Phobia [Mild, stasis tanks] Emotional attachment, and social stress.

Thanks for the help! If anyone wants to know more about the character I could post his backstory if desired, just say which forum it goes in. Thanks everyone!

-Razic

Host would only cover hacking a host (as in trying to get a mark on it to gain entry), not hacking the devices, IC, or other things you will encounter inside it. It's actually a really limited option.

I'd recommend taking Device as the specialization.
You'll find you roll Hacking against Devices a lot. Typically you will enter a host by direct hacking a device that is slaved to the host. Once in the host, you will be hacking things like doors, security cameras, etc: these are mostly devices. Outside hosts, sometimes you will need to hack people's commlinks or other gear, this is again: hacking a device.
This specialization won't help you ALL the time, but it will help you most of the time you roll Hacking on a run, and often when you really need it to.

So his "fix" was to give you a +4 as long as you take a -2? You need a better arbiter, as he just "fixed" your build by negating one of the two things that made you better at it. It'd be more sense to take the Quality and then spec for something else that way you'd have two +2s as opposed to spending the same amount of points on only a +2.

And Loss of Confidence for the Cybercombat skill (with no karma bonus.) Forgot to mention that. Essentially if we try to hyper-specialize, his stipulation is that we loose versatility to compensate and its our prerogative to get that flexibility back to better benefit the team - which takes karma to buy off those negative qualities thus delaying "actual" character progression in favor of "Out of the gate swinging" capability.

You know, that's something I didn't really think about... Thanks for the advice. Actually, I'm thinking of going back and taking your's and Neraph's advice to even my character out for better all around capability. It's the first matrix character I've played and I need to stop letting the "new car smell" go to my head.

Oh, your GM is one of those overly-emotional, "every bonus must have a balance" ones. I really dislike them.

Perhaps he is somewhat, but we don't really care. He is a damn good story writer and gm who leaves subtle traces and plot hints like oh-so-faint trails of breadcrumbs that we are free to pursue to unravel the truckloads of mystery and intrigue that he creates in the SR setting. It's like playing inside a really good living, adaptive novel and we are a pretty heavily rp centric group. I just happen to have a powergaming munchkin past that rears its ugly head constantly, despite how much I love rp.

"Powergaming," "munchkin," and "RP" are not all mutual exemptions. I personally find the term "munchkin" highly offensive - it's intention is to be a derogatory term for someone who just happens to be better at connecting dots and theorycrafting highly efficient constructs than the unimaginative person slinging those stones. They h8 us cuz they 8nt us.

Aaaannd thank you for the new sig line Yeah, I get what your saying, but more often than not there are people who swing strongly to one end of the spectrum between number crunching dice monsters that MUST GET MOAR LOOTS (aka: Boarderlands syndrome) and "What would my character do if he were a real person with out my meta knowledge?" A lot of people don't realize you CAN have your cake and eat it too. Eventually it becomes second nature to start pidgon-holing play styles into broad categories.

What, I don't get a credit?

And thank you, that's at least the second time something I've said has gotten into someone's signature (that isn't mine).

When you are playing a superhuman being who is a shadowy mercenary who contracts for highly dangerous jobs, asking "What would this person be like as a real person" often gives you a powerful number crunching dice monster.

/Fixed

*Points aggressively* Hey, you know what I mean! (Also yeah, kinda true...)