[All4BigGuns]

Just follow this rule of thumb when making a character: Make sure you're at least in average human being in all your attributes before raising any above average.

After that, as long as you're not a Technomancer (if you are, it's not a big surprise you're gonna suck at combat with how point heavy they are), a rating 2 Muscle Toner puts you almost to Olympic gymnast level Agility. At that point, 3 ranks in any firearm skill (or for going cheap in cost, 1 rank and a specialty) and a smartlink gives you a decent ability to defend yourself.

[RHat]

So, playing a techomancer means that you don't get to contribute to keeping yourself alive, then?

And you've failed to acknowledge whether or not calling for a new skill (or skill group) would be enough for you - if not, then clearly your issue isn't whether or not their investing skills to do it.

[All4BigGuns]

Well, if they're not investing in combat skills, then they have no right to complain when they can't do anything in combat. Again, it's their own fault.

[RHat]

Except when it isn't, and you've already acknowledged one such case.

But, looking at it another way: if this worked as an attack using skills from a cybercombat skill group to attack, but using things that are easy for a sam to get or that they already have in order to defend (IE, make Intuition the attribute, which they already want for initiative), with the possible effects being specifically defined via the programs used, what would your specific issue with this be?

[Shadowjack]

What exactly is the issue here? Deckers won't be able to contribute to combat in 5th because they need to allocate so many CC resources to mental attributes? Personally, I liked the way Deckers were in previous editions. You had to allocate a ton of resources to be effective in the matrix. Programs and Cyberdecks were expensive as hell. In 4th you can get the best Commlink and Programs for practically nothing. I feel that it's far too easy to make a strong combat oriented Hacker. Hackers in 4th Edition feel much less like the cool Deckers of previous editions. I enjoyed playing Deckers more in the past because I had to find ways to contribute in combat because it consumed massive resources to be an elite Decker. For me, that was fun. I like the idea of playing the underdog in combat and finding ways to be resourceful. In 4th Edition you can almost be as strong as in combat as any other character. The only exception to this is if you want to get the really good ware that actually does eat up substantial essence. But in my experience, that ware is not mandatory to be a very successful Hacker. I really look forward to returning to the roots of Deckers in 5th.

One thing I do find more fun in 4th Edition is that Hacker's typically come with the team instead of sitting on the sidelines in a van. With the addition of Noise in 5th Edition, it seems like I'll be getting everything I like for Deckers. That includes being weaker in combat, coming with the team deep into dangerous areas, going back to Cyberdecks and hopefully paying MUCH more for Cyberdecks and programs.

[Sichr]

Okay. Well even better, since if you read my previous posts, I said chromed guys should learn some cybercombat. They should be considered "dual" for matrix atack purposes, if they are wireless active. There should be some kind of oposition which would demand such combination. Such as "materialized sprites" etc. Different approach, but same rules mechanisms as magic. Also possibility for me

[Sipowitz]

What exactly is the issue here? Deckers won't be able to contribute to combat in 5th because they need to allocate so many CC resources to mental attributes? Personally, I liked the way Deckers were in previous editions. You had to allocate a ton of resources to be effective in the matrix. Programs and Cyberdecks were expensive as hell. In 4th you can get the best Commlink and Programs for practically nothing. I feel that it's far too easy to make a strong combat oriented Hacker. Hackers in 4th Edition feel much less like the cool Deckers of previous editions. I enjoyed playing Deckers more in the past because I had to find ways to contribute in combat because it consumed massive resources to be an elite Decker. For me, that was fun. I like the idea of playing the underdog in combat and finding ways to be resourceful. In 4th Edition you can almost be as strong as in combat as any other character. The only exception to this is if you want to get the really good ware that actually does eat up substantial essence. But in my experience, that ware is not mandatory to be a very successful Hacker. I really look forward to returning to the roots of Deckers in 5th.

One thing I do find more fun in 4th Edition is that Hacker's typically come with the team instead of sitting on the sidelines in a van. With the addition of Noise in 5th Edition, it seems like I'll be getting everything I like for Deckers. That includes being weaker in combat, coming with the team deep into dangerous areas, going back to Cyberdecks and hopefully paying MUCH more for Cyberdecks and programs.

How to you balance the huge costs of decks and programs with a Technomancer?
If a Decker and Technomancer need the same skills and stats to do the job, but a Decker also needs a huge amount of money that the Technomancer doesn't...how does that change the game?
Why would a player ever want to play as a Decker if they have to sink tens or hundreds of thousands of nuyen into something that can be stolen, broken, hacked, etc.?
I can see it now;
<Sometime in October>
Random Poster:  Man this deck thing sucks.  We were in a corp facility in a major firefight with the guards and I was using my deck to get the paydata from the node, when the Gm has one of them shoot my deck...dice rolled and I got one slagged deck and no paydata.  Man playing as a Decker sucks compared to playing as a Technomancer.

[Sichr]

Yes. Ahd also developing further as Technomancer is pretty cheap on karma. And Noise(whatever it is). And some of threats that endanger specialy technomancers. LOL.

[Wildcard]

Yes. Ahd also developing further as Technomancer is pretty cheap on karma. And Noise(whatever it is). And some of threats that endanger specialy technomancers. LOL.

Why? What threat specifically endangers mages?

[Falconer]

I half agree... on the TM bits.

The problem is SR4 got rid of certain old concepts for the sake of simplicity.

Bandwidth - (just how long does it take to transfer a large amount of data?! -  the farther away... the more noise could interfere)
Memory limits  - (yes TM lack storage... but when you can put infinite storage in a fake fingernail for no essence... you got a problem).


I don't see how TM's manage to function without a deck to start out with either...  maybe morph them more into old school otaku instead.   Able to do things with decks that others couldn't.    Or another take on the old 'hacking adept' type and treat them more like adepts than magicians.

[KarmaInferno]

Honestly, I am just trying to suggest ways everyone can can contribute, in combat or the Matrix or whatever, doing what they are built to do.

I'm not specifically hung up on hacking cyberware, it was just an example of a possible quick battlefield hack.

My concern is that currently, anything a hacker does in a firefight related to his specialty takes multiple rolls and GM attention, and if successful sometimes gives the hacker TOO much control. You spend potentially multiple rounds rolling dice and afterwards you completely own the system.

There's no provision for quick single roll hacks that create a temporary effect. Even the closest equivalent in 4e, spoofing, requires multiple rolls as the hacker needs to locate the node, figure out the access ID, and then spoof commands.

The idea is to create more immediacy to the hacking process by providing a way to toss off a quick temporary hack that can be executed with a single roll, is resisted like a gunshot or spell, and fades soon afterwards. It doesn't have to be a cyberware hack, it can be something like activating a road pop-up barrier during a vehicle chase, or shorting out the lights to provide concealment, and the like.

Similarly, we shouldn't have folks going to get drinks when it's time to hack a mainframe. The sammy should be able to at least assist, perhaps in a similar way he would if he was pulled into the astral. He'd be nowhere near as good as the actual hacker, but he could help, as opposed to sitting there watching the hacker's comatose body and twiddling his thumbs.


-k

[Falconer]

KarmaInferno:
Then wouldn't a better method be to speed up spoofing to be more usable on the fly?

That strikes me as the better idea by far.


Just thinking through the steps...
Find node,
monitor traffic to get AID of authorized user
Decrypt traffic to get key if encrypted.
spoof commands

The decrypt step is the longest and hardest... however... each and every periphal requires an encrypt program written specifically for it's peripheral node.  So it's unlikely that peripheral devices are encrypted.   Speeding that step up immensely.

Maybe encryption should be stremlined a bit, by simply stating all nodes use lightweight encryption based on their 'system' rating or something similar.    Then work in getting the encryption right as part of the spoof test instead of a separate test.


Really... if spoof command got a bit more streamlined... it would make for a cleaner deal.  (though it would have to lose a lot of it's far more broken aspects such as spoofing a command to create an admin account).



Also... a sammy pulled into the astral is completely and utterly useless.   All the skills related to astral are trained only use.   If and only if the sammy had the 'dodge' skill (not gymnastics)... he could attempt to doge astral attackers (provided he even knew what they were... remember assensing is trained only).  The sammy can't engage in offensive astral combat as that's yet another trained only skill.

[DaveDaveDaave]

What exactly is the issue here? Deckers won't be able to contribute to combat in 5th because they need to allocate so many CC resources to mental attributes? Personally, I liked the way Deckers were in previous editions. You had to allocate a ton of resources to be effective in the matrix. Programs and Cyberdecks were expensive as hell. In 4th you can get the best Commlink and Programs for practically nothing. I feel that it's far too easy to make a strong combat oriented Hacker. Hackers in 4th Edition feel much less like the cool Deckers of previous editions. I enjoyed playing Deckers more in the past because I had to find ways to contribute in combat because it consumed massive resources to be an elite Decker. For me, that was fun. I like the idea of playing the underdog in combat and finding ways to be resourceful. In 4th Edition you can almost be as strong as in combat as any other character. The only exception to this is if you want to get the really good ware that actually does eat up substantial essence. But in my experience, that ware is not mandatory to be a very successful Hacker. I really look forward to returning to the roots of Deckers in 5th.

One thing I do find more fun in 4th Edition is that Hacker's typically come with the team instead of sitting on the sidelines in a van. With the addition of Noise in 5th Edition, it seems like I'll be getting everything I like for Deckers. That includes being weaker in combat, coming with the team deep into dangerous areas, going back to Cyberdecks and hopefully paying MUCH more for Cyberdecks and programs.

How to you balance the huge costs of decks and programs with a Technomancer?
If a Decker and Technomancer need the same skills and stats to do the job, but a Decker also needs a huge amount of money that the Technomancer doesn't...how does that change the game?
Why would a player ever want to play as a Decker if they have to sink tens or hundreds of thousands of nuyen into something that can be stolen, broken, hacked, etc.?
I can see it now;
<Sometime in October>
Random Poster:  Man this deck thing sucks.  We were in a corp facility in a major firefight with the guards and I was using my deck to get the paydata from the node, when the Gm has one of them shoot my deck...dice rolled and I got one slagged deck and no paydata.  Man playing as a Decker sucks compared to playing as a Technomancer.

Could still happen these days, granted it would have to be a seriously dick move for the Gm to shoot the Technomancer in his Package Storage tm underpants or where ever he stores his paydata as his bionode has no storage capacity?

[All4BigGuns]

...and hopefully paying MUCH more for Cyberdecks and programs.

There were two things that kept me from playing a Decker in SR3:

1: Having to micro-manage Storage, Memory and other such things.
2: The ABSOLUTELY INSANE prices on Decks.

[Mithlas]

There's no reason it has to be nebulous. It can be very specific.

Like, you have a utility that lets you hijack a cyberarm long enough to have it fire the pistol it's holding at another target. That's all the utility does. Presumably the cyberarm's internal cyberdefenses recover enough to fight off the hijack immediately after the attack.

Something like an instant-duration spell. I see no problem with this (actually, it seems like a decent way for a very dedicated hacker to help the team against a dedicated cybersam, particularly if the sam didn't come with sufficient protection, which many won't). I would think of the hacker’s actions being more along the lines of “eject smartgun clip” or “reboot device, necessitating that the cyberlimb be effectively shut off until its boot-up completes next combat round”...and of course these actions wouldn’t be without allowing a defensive roll.

Why not the face?

It starts sounding Legends of the Wulin-esque, what with everyone being able to impact on most situations. That isn't a bad thing.

Will have to check that out.

I said chromed guys should learn some cybercombat. They should be considered "dual" for matrix atack purposes, if they are wireless active.

As long as they're paying for those skills (and likely serving more as "additional target of opportunity" for IC that would otherwise be focusing on the hacker), I don't necessarily see a problem with this.