[DamienHollow]

"Direct combat attack" implies damage, Shinobi, which isn't what this appears to be.

And while a hacker can learn to use a gun, he's gonna need his Attribute budget for hacking in SR5 - meaning that being decent in combat and at the things expected of a hacker isn't that simple, especially with the introduction of Inherent Limits.

Unless they use Agility as a dump stat then they should have 3 in it for 20BP, throw 12 points into a firearm skill and you're throwing 6 dice, throw 2 more for a specialty and you have an 8 die pool. Now I get lambasted every-time I say a person needs to all but max themselves out to be reliably competent at their job . If anyone doesn't think this is enough or that it's throwing too many points away and doesn't agree with the second statement... well you cna't have it both ways now can you? Seriously, 6 Attribute, 6 skill, maybe +2 to +6 for other bits an pieces, I'm averaging 4-6 hits and that's not including situational debuffs. The game works well, just don't deny that this is the reality of the game.

*wow* took 3 tries to post this, kept getting the "waring, there has been another post" message. you guys are having at it.

[RHat]

Not all types of scenes are equal, however.

And with the new system, it might be flat out impossible to make most hackers combat-effective otherwise - they'll almost certainly have need for a high Mental Limit, which will severely reduce what they have available for attributes that will help with combat (and Physical Limit) to actually be able to make use of those skills.

In other words, the "he can buy combat skills" argument doesn't hold any water because he'd need to do a lot more than that.

DamienHollow:  You're forgetting to factor for the new mechanics in SR5, first off.  Second, you need decent shooting pools to shoot effectively - unless your enemies are stupid, you should be expecting to lose many dice (range penalties, visibility penalties, cover penalties...).   If your pool is 8, you could lose 4 to Good Cover and suddenly you've only got 4 dice - which means your chances to hit are very low and your chances to crit glitch are much too high.

[All4BigGuns]

And some character types just shouldn't be all that effective in certain areas. You're basically advocating a "have their cake and eat it too" philosophy. This is not a good thing to do.

[RHat]

You're sorely misapprehending the point, Guns.  Being equipped to play a supporting role in combat is not "having your cake and eating it too".

[All4BigGuns]

And being "equipped" for such a role is having those skills and the gear to use those skills. Otherwise, it very much is that. Though maybe "something for nothing" is better...

[DamienHollow]

DamienHollow:  You're forgetting to factor for the new mechanics in SR5, first off.  Second, you need decent shooting pools to shoot effectively - unless your enemies are stupid, you should be expecting to lose many dice (range penalties, visibility penalties, cover penalties...).   If your pool is 8, you could lose 4 to Good Cover and suddenly you've only got 4 dice - which means your chances to hit are very low and your chances to crit glitch are much too high.

Which puts you in line with my second statement about getting chewed out anytime I say anything remotely like that (what i mean is not that you're chewing me out but that you need high pools to be consistant. Also, I think I will be sticking to 4th for a while.)

[Dinendae]

Playing as a Face/Hacker right now, I am more concerned with how hacking itself will work rather than this benefit/risk scenario. With trying to find that cyber arm/gun/whatever's Wi-Fi signal being a complex action, it's generally not worth my time to try to hack equipment; it's quicker and easier to just shoot them. The one time I did hack equipment was some drones that were a turn or two away, which gave me time to actually do so (barely). But actual equipment or cyber? Unless hacking actions get significantly changed in how long they take just to find it, it's not worth my time.

[Aryeonos]

TL:DR, read the SR5 Dev article.

I see, room for hacking peoples eyes, and fulfilling the various examples of combat hackery given in the fluff of SR4. But, honestly I always felt that was for the players to pull, and not so much to worry about. The NPCs are usually obligated to stay wireless, but also receive rudimentary training on rebooting their links, just like they get training on feeling for astral bodies passing through them. The idea though, that by somehow spanking your signal, or boosting it, or whatever "Crank it up" means, will somehow benefit you, other than making you a huge security risk is sheer fantasy though. A wired connection, by wire we mean fibre optic, is transferring data at the speed of light, with massive bandwidth. It's still linked to your pan, and your link is still connected to your corp's tacnet. It's a few complex actions to hack anything anyway, and by then the fight is over, the only time combat hacking would normally come in would be an extended combat or a preemptive strike. You're in a firefight and you hack the suppressing fire's PAN, shut down his optics eject his clip whatever. Not, I jump into the matrix and go limp in a pistol fight and hack the dudes pistol. Not even if they brought action phases into the order of a single second each would it really occur.

I don't think the current matrix rules are overcomplicated, but setting up the actions a hacker can take, to deal more damage in less time with more of a emphasis on brute forcing your enemies links in a firefight would help hackers in the fashion they're trying to make. The programs are already doing the heavy lifting for the hacker, make it so that he can take load up some macros and use them in a couple simple actions to smash a weak firewall (or a strong one if the hacker fine tuned his programs) and immediately start searching for the guy's ware, or gun, or whatever the hacker programmed it to look for, then another to just fire off a scrambling attack. Make it so cyberware is less safe, make it so, the hacker can royally jones your cyber eye's firmware in just a couple simple actions, without having to go ragdoll. Make it so, even if you're wired in, and skin-linked the hacker can with a little finesse bypass your wifi switches' safety catch, or just as quickly exploit the door you're taking cover behind to block you off.

I think it should be, if you wanna protect yourself from hackers, you get yourself ICs, and have your hacker watch your back. Because even if you're careful, the hacker should have some method of going through a backdoor you didn't think about, if he is clever.

[RHat]

DamienHollow:  You're forgetting to factor for the new mechanics in SR5, first off.  Second, you need decent shooting pools to shoot effectively - unless your enemies are stupid, you should be expecting to lose many dice (range penalties, visibility penalties, cover penalties...).   If your pool is 8, you could lose 4 to Good Cover and suddenly you've only got 4 dice - which means your chances to hit are very low and your chances to crit glitch are much too high.

Which puts you in line with my second statement about getting chewed out anytime I say anything remotely like that (what i mean is not that you're chewing me out but that you need high pools to be consistant. Also, I think I will be sticking to 4th for a while.)

I'm just saying you need to have enough dice to still have a decent pool after common penalties.  To expect to hit, you technically only need to have more dice than the defender.

[Basic]

I think it has potential but the example of Vision Enhancement made me winch. Honestly I think that it'd be more reasonable if some things required a PAN with a good commlink and they simply list clearly what requires wireless to work well (TacSoft, advanced Safety protocols, etc). Yes it means the hacker might not be as useful in life combat, but they can still hack vehicles, security systems and more.

If they actually find good ideas, please do. But if things are like the Vision Enhancement example, it feels too much as a forced choice not for reason but for forcing a choice.

I think the reason vision enhancement needs wireless to connect to your commlink to be processed and fed back to your contacts or glasses or goggles or what ever else.

[Mara]

And being "equipped" for such a role is having those skills and the gear to use those skills. Otherwise, it very much is that. Though maybe "something for nothing" is better...

There are three roles in Combat: Killing things, Support, and Medic.
The Street Sam is the expert in Killing Things, but he is not going to be good at Support roles and Medic.
The mage can do all three roles easily(support by their spells that effect the environment or boost/impair the opposition, and
their Health spells handle the Medic, while the Combat Spells are the Killing Things group).
The Decker is  Support. His job is not to kill things. It is to keep people from hacking your TacNet, jam transmissions to keep the
guards from calling for back-up, spam the guards so they can't see what is going on, maybe make the guards guns eject their magazines. He has combat skills with his hacking, just not the same combat skills as a Street Sam because his job in combat is
different.

[Mystalya]

Why are they taking away things that make the game fun for other players in order to try and improve the decker? Why not just streamline the overcomplicated matrix and try to give the decker more fun things to do that doesn't take 10 extended tests?

I don't like this. I can already see this happening.

GM: "Roll perception checks everyone!"

Player 1: "Ok! I roll 12 dice for that. "

GM: "Nuh uh. You only get 9."

Player 1: "But I have vision enhancement."

GM: "You didn't say you flicked the switch on your goggles so now you don't. "

Stupid. I can only imagine what limits like this will do to cyberware/bioware. Do I need to mention I turned those on too? How many combat rounds will it take me to turn my cyber eyes back on if a decker decides to blind me because I rolled a perception check?

I fundamentally disagree with the design concept of limiting the game for all other character archetypes because another one needed more things to do besides Google. Instead of taking the time and effort to streamline the clunkyness or making it so the decker can possibly be valuable to the group in a more combat orientated way, we've put limitations on everyone elses toys. My personal opinion and design philosophy of course.

[All4BigGuns]

Why are they taking away things that make the game fun for other players in order to try and improve the decker? Why not just streamline the overcomplicated matrix and try to give the decker more fun things to do that doesn't take 10 extended tests?

I don't like this. I can already see this happening.

GM: "Roll perception checks everyone!"

Player 1: "Ok! I roll 12 dice for that. "

GM: "Nuh uh. You only get 9."

Player 1: "But I have vision enhancement."

GM: "You didn't say you flicked the switch on your goggles so now you don't. "

Stupid. I can only imagine what limits like this will do to cyberware/bioware. Do I need to mention I turned those on too? How many combat rounds will it take me to turn my cyber eyes back on if a decker decides to blind me because I rolled a perception check?

I fundamentally disagree with the design concept of limiting the game for all other character archetypes because another one needed more things to do besides Google. Instead of taking the time and effort to streamline the clunkyness or making it so the decker can possibly be valuable to the group in a more combat orientated way, we've put limitations on everyone elses toys. My personal opinion and design philosophy of course.

This is exactly it. Not every character type needs to be applicable in combat. Period.

[Mara]

See..I am just not seeing it..in my group, we have a Street Sam who between his Gonryu and HV HMG slaughters in just about
every encounter. To the point, in fact, that he has actually started delaying his action to let the other players get to do something.
The Street Sam is not hurt by them adding stuff for the Decker to do. Also, all his gear is connected via skin-link to his PAN. I assume
MOST Street Sams work the same way at present.

The Decker is a character type that has always had problems being a "team player" in the game. I do not see it as they are trying to
boost the decker at the expense of everyone. I see it as they are trying to make the decker a part of the team, and not just a
meat-sack the rest of the team needs to guard at times. The Decker is NOT threatening your street sams murder spree capabilities,
so all you people who are opposed to the idea of them giving the decker more options in areas where he was pointless can keep
right on killing your school buses loaded with Corp Goons..just thank the Decker when they can't drive away or open any door but the
one your are standing in.

Also, Mystalya: If your GM would do that, then your GM is a schmuck and you should look for a new one. As a GM, I would expect a
player to tell me their standard state and default to that in the absence of them saying anything. If they say they have their goggles
normally on wireless-enabled, then they would have to tell me they were turning them off.

[Mystalya]

This is exactly it. Not every character type needs to be applicable in combat. Period.

Normally I would agree with you 100% but Shadowrun, at it's core, is a combat orientated game and archtypes are further limited by it's dog eat dog nature. There is no "Taunt off the Healer" in Shadowrun. Even if you create a "white mage" you'll find yourself grabbing Stunbolt just so you aren't a sitting duck.

The sitting duck part is the issue with hackers/technomancers. Sooooo much BP is alotted towards the hacking that if they try to pick up a gun they'll probably shoot themselves in the face with it.

Now I say this next part with my game design pants on. Obviously these ideas would need fleshing out to be applicable so don't anyone go getting too uptight about them as they are purely ideas for ideas sake.

Why not a totally out of the box idea like treating sprites like possession spirits as far as technology goes? How about creating and fleshing out Matrix cities (A la Net Slum from the .hack games) where the decker/technomancer can go to. Or adjusting the BP ratios so hacking still leaves you with enough to pick up some ware or be able to shoot decently? Arguably, depending on starting BP and how much you cheese the system, you can do this now but it's difficult and it was obviously created with the intention of hackers being able to only do 1 thing: Hack.

Nobody wants to to be the guy babysitting the van because you can't go anywhere. No one wants to feel like the GM is throwing you a bone so you don't sit there bored. Everybody wants to be in the middle of the action. Creating more action INSIDE the Matrix or making it so Hackers can be IN the action outside the Matrix is the answer. Taking away vision enhancement goggles isn't.

Again, my personal opinion and design philosophy.

Also, Mystalya: If your GM would do that, then your GM is a schmuck and you should look for a new one. As a GM, I would expect a
player to tell me their standard state and default to that in the absence of them saying anything. If they say they have their goggles
normally on wireless-enabled, then they would have to tell me they were turning them off.

There is one GM that I love dearly who I know wouldn't do this, however I have certainly played with some serious rulebook-humping "schmuck" GM's. Essentially, I'm pointing out the potential for the rule-lawyering and schmuckness.

I like that word. :3