[Shango]

So,
Tonight one of my players plantivly asked me "Why did I put a 5 in my Logic?" all of my hacking skills use the raw computer skill + the program rating.
This got me to thinking, why WOULD a person who wanted to play a hacker put a high rating in logic?
As far as I can tell the logic + computer dice pool never gets used, it's always the straight skill (computer, EW, etc) + the apropriate computer program.

Any opinions?

-Erich

[UmaroVI]

Mostly nothing direct. The advantages are:

Software (for programming or patching) actually does check Logic.
Hardware does too.

Hackers will want Log-linked skill boosters (PuSHeD, Encephalon, and Neocortical Nanites) anyways. So they have natural synergy with Logic skills.

But, no, Logic does nothing direct to help you hack.

There are various options for using Logic directly in hacking; unfortunately none of them are particularly good ideas.

[Mirikon]

Logic only directly helps your hacking if you're a Technomancer, as it influences your System score. While Technomancers are able to ignore System for number/strength of programs and such, there are tests and other things which reference System, so it is important to keep it up to snuff.

[CitizenJoe]

But, no, Logic does nothing direct to help you hack.

There is nothing logical about hacking the way popular media represents it.

[Shango]

Yeah,
That's kinda what I thought.
Thanks

Hey UmaroVI, on another note. Which suplements have those boosters you mentioned?
Maybe I can sell her on that along with some skill chips to make her feel better about the high logic.

-Erich

[Tsuzua]

Hey UmaroVI, on another note. Which suplements have those boosters you mentioned?
Maybe I can sell her on that along with some skill chips to make her feel better about the high logic.

They're from Augmentation.  Encephalon is under Headware, PuSHeD is a transgenetic enhancement, and Neocortical nanites are under Neural Amplifiers in the Nanoware chapter.

[Shango]

Cool,
Thanks

-Erich

[inca1980]

It's really up to the GM how important Logic is for Hackers.  The whole point of table-top rpg's is that you can basically ATTEMPT to do WHATEVER you want...i.e. there should be a roll or a GM-ruling which would tell you what happened.  So usually when people are talking about RAW they play down the importance of this.  So maybe suggest what i'm about to tell you to your GM and he/she might be receptive to it: 

1.  I use Software + Logic a whole lot for my Hacker whenever he attempts to do anything with his programs/agents/drones that doesn't fit into the stuff that's explicitly laid out in RAW.  So if there's a program that you want to work a little bit beyond what the scope of the program usually is, i'll tend to let my Hacker roll a Software + Logic to modify the program slightly in order to change it do that thing.  For example say he wants his Browse program to constantly listen to ambient noise and let him know when it hears the word "Xanadu"....well if there's doubt as to whether or not a browse program can do that, I'd just have him roll a Software + Logic (3) or (4) test and if he succeeds he is able to get it to do that task.....and only then he'd be able to roll a Browse + Datasearch test to see if he catches it.  Does that make sense?  That for me is kind of the cool part of being a hacker....you modify the programs you got to do cool stuff.  If I ever think what he wants is too powerful, I'll make the threshold really high....and if I absolutely think what he wants to do is way overboard i'll just GM rule against it. 

2.  I'll use Logic + Intuition test a lot to separate player knowledge from character knowledge...basically a roll to see if a character has enough sense to do something that would be obvious to the player.  So say it became important to know if a character has his comm in hidden or public mode.  Now mostly i'll just assume chars have a basic shadowrunners sense, but when it really becomes important i'll have the player roll that to settle the dispute about "of course my char had his comm on hidden"....  I like this because a Logic 1 character would be doing pretty dumb stuff and players will often player Logic 1 characters as being as smart as themselves. 

3.  I use Logic + Intuition or Logic x 2 tests in a similar way to Call of Cthulu's Idea rolls.  Basically to give the players hints on occasion.


So you see that Logic can be very important but it depends on how your GM handles things. 

[farothel]

Since in smaller teams the hacker is also the general tech guy, having a high logic will help you with some other skills you might want (the various mechanics skills, armorer, chemistry,...).  It will also give you more knowledge skills you might want.

[Reaver]

Don't have main book with ATM, but IIRC, your skills are capped to you attributes that govern said skill... So if the hacker had a logic of 3, his skills could only (initially) be 3...




Or maybe that was 3ed....

[Crash_00]

I think you're thinking of SR3 where attribute level reflected in the skills cost (it didn't prevent it, just made it more expensive). That said, the optional dice cap rule is 20 or 2 x Natural Attribute + Skill. Since hacking is a logic skill, a decent logic is needed if you want to go over 20 dice.

[Xzylvador]

There are various options for using Logic directly in hacking; unfortunately none of them are particularly good ideas.

I'm guessing you mean the "Tweaking the Rules" optional rules from Unwired pg39?
It suggests using Logic to replace program in the hacking test, and then using the program's rating as maximum number of hits. (eg. To crash a program instead of Hacking + Exploit, you roll Hacking + Logic. But if you only have an Exploit 3 program, you can't score over 3 hits.)
Or alternatively, you can reverse it: You still roll Hacking+Exploit, but limit the maximum number of hits to the character's Logic.

Personally, I don't think that second option is that bad and am strongly considering using it as a houserule, figuring the 65IQ guy just wasn't smart enough to come up with the right program parameters. (Spending edge overrides the rule.)
Why's it so bad?

[Xarin]

It's really up to the GM how important Logic is for Hackers.  The whole point of table-top rpg's is that you can basically ATTEMPT to do WHATEVER you want...i.e. there should be a roll or a GM-ruling which would tell you what happened.  So usually when people are talking about RAW they play down the importance of this.  So maybe suggest what i'm about to tell you to your GM and he/she might be receptive to it: 

1.  I use Software + Logic a whole lot for my Hacker whenever he attempts to do anything with his programs/agents/drones that doesn't fit into the stuff that's explicitly laid out in RAW.  So if there's a program that you want to work a little bit beyond what the scope of the program usually is, i'll tend to let my Hacker roll a Software + Logic to modify the program slightly in order to change it do that thing.  For example say he wants his Browse program to constantly listen to ambient noise and let him know when it hears the word "Xanadu"....well if there's doubt as to whether or not a browse program can do that, I'd just have him roll a Software + Logic (3) or (4) test and if he succeeds he is able to get it to do that task.....and only then he'd be able to roll a Browse + Datasearch test to see if he catches it.  Does that make sense?  That for me is kind of the cool part of being a hacker....you modify the programs you got to do cool stuff.  If I ever think what he wants is too powerful, I'll make the threshold really high....and if I absolutely think what he wants to do is way overboard i'll just GM rule against it. 

2.  I'll use Logic + Intuition test a lot to separate player knowledge from character knowledge...basically a roll to see if a character has enough sense to do something that would be obvious to the player.  So say it became important to know if a character has his comm in hidden or public mode.  Now mostly i'll just assume chars have a basic shadowrunners sense, but when it really becomes important i'll have the player roll that to settle the dispute about "of course my char had his comm on hidden"....  I like this because a Logic 1 character would be doing pretty dumb stuff and players will often player Logic 1 characters as being as smart as themselves. 

3.  I use Logic + Intuition or Logic x 2 tests in a similar way to Call of Cthulu's Idea rolls.  Basically to give the players hints on occasion.


So you see that Logic can be very important but it depends on how your GM handles things.

Cookie for you.  I shall be stealing these ideas for a game I've got brewing with a lot of rpg players that are very new to SR.

[UmaroVI]

I think you're thinking of SR3 where attribute level reflected in the skills cost (it didn't prevent it, just made it more expensive). That said, the optional dice cap rule is 20 or 2 x Natural Attribute + Skill. Since hacking is a logic skill, a decent logic is needed if you want to go over 20 dice.

This isn't true. Of course since it's an optional rule, the GM could always houserule this anyways (although I don't recommend it as it fubars a lot of the balance with technomancers and streams):

In Matrix tests, the attribute portion of the test is replaced with a
program or Matrix attribute. For example, rather than using Gunnery
+  Agility  to  fire  from  an  assault  drone,  you  would  use  Gunnery  +
Command if you were firing a mounted medium machine. All rules
that apply to attributes apply to programs or Matrix attributes instead.

Since the dice pool cap is a rule applying to attributes, it applies to programs or Matrix attributes instead, ie, your cap is (Program rating + unaugmented skill) x 2

[Exodus]

I maintain the rule that hacking and exploit programs degrade over time. This means the program must be modified to stay functional. If the player wants to play the idiot script kiddie , (or even funnier tries to make Log a dump stat because the player is "smart") then being a hacker gets REAL expensive as he has to frequently buy new exploit and stealth programs. If he's got a high logic then the programming test to fine tune the programs is easier.