How to make Shadowrun less bad

[RadiantPhoenix]

dont require the mage quality so everyone can branch out into magic

Sounds good to me.

[Username17]

what ADVANTAGE does keeping Rigging and Hacking completely separate give us? Why NOT make them the Tech spellcasting/conjuring split?

We've got plenty of folks saying their iconic set of archetypes is Samurai/Mage/Tech-guy; why not go ahead and make that official?

Every character needs to be able to contribute in basically three areas:

• Legwork
• Covert Action
• Combat Action

So every archetype you want to sell as one of your "main" archetypes, had fucking better be able to cover all three bases without venturing to other concepts. Of the original presented core archetypes, the Rigger, the Shaman, and the Mage can all do that. The other archetypes can't.

Bringing it forward to the later editions, you've basically got the Rigger, the Conjurer, and the Spellcaster who can cover all three bases without poaching abilities from other archetypes or taking secondary skills. Those archetypes don't need any more fucking abilities grafted onto them. if you merge the Hacker and the Rigger, you aren't "powering up the Hacker," you're powering up the Rigger. And they really don't need to be powered up. They really fucking don't.

Now, obviously you're going to want more core archetypes to present than just Spellcaster, Conjurer, and Rigger. You're at the very least going to want to present Street Samurai as a core archetype, and that necessitates figuring out something for them to do out of combat. They almost had that in 4th edition, but it wasn't super well defined. Put some character build advice about maximizing agility skills and perception and you'd pretty much be there. But the Hacker could easily be promoted to primary archetype as well, what with the fact that they already have clear covert phase and legwork phase utility and could simply have combat phase utility if the hacking rules happened to be usable.

Now some archetypes are going to end up having to stay secondary (only able to cover two phases without hybridization) or tertiary (only able to cover one phase without hybridization). Rocker, Bounty Hunter, Reporter, Weapons Expert, Smuggler, and Medic are all fine character concepts, but they are going to have to take a dip in one or two other jam jars if they want to be a fully functional character. However, there's no particular reason why Rigger, Hacker, Street Samurai, Spellcaster, or Conjurer should have to hybridize in order to be an effective character.

So why wouldn't you just grab two dedicated hackers instead of a hacker and a rigger, then?

Well, the Rigger is a mech pilot who also commands upwards of half a dozen military killbots. The Rigger doesn't need to be explained at all. If he is substantially benefited by having a hacker character provide electronic warfare defense, that's good for team synergy and making different characters feel wanted. But the guy who pilots a three tonne death machine that launches smaller death machines armed with chain guns pretty much justifies himself. The real question is why you'd want a Rigger and a Hacker instead of just having two Riggers and accepting that at any given moment some of your murderdroids wouldn't work. SR5 has no answer for that question, by the way. If you made hacking defense valuable enough, you could answer that question, but it still has to be asked.. But the question of why you wouldn't just pass on the metal gear? That's not a question that needs seriously response.

-Username17

[A Man In Black]

It's a skill based system that has soft rather than hard archetypes. If you want to play a Hacker/Street Sam or a Rigger/Face you are of course welcome to do that. You have to split your attributes, skills, and resources appropriately, but it can be done.

Yes. Exactly. I was proposing making them a synergistic whole, not a single inextricable archetype. It would go a long way to discourage people from making hackers who do nothing but pick locks and fuck with cyberware if rigging was, by default, part of the hacking package in the same way that magic is a whole tidy package that you can nonetheless only take parts of if you want. At the same time, emphasize that people who want to play Case are going to want some sort of combat competency and Rigging is right there, in the same way that you don't tell people to make a Face that doesn't have some sort of combat competency.

At some point, you're going to have to accept that fiction has lots of unplayable hackers who stay at home and don't contribute to the story except to occasionally jump in and solve one episode's problem or deliver exposition. Oracle is not a playable member of the Justice League. Arguing that they exist is not an argument to make them part of your game unless you're going to go full on Apocalypse World and make "hacking a thing" or "delivering exposition" actions on par with "win the setpiece fight".

[Lago PARANOIA]

Well, the Rigger is a mech pilot who also commands upwards of half a dozen military killbots. The Rigger doesn't need to be explained at all. If he is substantially benefited by having a hacker character provide electronic warfare defense, that's good for team synergy and making different characters feel wanted. But the guy who pilots a three tonne death machine that launches smaller death machines armed with chain guns pretty much justifies himself. The real question is why you'd want a Rigger and a Hacker instead of just having two Riggers and accepting that at any given moment some of your murderdroids wouldn't work. SR5 has no answer for that question, by the way. If you made hacking defense valuable enough, you could answer that question, but it still has to be asked.. But the question of why you wouldn't just pass on the metal gear? That's not a question that needs seriously response.

I'm not asking in the context of Shadowrun or TTRPGs. I'm asking from a metafictional perspective. It's like I'm asking 'why are clerics and warlocks separate classes with their own line of divergent support' and I get an answer of 'because one of them heals and the other mezzes'.

From an overall genre perspective -- especially once you start introducing futuristic electronics like in Star Wars -- the rigger looks like a completely subsumed subarchetype of the hacker. When you start lining up post-contemporary hackers who are supposed to be more competent than 'tenured computer scientist professor at IIT' inevitably they'll bust the tool in their toolbox that lets them hijack enemy vehicles or something equally ridiculous. It's just part of the archetype once we ascend past Hackers level.

So. If you're not going to give the rigger pilots ridiculous superpowers (not even a Charles Atlas one) and in your setting even mundane hackers already have the power to make computer systems -- which any self-respecting vehicle made after the 90s has -- their bitch, why would you not tell a pilot to just go fuck themselves and get a second hacker to control the vehicles? And don't give me a gameplay or balance reason as to why the archetypes are separate. What is the world-building reason why vehicle control isn't just another tool in the hacker archetype's tool? Especially considering that fictional super-hackers flat-out have vehicle control as a superpower when they aren't being blocked by enemy hackers and/or unimaginative authors?

[TheFlatline]

I really dont see the problem, rigging and hacking is tech stuff. Just a different specialisation.
Just like Conjuring and Spellcasting is magic stuff...

That is probably the dumbest possible way to look at something. You might as well be arguing that Street Samurai should all be Faces because it's all "physical stuff." It's just different skills, different attribute focuses, and different resource allocations. But other than that, it's exactly the same!


It's a skill based system that has soft rather than hard archetypes. If you want to play a Hacker/Street Sam or a Rigger/Face you are of course welcome to do that. You have to split your attributes, skills, and resources appropriately, but it can be done.

Hacking and rigging are synergistic because if you want to use drones effectively, you're going to want to prevent them from getting hacked.

Remember how I just said that Korwin's way of looking at things was about the dumbest way you could look at things? That's... still true. But you're giving him a run for his money.

Rigging and Ninjing are synergistic because if you want to use drones effectively, you're going to want to keep them from getting spotted by sentries or blown up with guns. Rigging and Facing are synergistic because if you want to use drones effectively, you're going to need access to rare and restricted equipment. And so on for every other archetype your system supports.

And this is wholly unsurprising, because it's a cooperative storytelling game, and the different archetypes are intended to be synergistic. The fact that a Rigger wants to have a Hacker or a Face on the team so much that he'd consider dabbling in those fields himself just to make sure there wasn't a hole in the team's capabilities is how things are supposed to work. The thing in SR5 where you can make a team of all mages and and bio-juicers and then just have everyone drop off of wireless and ignore enemy hackers entirely, that is a bug.

-Username17

A better argument for Hackers/Riggers merging is that they both use hot sim VR sensory override to interface with basically a computer program. In another setting/revisionist history I could see VR hacking being a fork off of rigging or vice versa.

But I get what you're getting at that Rigger is already baked to sufficient relevancy. But my point is that without a severe write-over of what hacking can do, it's gonna be rough to justify a pure hacking archetype.

Plus, merging hacking and rigging opens up yet another hole to throw XP down to keep you relevant to the rest of the party.

[Lago PARANOIA]

You're at the very least going to want to present Street Samurai as a core archetype, and that necessitates figuring out something for them to do out of combat. They almost had that in 4th edition, but it wasn't super well defined. Put some character build advice about maximizing agility skills and perception and you'd pretty much be there.

I'm seriously starting to wonder at this point whether it's possible to keep the Street Samurai as a preternatural but ultimately mundane archetype whose basic archetype package makes them the equal of a Mage or a Hacker. Maybe if you keep things at League of Extraordinary Gentlemen level, but once you introduce mechas or drone hordes or futuristic tanks that's when things start going pear-shaped. What if the Street Samurai archetype graduated to Guyver-style hardcases who could take down a squadron of Metal Gear Rexes/Rayes with a superkatana, completely cloak themselves from all but the most hardcore of sensors, and could emit pheremones that would short out electronics and mind-control people without a specific defense for it? And I do mean Guyver-level. Star Wars or even Ghost-in-the-Shell isn't going to cut it.

[Seerow]

So. If you're not going to give the rigger pilots ridiculous superpowers (not even a Charles Atlas one) and in your setting even mundane hackers already have the power to make computer systems -- which any self-respecting vehicle made after the 90s has -- their bitch, why would you not tell a pilot to just go fuck themselves and get a second hacker to control the vehicles? And don't give me a gameplay or balance reason as to why the archetypes are separate. What is the world-building reason why vehicle control isn't just another tool in the hacker archetype's tool? Especially considering that fictional super-hackers flat-out have vehicle control as a superpower when they aren't being blocked by enemy hackers and/or unimaginative authors?

There is a distinct difference between being able to gain access to the buttons to make the vehicle go, and being able to make the vehicle go well. The hacker can take over the vehicle, but he lacks the ware/skills to be an expert drone pilot. Now you can have a rigger who is also a hacker, but the gear and skills required for each are dramatically different. Being capable of finding exploits and whatnot does not automatically make you a great rigger.

[Lago PARANOIA]

There is a distinct difference between being able to gain access to the buttons to make the vehicle go, and being able to make the vehicle go well.

Is that so? While I'm sure that you could point to a ton of futuristic vehicle operators who can't actually hack, the archetype of a hacker that can't at least competently commandeer the robots/vehicles/whatever that they have hacked into pretty much doesn't exist. Which is to be expected, because the first thing the audience expects to hear when the hacker announces that he has control of the CPU of the giant mecha or spaceship he's hacked is to see said hacker use it to wreck shit.

[Username17]

Lago, can you name an instance in which a robot got commandeered by external hackers and didn't move all jerky? Because I seriously can't think of a single example. I can think of numerous examples where a person or robot defeats their former compatriots as soon as they get possessed or commandeered - but in every instance that appears to be either conservation of ninjitsu or the virtues of betrayal. I can't think of any examples where the hacked robot doesn't twitch and jerk to show that it has been hacked.

-Username17

[virgil]

Didn't Bender possess several robots, up to and including Robot God, in the Ghost in the Machines episode without physical impairment?

[Cyberzombie]

Well, the Rigger is a mech pilot who also commands upwards of half a dozen military killbots. The Rigger doesn't need to be explained at all. If he is substantially benefited by having a hacker character provide electronic warfare defense, that's good for team synergy and making different characters feel wanted. But the guy who pilots a three tonne death machine that launches smaller death machines armed with chain guns pretty much justifies himself. The real question is why you'd want a Rigger and a Hacker instead of just having two Riggers and accepting that at any given moment some of your murderdroids wouldn't work. SR5 has no answer for that question, by the way. If you made hacking defense valuable enough, you could answer that question, but it still has to be asked.. But the question of why you wouldn't just pass on the metal gear? That's not a question that needs seriously response.

If riggers can't hack, then they'd end up losing badly to a hacker, who basically crashes their drone control interface so they can't issue commands, then spoofs a bunch of commands to send the drones to kill each other, run full speed into walls or turn on the rigger and his team and blow them away.

You'd want to pass on the metal gear if you can't count on the thing not to shoot you in the back.

[Seerow]

Well, the Rigger is a mech pilot who also commands upwards of half a dozen military killbots. The Rigger doesn't need to be explained at all. If he is substantially benefited by having a hacker character provide electronic warfare defense, that's good for team synergy and making different characters feel wanted. But the guy who pilots a three tonne death machine that launches smaller death machines armed with chain guns pretty much justifies himself. The real question is why you'd want a Rigger and a Hacker instead of just having two Riggers and accepting that at any given moment some of your murderdroids wouldn't work. SR5 has no answer for that question, by the way. If you made hacking defense valuable enough, you could answer that question, but it still has to be asked.. But the question of why you wouldn't just pass on the metal gear? That's not a question that needs seriously response.

If riggers can't hack, then they'd end up losing badly to a hacker, who basically crashes their drone control interface so they can't issue commands, then spoofs a bunch of commands to send the drones to kill each other, run full speed into walls or turn on the rigger and his team and blow them away.

You'd want to pass on the metal gear if you can't count on the thing not to shoot you in the back.

If a street samurai can't counterspell, they'd end up losing badly to a mage, who basically one shots them or mind controls them to turn on their team and blow them away.

You'd want to pass on the metalhead if you can't count on him to not shoot you in the back.

[Cyberzombie]

If a street samurai can't counterspell, they'd end up losing badly to a mage, who basically one shots them or mind controls them to turn on their team and blow them away.

You'd want to pass on the metalhead if you can't count on him to not shoot you in the back.

Not the same, because the mage has to see the samurai to blast him with magic, and at that point the samurai can shoot the mage.

With rigger versus hacker, the hacker doesn't require line of sight, he can literally be anywhere in the corporate building, hiding in one of many offices and screwing you over so long as you (or any of your drones) are within signal range. The rigger (and likely the entire shadowrunner team) will end up dying without even knowing where the hacker was.

[Seerow]

If a street samurai can't counterspell, they'd end up losing badly to a mage, who basically one shots them or mind controls them to turn on their team and blow them away.

You'd want to pass on the metalhead if you can't count on him to not shoot you in the back.

Not the same, because the mage has to see the samurai to blast him with magic, and at that point the samurai can shoot the mage.

With rigger versus hacker, the hacker doesn't require line of sight, he can literally be anywhere in the corporate building, hiding in one of many offices and screwing you over so long as you (or any of your drones) are within signal range. The rigger (and likely the entire shadowrunner team) will end up dying without even knowing where the hacker was.

And that is the exact problem that needs to be fixed. Basement hackers who don't actually go out on runs are a problem, not something to be desired. And if they require LoS to do their thing, suddenly your entire objection goes away, and the team wanting a hacker there to act as a counter-hacker is no different from wanting a mage to act as a counter-mage. It's simply part of their team-support kit.

Sure, in a group where there is no hacker available, the rigger will be encouraged to pick up at least enough hacking to defend himself on the side. This however is not because hacking is a prerequisite to rigging, but because it is helpful to have a hacker around as a rigger. Most riggers will be perfectly happy having a hacker buddy keep his drones safe while he concentrates on what he does best.

[Cyberzombie]

And that is the exact problem that needs to be fixed. Basement hackers who don't actually go out on runs are a problem, not something to be desired. And if they require LoS to do their thing, suddenly your entire objection goes away, and the team wanting a hacker there to act as a counter-hacker is no different from wanting a mage to act as a counter-mage. It's simply part of their team-support kit.

I see hackers acting on things without LoS to be a unique class identity, not a problem that needs fixing (or in this case neutering). After all, that's the entire point of telecommunications, to be able to affect things at a distance, while not necessarily being able to see them. You can view camera feeds, control drones and do all kinds of stuff remotely. That's what makes a hacker a hacker. If you need line of sight, then you're operating on the same mechanics as the mage, and that's boring and nonsensical. Radio signals don't require line of sight. I can connect to my home network just fine without having line of sight to my wireless router.

I realize it's easier to balance if everyone's mechanics work exactly the same way and people can just duel in an arena Mortal Kombat style, but that's boring and a cheap way out. It just feels like 4E D&D all over again.

[Seerow]

And that is the exact problem that needs to be fixed. Basement hackers who don't actually go out on runs are a problem, not something to be desired. And if they require LoS to do their thing, suddenly your entire objection goes away, and the team wanting a hacker there to act as a counter-hacker is no different from wanting a mage to act as a counter-mage. It's simply part of their team-support kit.

I see hackers acting on things without LoS to be a unique class identity, not a problem. After all, that's the entire point of telecommunications, to be able to affect things at a distance, while not necessarily being able to see them. You can view camera feeds, control drones and do all kinds of stuff remotely. That's what makes a hacker a hacker. If you need line of sight, then you're operating on the same mechanics as the mage, and that's boring and nonsensical. Radio signals don't require line of sight. I can connect to my home network just fine without having line of sight to my wireless router.

If your class identity is "I don't go on runs, I send these other schlubs and support them when I feel like it", your "class" doesn't deserve to be a part of the game. At all. You are now an NPC while the real characters go out and have fun.

Also trying to use modern networking technologies to justify the way mechanics work for a game several technology generations ahead of us is stupid, and something I thought stopped being accepted around these parts literally years ago.

[Username17]

in SR5, Riggers can't hack and also laugh openly at Hackers. The Rigger's equipment redundancy by itself leaves the Hacker a sorry loser in that system. The Rigger doesn't even have a Sleaze stat and cannot engage in most hacking actions, but it doesn't fucking matter because the hacking in that system isn't good enough for the Rigger to give a shit. The syllogism is empirically false, because there exists a demonstrable case in which P & ~Q.

Even if we made Hacking sufficiently good that the Hacker had the advantage in a Hacker vs. Rigger confrontation, that still wouldn't be enough to conclude that a Hacker was even worth serious consideration as a team member. You'd have to compare how the Hacker did against all the other matchups, including matchups against opposition that is restricted to NPC security forces like "a kennel full of hell hounds" and such.

-Username17

[Cyberzombie]

If your class identity is "I don't go on runs, I send these other schlubs and support them when I feel like it", your "class" doesn't deserve to be a part of the game. At all. You are now an NPC while the real characters go out and have fun.

You realize that's the rigger's identity, right? He's the guy who remote controls a bunch of drones to go kill stuff for him. Unless you're going to require he has LoS to his drones too.

Every character except the samurai has some kind of remote attack. Riggers have drones, mages have spirits and hackers can hack remotely.

Also trying to use modern networking technologies to justify the way mechanics work for a game several technology generations ahead of us is stupid, and something I thought stopped being accepted around these parts literally years ago.

Flavor does matter, and when future tech is inferior to modern technology, yeah... it's going to cause logical issues.

I realize it's easier to balance the game using the 4E D&D paradigm of just dumbing everything down to a set of simple common mechanics. I don't think it's very fun or interesting to do that, and I think it's lazy design.

[kzt]

You'd have to compare how the Hacker did against all the other matchups, including matchups against opposition that is restricted to NPC security forces like "a kennel full of hell hounds" and such.

Well, I could argue that if the hacker is competent the door to the kennel never unlocks.

But equally, how does a mage, rigger or SS handle NPC security forces that track him by hacking cameras then call in bogus 911 calls to get a SWAT team to hit him again and again?

We can keep coming up with bizarre special cases, but bizarre special cases are hardly things that you want to design the game for.

[John Magnum]

A rigger takes his squad of a dozen grenade-launching flying robots and annihilates the entire SWAT team in a single initiative pass. Repeatedly. Done.

[Lokathor]

You'd have to compare how the Hacker did against all the other matchups, including matchups against opposition that is restricted to NPC security forces like "a kennel full of hell hounds" and such.

Well, I could argue that if the hacker is competent the door to the kennel never unlocks.

What if it's like, a sliding lock? Like a physical lock that you lift, slide, then open the door?

That's not even a bizarre special case, that's like a normal low-end security complex. Maybe not hell hounds, but just a group of bad ass dogs.

[Dean]

It's sounding more and more like the classes for Superior Shadowrun would be Mage, Shaman, Rigger and Runner (Street Samurai+Hacker). If hacking's 2 problems have been that they are disincentivized from being bodily present on runs and that they are lacking in combat actions and Street Samurai's problem is that while they are fine in combat they lack actions to take outside of combat then those two archetypes seem ideal to combine into one. If Street Samurai was built to incorporate hacking and to have their tech upgrades increase both their fighting and hacking abilities then it would be a sensible synergy to assume your Street Samurai will also be your teams hacking specialist. This would also stop Street Samurai's from being imagined as basic thugs and would allow the Street Samurai concept to level up into the big leagues more effectively.

You could name this class Runner, Operative, or just keep it named Street Samurai and quietly fold hacking into their skillset.

[DSMatticus]

I'm gonna say it: I like hacking. I want hacking to be a thing characters do in combat. It shows up in plenty of the source material both old and new and it's pretty fuggin' cool. I think limiting the hacker to a non-combat role that you graft onto a combat chassis is weaksauce. It very clearly doesn't have to be done and the loss of combat actions for hackers is genuinely unfortunate. Similarly, we have had entire threads about the stay at home hacker and it is a very much solved problem. And, again, the street sam does have non-combat roles. He is already the master cat-burglar and on-the-spot detective dude, by the happy accident of all the combat-boosting stuff also happening to boost those abilities. And you can play that up for even bigger gains with shit like CSI magnification eyes or whatever to really drive the point home and turn him into a walking forensics lab.

The street samurai investigates, cat burgles, and unleashes cyborg whoopass.

The rigger runs surveillance, handles getaways, and sicks drones on things.

The hacker runs data collection, tackles security systems, and fries brains.

We don't even have to talk about the mage - magic will undoubtably be able to justify its existence.

All of those work. They are complete. You can even mix and match a bit and crossover as synergy and resources allow. It's a solid setup. Shadowrun fails to reach it, but the failings are in the implementation and not the design.

[Username17]

I'm seriously starting to wonder at this point whether it's possible to keep the Street Samurai as a preternatural but ultimately mundane archetype whose basic archetype package makes them the equal of a Mage or a Hacker. Maybe if you keep things at League of Extraordinary Gentlemen level, but once you introduce mechas or drone hordes or futuristic tanks that's when things start going pear-shaped. What if the Street Samurai archetype graduated to Guyver-style hardcases who could take down a squadron of Metal Gear Rexes/Rayes with a superkatana, completely cloak themselves from all but the most hardcore of sensors, and could emit pheremones that would short out electronics and mind-control people without a specific defense for it? And I do mean Guyver-level. Star Wars or even Ghost-in-the-Shell isn't going to cut it.

In the long run, there may come a time in which characters go Super Sayyin. Paths to that are variously open to different characters.

• Rigger: If you plug into a sufficiently big machine, you are essentially sufficiently powerful. Give a Rigger a big enough giant robot, and they can fight a Great Dragon and win. Both conceptually, and in the rules, a Rigger can potentially grow to beat anything in the setting.
• Conjurer: Sufficiently high end spirits can cause earthquakes and storms that can level cities. If a conjurer advances in their art sufficiently, they are a weapon of mass destruction that can bring nations to their knees. Both conceptually, and in the rules, a Conjurer can potentially grow to beat anything in the setting.
• Sorcerer: High end sorcery exists in the setting, but there are no rules for it. Various characters have used "powerful ritual sorcery" to explode volcanoes and turn deserts into jungles. The things there are actually rules for pretty much top out at killing a dude from far away. In the rules, a sufficiently powerful Sorcerer can "kill a dude" even if that dude is a powerful dragon or something, but anything they do on the national scale is MC fiat because high end ritual rules have never existed in any edition.
• Hacker: Like the Sorcerer, a Hacker is conceptually able to commandeer nuclear missiles and shit, but there really hasn't been any rules for that. Conceptually, a Hacker can do pretty much anything that could be done by commandeering modern society, which in turn is pretty much anything. But the Hacking systems haven't actually worked and really haven't even tried to cover the high end possibilities in any edition.
• Face: Modern society in Shadowrun is pretty much by definition the most powerful thing, and if you can get a good enough leadership result you can make modern society do whatever you want. The super high end of Faciness is rather vague, but it's essentially as powerful as anything in the game can be. Conceptually and by the rules, a Face can be arbitrarily powerful. But you'll end up having to handwave most of it, because the charts don't go up that high and the guidelines are somewhat murky.

Now personally, I don't know that a cyborg ninja or adept ninja even conceptually has a super saiyan transformation available to them without going out of archetype and becoming a Hacker, Face, conjurer, or Rigger. I'm also not sure that's a problem. Firstly, because Shadowrun has actually managed to stagger along for decades without actually having any super saiyan rules for most of its archetypes. Simply not going that high is always an option. And secondly because the distance between starting characters and super saiyans is so much that I'm not sure that telling Adepts and Street Samurai that they have to multiclass by the time you're fighting entire countries is particularly unreasonable.

-Username17

[unnamednpc]

I don't know. Hiro Protagonist had a strap-on minigun that turned a whole frigate's worth of pirates into red mist in one combat round, well before hitting any sort of genre - intrinsic level cap.
I think if your Sam gets a set of really juiced up cybernetics and a tactical computer that lets him dodge the Rigger's death-fleet's artillery and take out tanks and dragons with his vibro-katana and armor-piercing prototype flechette guns, that would be enough to keep a Samurai player happy through the late - game. Throw in Batman's detective vision for super-sleuthing and some thermo-cloaking shebang and call it a day.
Maybe even let them have a squad of super-loyal clone-troopers.
They probably still won't be as individually powerful as the Face running for president or the Hacker who just mind-merged with Wintermute, but I'd wager for most players, the motivation to play a Sammy is that they want to smash things, and if you tell them that their endgame will be single - handedly deciding military engagements or having the epic throwdown with the bad guy's own mega cyborg to the backdrop of essentially the Rigger Black Book exploding around them, that would be good enough for them.