Tell them that. Preferably, at an event. I'll be there with popcorn. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

But like I said, bulldrek. I don't believe you when you say you know anything about hunting, period.


That's pistols. You're not likely to have an automatic hidden on your person, safe from the squatters pouring over your near-corpse.

Or Clubs. Or Knives. Or Unarmed. Or Running.

I suggest Running. Running is always good.

I'll have a machine pistol. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif) Why are you even in that situation?

I've said as much, at an NRA turkey shoot in Arkansas. Publicly. It's a target shooting event, not hunting. I didn't get a whole lot of disagreement, except from a couple of heavy guys that looked like they hadn't stalked a kill in their lives. They had nice fancy guns, though.

To me it ain't hunting unless you're deep in the woods for hours and hours. And you can't effectively stalk prey in a group larger than, say, 4. You just can't.



-k

Because you brought a holdout pistol to an assault rifle fight, obviously.

I make it a point to not argue with a group with more heavy armament than the Tijuana National Guard. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/cool.gif)

On a more serious note, who's to say what is and isn't hunting? Our modern definition was largely classified by Hemmingway. Why shouldn't the new definition come from the NRA? To put it in Shadowrun terms, with paracritters becoming more powerful, why wouldn't hunting with heavy weapons be considered more acceptable?

Eh, I'm a member of that group. Although admittedly since moving I've let my membership lapse to the free Associate level.

"What is hunting" is something debated regularly in the association. Some feel like I do, some don't.

I personally have no problem with target shooting. It's fun. I just don't consider it hunting.

Then again, one reason for the "it's all hunting!" argument is to justify having all sorts of weapons in civilian ownership. I don't tend to buy the need for that, as it's my opinion that the right to own firearms goes far beyond mere hunting.

Then again, I've been unpopular in gun groups because I espouse safety training as a requirement for a gun license - you want a weapon, fine, but you damn well better have training in it's use and safety.




-k

Your Mistake, not mine.

Well... my dad can beat up your dads!

Most versatile firearms skill for non-shooting characters has got to be the firearms group. Otherwise, autos.

P.s. Just because you don'thave a pistol skill, doesn't mean you can't carry one as backup.

Heh... Interesting Take, especially for a Non-Shooting Character... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)



This is very true indeed...

That's quite an investment for a non-shooting character, though. Picking up a level or two of pistols + spec is the same or cheaper and gives greater benefit.

Gunnery rules all, but when you can't bring a vehicle with you, I'd say pistols for black trenchcoat, automatics for pink mohawk.

Bah, i stand by my opinion:

Let one dude have have "Heavy Weapons".
He carries:
two MGL-6 grenade pistols akimbo, airburst link. Frag and neurostun. For personal defense BWAHAHA, sorry.
A Panther, Thunderstruck or similar for sniping and against heavy single targets.
an Ares White-Knight for multiple squishies or surpressing fire.

Ah hell, you know what let us just prop the White Knight as an underbarral weapon onto the assault cannon. (Is it smaller...?) YEAH for insanity.

And if something tries to get away... run to the car, pop up the trunk, get the Vogeljäger out and shoot them down with an intelligent "Inferno Missile"

All this destruction with just one skill.

Seriously though: Heavy Weapons easily beats "Longarms" and "Automatics" in their respective specialities AND provides are damage AND indirect fire AND intelligent fire-and-forget weaponry. Just concealment isn't really in there.

For a Hacker looking to be decent at backup combat, Pistol skill all the way. The pack a Taser. They are insanely good.

Of course, Sns is banned in my games, so I appreciate it more.

Yeah, tasers are wonderful when SnS isn't available. I also fixed the electricity rules to be less OP (and more KISS to boot):

I can see his logic, but that mostly because I don't feel the rules allow you to take specializations for skills in a skill group unless you have independently raised that skill outside of the group. I don't think the wording is there to support it, nor do I think the fluff of skill groups even makes allowances for specialization. How can you specialize in something when you've dedicated your time to learning a broad range.

By RAW, you can break a skill group at any time the GM allows. If you choose to do so at chargen, and the GM is cool with it, you can get a group and then specialize for cheap.

Where does it say that? The only line I could find about breaking up a skill group was on page 84 and 270 of SR4a.

During Char-gen
Pg 84 - "Skill groups may not be broken up into individual skills for further improvement and specializations may not be taken for skill group skills at character creation--although, as always, individual gamemasters are free to allow this option."

After Char-gen
Pg 270 - "If a character improves any skill in a skill group individually instead of improving the group, the remaining skills are treated as individual skills with individual levels from that point--in other words, the skill group no longer exists."

There are also numerous statements in the book that specializations are not allowed for skill groups.

Page 84 leads me to to no other conclusion that the GM allowed to break up a skill group at character generation is only to allow you to take, for example, Firearms 3 with Longarms 5 during character creation. At that point, you're allowed to take specializations since you're considered to have the individual skills.

The only way to break up a skill group is to raise one skill up out of it.

It specifically says "individual gamemasters are free to allow this option", and Cain said "any time the GM allows"/"the GM is cool with it". Sounds like a match to me. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

"Any time" isn't the same as "at character creation". It's certainly not the same as "when you raise a skill outside of the skill group".

That GM may allow quote is pretty much solely for the reason at character creation it isn't unlikely that past experiences may have lead a character from generalization. In other words, it's treating the character as a fluid entity rather than a static one at character creation. The rules are pretty clear. The only way to break up a skill group is to raise a skill outside of the group. At that point you may then start gaining specializations in those skills.

… except for also whenever the GM allows. Duh. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) No one's saying it RAW, but you can't possible deny that the GM can do it, exactly as the rules suggest.

I'm just going to go out on a limb here and suggest that "any time the GM allows it" means "any time the GM damn well pleases because he's running this show." It's like the short form or something.

I'd probably allow it, for example. The real optimizers wouldn't be investing in multiple Firearms skills anyway. For other groups, it might be more abusive, but I'd generally be happy for the generalizing.

By my reading, it says that during character creation you can't do Firearms group 4, then raise Automatics to 6 without GM consent, or take that Firearms 4 and then stick the spec hold-out on pistols, unless the GM says you can.

In the After Char-gen area it says that anytime you improve a skill from a group (I'd count specializing in something as improving) the group no longer exists. So instead of Firearms 4 you have Automatics 4, Longarms 4 and pistols (Hold-outs+2) 4. I'd say you could still raise it as a group, since they are all the same rank, but you would lose the spec in the process.

That all seems fair. The group rules *are* (apparently) intended to preclude abuse, but GM approval exists for a good reason. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)