I'm still trying to figure out how the SPAS-12 and SPAS-15 (And Shadowrun's SPAS-22) are "Sporting Purpose". (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

Depends on how you define 'sport'.

Semi-Automatic Shotguns, for those really aggressive deer? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

"Special Purpose" is the other suggestion for the name. Both have been used, apparently. I'm not sure which is used officially, as it's an Italian company, and I can't even read French that well. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

Emphasis mine.

If your GM wants to allow you to buy a skill group at one, break it, then buy specs for the individual skills, that is his right. That pretty much ends the argument.

For quail hunters who need to bag their quota in one flush.

Or people hunting Awakened Dire Wolves ^_^

I second this.
After all, Automatics is the most versatile skill when it comes to the use of different weapon sizes (I agree on Heavy Weapons, but they are still damn huge!).
Pistols, on the other hand, are more handy when it comes to concealability and legal issues. Tasers are completely legal, after all. Pistols of most sizes won't raise as much suspicion as any automatic weapon, as said before.
A hacker with a small dicepool is unlikely to compensate for long bursts or fully automatic fire that good anyway, even with much recoil compensation (yet, also more of that possible for automatics).
Hackers also generally are not quite suited for large firefights and dodging/taking dozens of bullets. In such cases, I usually send drones in first. With my rigger, I will definitely go for a mix of the Pistols and Gunnery skills.
A little min/maxing advice on the side: The "semi-automatic" specialisation for Pistols is way useful, if you're allowed to use it for every semi-automatic pistol in the game. Food for thought (GMs, as well) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) .

Gas grenades and gas masks (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

Context matters. That's character creation rules. No such lines exist during character improvement. The rules, by RAW, don't make the allowance for a GM to allow you to break up a skill group at ANY TIME. Just during character creation.

It makes sense to allow it, though. I certainly would.

That's insane. Even if the GM couldn't already let you do literally anything at any time, it just says 'improved'; we're sure that adding a spec isn't 'improving'? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

Got to Agree here... Adding a Specialization IS improving, no doubt about that. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

It's not.

Pg270 - "In between adventures, players can learn new skills, improve existing ones, or master specializations."

Improving skills and specializations are differentiated.

Although it's not written, they can also hang out in strip clubs and get drunk.

...

Just saying.

Aren't there rules for intoxication?

...

Just saying.

I'm not saying that I agree with the rules in this instance. This is just how I interpret them and how I believe they are meant to be stated. Sometimes the rules are restrictive to the point where almost everyone agrees to lax restrictions somewhat.

Or they, you know, just interpret them differently... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Yep. AND STIs! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/vegm.gif)

Well, yeah, there is a difference between increasing the ranks in a skill and "mastering" a specialization. But' I'd say that both are improvements to the skill as far as being able to break a skill group goes. Otherwise we run into the situation where the guy who bought Firearms to rank 6 is permanently unable to specialize in any of them without getting the Aptitude quality and raising one of the individual skills to 7 first, and woe unto him if he already has the Aptitude quality for a skill not in Firearms. While the other guy who bought up the skills individually to 6 (say he went about mastering Pistols then Automatics, then Longarms) can then get specializations for each of the rank 6 skills if he feels like it.

I vote that all future sourcebooks be written in mathematical logic, instead of a subjective language, so as to avoid any confusion. Although that would make the books a little harder to read through.

I'm by no means a right to bear arms grognard, but as someone who hunts and knows shotguns the reasoning behind why people can't import a Franchi SPAS-12 is honestly a pretty moronic double standard. I say that because I already own a 12 gauge semi-automatic shotgun myself that was actually designed to keep more rounds at the ready than a SPAS-12 does. Why? Well, because it's convenient. I may not ever stick 6 rounds in the air at once, but it's not really unusual to take a couple shots in a row while hunting geese either. Really, the thing that makes SPAS-12s and similar dual action (Semi-auto & pump action-- Not even the SR SPAS is full auto) shotguns attractive to law enforcement and military groups is that the pump action is really nice if for whatever reason the weapon fails to cycle automatically, something that's fairly common with lower pressure rounds like beanbags and the like. Really, the biggest thing that hurts the Franchi is that politicians see it and think "Wow, it comes in Scary Black standard!". From a mechanical perspective, there's little reason why they couldn't just make Franchi owners use a magazine plug. It's what many of us are already having to do with other semi-automatic weapons.

"It looks militaristic" is a legitimate reason in the minds of gun control nuts. A bayonet lug is reason enough to claim a firearm is a "Military Weapon". Even if it's a bloody flintlock!

And now, back to skills and away from the politics.

Having improving skills and mastering specializations listed separately in one sentence doesn't imply that they're not both 'improving' in that *other* sentence, either. You could read it that way… if it were a document that went by that standard. We have ample evidence that it's not. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

If you want to get silly about it, it's talking about players, not characters. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

But seriously, adding a specialization is distinctly improving a skill. You're rolling more dice, you've gotten better at it. If specializations hurt you somehow, like they used to in SR2, then you might have a point.

I don't really care what RAW says in this instance; I go with common sense.

[Edit:] For the record, I consider common sense to be allowing a player to break groups after chargen.

As was discussed above, If you read under specializations (Page 84, 20th Ed.) it specifically says you can't specialize a skill group. So it comes down to whether you feel like what is said on Page 270, 20th Ed., under improving existing skills sub-heading Skill Groups, in fact does mean you break skill groups by adding something to one individual skill? I absolutely think you can break the group after creation, to do things like add specialties. Part of the point of character development that gaining experienced should represent would be getting better with those things the character uses everyday, and on every run.

Just my 2 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif)

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotfl.gif)