It's come up in games i've played in the past so I decided to ask what you guys thought. When targeting someone's head with a Called Shot it seems like two things happen:

1) you're targeting a vital area. That's pretty obvious. I'd say it's probably a +4 DV, -4 dice pool mod.

2) you're also targeting a less protected area. So really you're effectively bypassing armor as well, aren't you? Granted if they have a helmet they have +2/+2 (military) and cyber skull enhancements, Dermal Plating or Orthoskin they get those bonuses.

The problem I see is that it would seem like you would have to apply BOTH the Bypass Armor called shot and the Increase Damage called shot at the same time. That's effectively what's happening. Since this came up I've pretty much ruled you don't get to pick " i shoot their vulernable head for extra damage" option, but only because we've agreed doing so would be cheating the Called Shot rule out of the intended balancing negatives.

Has this been a problem for other people?
Am I interpreting this wrong to begin with?
How have you handled this in YOUR games?

You never make a "called shot to the head" you make a "called shot to a vulnerable spot" or a "called shot to bypass armor." The description of it is purely narrative.

You might want to allow a character to make both called shots at once by combining the dice pool penalties, but that would be a house rule.

My group generally ignores the called shot rules unless the situation calls for it. Called shots left and right aren't very realistic, at least not in the eyes of my group. A more cinematic game where the professional assassin always drops one right between the eyes would be run differently.

-4 dice for +4 DV never happens, because the vast majority of the time there's no reason for the gunbunny not to take that option. There's also the "their gunbunnies can do it to you" side of it that makes my group not use it.

Bypassing armor is rarely used because unless you're intent on dealing physical damage instead of stun there's not really a reason to do it. Lowering your odds of hitting is generally not worth it when you're just lowering their odds of soaking. If you miss because of it they don't have to soak anyway.

Bypassing vehicle armor to hit a target might be usable, but it would be incredibly rare, since most armored vehicles are designed to protect their occupants and don't generally leave gaping holes to be shot through.

About the only called shots that happen with our group are the ones for special effects, and even those are exceedingly rare. Normally you're just interested in dropping the opponent.

1. Shadowrun uses a very abstract damage system.
2. It does not use 'hit zones' or such stuff.

3. Though the rule doesn't state it very clearly, calling a shot has you use at least one 'Take Aim' Action. That Action does not add any additional boni aside from those of the Called Shot itself. Additional 'Take Aim' Actions can be used for aiming. That means at least halved firing rate.

-> Called Shots are neither too weak nor too strong, and usually crop up rarely, so why all that mess around them ?

My quick & dirty as a GM if a player wanted to double up the effects I'd say double up the modifiers too: SO bypass the armor and take the extra damage, take the -4 dice + the -Balisitc Armor Rating Dice, Good Luck

Now that I think more on it - what is the point of having the two options!?

Granted, you 'might' be able to use the one removing armor for nonlethal purposes over lethal ones, but that's the only thing I can fathom - the 4/4 system is ultimately superior - give up 4 dice for an instant +4 to your DV.

Even if it's against an armored tank, you're technically still better off with the 4/4 option. You lose dice equal to the armor you're ignoring, yes? What's the point in killing all that armor when you're stuck with a few or no dice at all? short of using the take aim option (which works with 4/4 anyways), it seems to shout 'useless'.

Maybe it'd be better to have a thread going "When is reducing armor dice better than getting +4 to damage value? heh....I tried to defend the second option...but halfway into typing, I realized 'what the hell.....I don't know how to defend THAT!" XD

- - -

Of course, later examination gives me ONE reason so far as to why you'd try and negate the armor - it might allow you to turn stun into real damage if you're not having to deal with the armor. That's the best theory I've got so far.

what others have said--you can't make a called shot to the head. you can make a called shot for a specific effect (bypass armor, increase damage), and then describe it as being a shot to the head, but you can't actually, in the rules, call a shot to the head.

the 4/4 rulles is rather good for the shoter.It means that if he hits he hits harder. Still he will miss more time, but each hit is more deadly.

If I remove four dice form my pull I lose maybe 2 hits. If I add 4 to my DV they need at elast 8 more dice to not take a wound. It is a gamble withc you use to kill trolls but not elves basicly.

Once instance where bypassing armor is useful is if your gun is too weak to deal P damage to them, and you have the skill to sacrifice to bypass the armor and guarantee dealing some P damage (instead of having your damage changed over to stun by their armor rating). Beyond this, 4/4 is always better.

Calling shots to bypass armor is probably related to shooting chemicals, like the supersquirt in SR3. Assumedly we can expect the same for SR4 soon. In these cases, the extra successes of the shooter have no bearing on the effectiveness of the chemical, but the target's armor does, so losing successes to decrease armor makes sense.

Calling shots to bypass armour can be quite effective when the person wearing armour has a low body. By significantly reducing their soak pool you increase the odds of actually doing damage to them. Of course increasing the damage dealt by 4 is still probably a better option. As far as making a called shot to bypass armour and hit a vulnerable spot IIRC you can only benefit from the effects of one called shot at a time. Usually when I GM I describe the results of the attack with flavour text, so if my gunbunny has called a shot to bypass armour and done enough damage to kill his opponent then sure, he's shot him in the head and left a pretty spray of blood in the air. If the shot was called to reduce armour and the NPC still has health boxes left I might describe it as a glancing blow to the head or a gut shot or a crippling shot to the left knee or somesuch.

Helmets provide much more armor than their stated bonus. Notice that the helmet has an armor value of +2/+2, not "2/2 with regards to only the head." The +2/+2 refers to the armor rating for the entire body. If full body armor is 10/8, and the helmet is constructed to match it, then shouldn't the helmet provide the same level of resistance as the armor? Additionally, doesn't the head comprise only a certain percentage of the overall body (target) area? So a fully armored 12 points, versus the 10 for the armor without the helmet would be the difference between 100% of the body covered and 84% of the body covered (which is the difference between ratings of 12 and 10).

In short, regardless of any other decisions you make concerning the rules for head shots, a shot that simply targets a helmeted head would not be able to bypass armor.

Note about helmets: Modern helmets were not designed to stop bullets. They were originally designed to prevent head trauma from shell fragments of artillery, which have different ballistic qualities than bullets. The modern US military helmet can deflect a bullet, but it can't deflect a direct hit.

Link

But when you get down to it, you can't make any game perfect but to me a helmet would have a higher impact than ballistic.

I think helmets were originally designed to allow a soldier to distinguish friend from foe, and only more gradually developped into protective devices. Still, I'm not going to argue with you about a bullet being able to pass through a helmet.

Thing is, the armour rules are abstracted anyway.

Since the PASGT helmet is rated NIJ level II, it can stop direct bullet hits -- but only from <=medium caliber handguns. Plenty of military helmets these days are rated III-A, which means they will defeat several hits with most .44 Magnum loads. Assault rifles can still penetrate, of course, but the fact is that helmets are used for their bullet stopping ability -- witness helmet use in SWAT teams and similar law enforcement units, who are unlikely to run into artillery.

Thus spaketh the man with the guns.

I'm not going to argue... he has GUNS!

One of the reasons to have a helmet capable of stopping pistol-caliber rounds in the military is the fact that after a 7.62x39mm round goes through a cinderblock, brick, or the side of your humvee, it's going to have different ballistics than right out of the muzzle. It may have ricocheted, deformed, decelerated, or tumbled sideways when it hits you in the helmet, and the helmet could very well stop it under those conditions.

That, and adding a few pounds of ceramic onto your helmet to get it up to Class IV is going to give anyone wearing it for any significant period of time a sore neck... which will lead to a lot of squaddies choosing not to wear their helmets.

And since the rules state "helmet" instead of a particular make and model it is all academic. A called shot the face on the other hand....

Yeah, but wouldn't it much simpler if SR was more abstract? Life is so much easier without hit zones.

I'm reading the pg. 137 rule as : You can only call a shot if you spent (at least) one 'Take Aim' Simple Action. The effect of Called Shot replaces the effect on the mandatory Take Aim Action (as with using Image Magnification)."

Of course this is just an interpretation, though one that's balanced - so I'm giving FanPro/WKGames the benefit of doubt and postulate it the way they intended it
Fortunately my players agreed - even the gunbunnies.

Neither can I see a reason you couldn't call Unarmed Shots - the way it is mentioned with each category in a different way looks like a typical 'radical new edition - one hand has no clue of the other one's actions'-slipup ... 'pretty much of them with SR4 - the number of rules that need clarification or errata is somewhere in the three-digit-range.

Llemelyn's quote pretty much sums it up, you can follow a Call Shot action with a Fire Weapon action, so the Take Aim action must be optional.

Not necessarily, as the second rule indicates that you Call a Shot after Take Aim - you can just use additional Take Aim actions after Call Shot to gain the benefit of Aiming.

So it does NOT have to be optional, in fact both reading of the rule are valid - or house rules. The basic rule itself does not say either.

So the order would be :
Take Aim (mandatory, simple) -> Call Shot (mandatory, free) -> [additional Take Aim] -> Fire.

"Can," the word used in the Call a Shot section, indicates a choice.

Yes, the choice of a Called Shot instead of normal targeting benefits.
Not necessarily the choice of having to take a Take Aim action to use Called Shots.

But the way it is written, you can read it both ways.

I have been allowing the use of called shots whenever, but restricting people to using it following a take aim action seems like a pretty good idea to me. It makes a sort of intuitive sense to me. Although, then you can offset the called shot penalty with the Take Aim action... hmmm... this needs some thought.

Guess what? you can say it over and over and it won't change anything. Whether it's actually an interpretation or a house rule, when someone is convinced of one and has the perception of vagueness on their side, repetition won't change anything.

Can't remember reading any specific rules for crippling limbs.

Anyone have any house rules suggestions.

Other than the extra DV is done to the limb and the rest of the body takes the non-increased amount.

The called shots for special effects are all that's there. Perhaps 1/2 the damage is dealt to the person's condition monitor and the other half applies penalties strictly for that limb?

So if you call a shot to slow someone down and hit for 6 damage they'll take 3 and have -3m speed and -3 to movement related dice pools (such as athletics and dodge).

The flavor text description for that one would be "you hit him in the leg" but it isn't actually a called shot to the leg, it's a called shot for special effect. this leaves it a bit more open for the GM. The usual response will be that you hit him in the leg, but perhaps if you do 1 net damage, for no physical and a -1 penalty, the description could be that you shot a hell off his boot while aiming for his foot, or shot his belt off, or whatever has the appropriate level of realism vs. cinematics for your group.