Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Take Aim and Called Shot
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
MadDogMaddux
How many rounds can a character take aim and still have stacking bonuses?


Called Shot: To avoid armor means -Armor Factor to the To-Hit pool. This is to simulate armor chinks, etc. What about called head-shots when the target is not wearing a helmet?

Seems to me that a character wearing an 8/6 Armored Jacket and a character wearing a 6/6 armored vest both have equal chance of getting hit in the pate when thus targetted.
IvanTank
From BBB (p. 137)
"The maximum number of sequential Take Aim actions a character may take is equal to one-half the character's skill with that weapon, rounded down."

Called shot is generally considered broken.
Butterblume
QUOTE (MadDogMaddux)
How many rounds can a character take aim and still have stacking bonuses?

I believe half skill rating, rounded down.

QUOTE
Called Shot: To avoid armor means -Armor Factor to the To-Hit pool. This is to simulate armor chinks, etc. What about called head-shots when the target is not wearing a helmet?

Probably discussed to death, but since you are new to shadowrun: the rules don't allow a called headshot. Which brings me to:
QUOTE
Seems to me that a character wearing an 8/6 Armored Jacket and a character wearing a 6/6 armored vest both have equal chance of getting hit in the pate when thus targetted.

Logically that would make sense. Ruleswise, wearing nothing but a pair of heavily armored boots would protect your head (there are no hit-zones in SR). Trust me on this: just go with the rules instead of trying to fix this particular issue, if you don't want to rewrite the entire combat rules.
Chandon
The called shot rules are very powerful as is. The whole "head shot to bypass armor" mechanic has been extensively analyzed since probably before SR2 and adding it seriously warps the game - basically it creates a new combat system based on headshots that would need to go through playtesting again from the beginning. And, at that point, you might as well implement a hit location system like in Classic Deadlands.

The "take a penalty equal to their armor rating to bypass their armor" rule is a reasonable compromise that doesn't give up the no-hit-locations combat abstraction while still allowing players to make flavorful (and sometimes mechanically advantageous) called shot declarations.

If you really want to exploit called shots, use the -4 dice for +4 damage value rule. That's ultra-broken.
Lord Ben
Spec-ops people regularly practice head shots in hostage rescue missions and whatnot. The fact of the matter being that the head is a very lethal part of the body to hit and really in close quarters combat it's not THAT big or hard to hit for a very skilled marksman.

I personally like the fact that it's lethal to do the -4 dice and +4DV. Anyone with enough dice to spare is going to be a force to be reckoned with and firefights are very deadly.

I can see how if you want your game to be less lethal or you want to regularly get into gunfights with pro's, or if you're a GM who wants the fights to last longer so his NPC's survive that the rules don't work.

If your NPC is standing in the middle of the street firing his weapon I'm taking the headshot with EX. If you want NPC's to survive better keep driving, fast too, and keep your body mostly behind the armored door while shooting. Then I have to waste a round loading AP and dodging.
Fortune
QUOTE (Lord Ben)
If your NPC is standing in the middle of the street firing his weapon I'm taking the headshot with EX.

And that's quite valid ... as long as you don't mind when the GM does the exact same thing to the PCs.
mfb
i've never minded. encourages smarter tactics.
SL James
Are you calling me dumb, boy?
Garrowolf
Actually I was just thinking about the opposite. What KEEPS people from doing head shots all the time.

For one maybe doing the head shot requires a certain base skill. Say you can't take a penalty to do something that is higher then your skill -1. So it wouldn't be until skill 5 that people are taking head shots with a -4 penalty. (ie at skill 1 you aren't good enough to compensate for ANY penaties by choice)

Or maybe some sort of composure or professional rating on top of that. Basically unless you are calm enough in a life or death situation to sit there and take aim then you can only make general target shots.

This way you don't have to worry about gangers doing head shots all the time but you really worry about the calm professional more.


You could also not increase the damage value but reduce the Body dice to resist. Basically make Body dice penalties the effect of hitting vitals.You can't buck up and take it as easily.

Cain
The called shot rules aren't just broken, they're horrifyingly game-breaking.

Here's my classic example: Mr. Lucky needs to take out the Citymaster chasing their van, so he aims through the window at the driver. (Specifically aiming at a passenger, pg 162, not a called shot yet.) He's using an AVS (8P-f), and our modifiers are as follows: -2 recoil, -3 extreme range, -3 for being seriously Wounded, -3 for being in a moving vehicle, -6 for his target having total cover, -1 for his cover, and -2 for the light rain. To top this all off, he calls a shot to bypass the armor of both the vehicle and the driver. Assuming the driver was in heavy armor with helmet, that's an additional -12, and then we factor in the Citymaster's armor of 20. That's a total dice pool penalty of -52. It could be worse than that-- Mr Lucky might not have a pistols skill at all-- but it's largely irrelevant, since there's absolutely no way he's going to have a positive dice pool. He now spends a point of Edge. 8 Edge = 2.66 successes, which rounds up to 3. The driver can't use his vehicle skill to dodge, since he was specifically targeted; and he requires a Perception test at -6 to even notice that he's been hit. Assuming that the driver has a body of 3 (his armor has been bypassed, so the AP penalty of the flechette round does not apply), he'll be taking an 11P wound, and will likely score 1 success-- not enough, he'll be taken out instantly. The vehicle will now need to make a crash test: it has a threshold of 3, using a Pilot of 3, and a handling penalty of -1. It fails, crashes, and likely kills everyone inside.
Jack Kain
You can't ignore the armor for the vehicle while the guy has total cover from it. Its physically impossible. Thats like taking a called shot to ignore wall between you and your target.
The problem with that example is leting edge being rolled in full dispite his skill being so far in the red. Edge an add dice as I understand but if your penalties are at negative -52 it won't work.
Thyme Lost
QUOTE (Jack Kain)
You can't ignore the armor for the vehicle while the guy has total cover from it. Its physically impossible. Thats like taking a called shot to ignore wall between you and your target.


The problem with that example is leting edge being rolled in full dispite his skill being so far in the red. Edge an add dice as I understand but if your penalties are at negative -52 it won't work.

While I agree with your first point, you can't Call Shot to Ignore the armor of the car.

I don't agree with your second point. "Long Shots" Page 55 and page 67, BBB. If your Dice pull is zero or negative, you can spend an edge and get your edge poll in dice, WITHOUT the RULE of Six.

The whole point of the Long Shot, is that it doesn't matter how negative your dice pool is, you will have a shot, IF you spend edge.

Thyme
hyzmarca
QUOTE (Thyme Lost)
QUOTE (Jack Kain @ Nov 19 2006, 11:38 PM)
You can't ignore the armor for the vehicle while the guy has total cover from it. Its physically impossible. Thats like taking a called shot to ignore wall between you and your target.

While I agree with your first point, you can't Call Shot to Ignore the armor of the car.


Of course you can. You just shoot through an open window or do some crazy ricochet maneuver through an air vent..
Thyme Lost
QUOTE (hyzmarca)
QUOTE (Thyme Lost @ Nov 20 2006, 03:21 AM)
QUOTE (Jack Kain @ Nov 19 2006, 11:38 PM)
You can't ignore the armor for the vehicle while the guy has total cover from it. Its physically impossible. Thats like taking a called shot to ignore wall between you and your target.

While I agree with your first point, you can't Call Shot to Ignore the armor of the car.


Of course you can. You just shoot through an open window or do some crazy ricochet maneuver through an air vent..

I'll give ya "Shot through an open window".
Air Vent... Sorry... I don't buy that... If some GM wants to allow that... sure... but not me...


Thyme
PlatonicPimp
QUOTE (Jack Kain)
You can't ignore the armor for the vehicle while the guy has total cover from it. Its physically impossible. Thats like taking a called shot to ignore wall between you and your target.
The problem with that example is leting edge being rolled in full dispite his skill being so far in the red. Edge an add dice as I understand but if your penalties are at negative -52 it won't work.

It's called a longshot test. It's a special rule that says if a dice pool is reduced to zero by penalties, you cannot make the check at all. But if you spend a point of edge, you can roll your edge dice.

In essence, penalties never reduce a dice pool to less than zero, and edge dice are added to the dice pool after all penalties are subtracted.
Ryu
Would you require GM approval for long-shot tests? The campaign could become very cinematical if the player can roll his edge anytime he wants. Not that anyone in my group dared bring an edge 8 character so far.
PlatonicPimp
No, using edge for a function specifically outlined as a valid use for edge does not require GM approval.

Yes, it can allow the game to get cinematic. Thats what the rule is there for.
Lord Ben
In nearly all situations you'd be correct. But no way in hell would I allow it to work for a -52 penalty. That's stupid. That kind of cinematic shit doesn't belong in any Shadowrun game I'd make.

It'd make it totally possible to do impossible things as long as the dice mechanic for the impossible thing reduced your pool of dice instead of increased the threshhold. I DON'T think that's what the rule is for.
Cain
QUOTE
You can't ignore the armor for the vehicle while the guy has total cover from it. Its physically impossible. Thats like taking a called shot to ignore wall between you and your target.

Technically, you *can*; just call it a crazy richochet or "magic bullet" type of shot. However, this does underscore yet another need to houserule or excise the called shot rules.

QUOTE
In nearly all situations you'd be correct. But no way in hell would I allow it to work for a -52 penalty. That's stupid.

So where do you draw the line? I made my example exaggerated on purpose, but there's a serious point to be made. Would you stop it at -40? What about -20? Except then, you're cutting off a legit, by-the-book tactic of trying to bypass the armor on a Citymaster (with a laser-guided missile, let's assume).

The example I offered is a legitimate, if highly exaggerated, example of how the called shot and Edge rules combine to produce crazy examples. It's not any worse than another example in it's practical effect.
Thyme Lost
Long Shot test might not need the GM to say OK.
The GM DOES need to ok a Called Shot.
QUOTE ("Page 149 BBB")
When a shot is called, either of the following may occur, at
the playerís choice and with the gamemasterís agreement.


You CAN NOT Called Shot to ignore Armor, without the GM saying you can, by BBB.

Thyme Lost

SL James
You know why they call it GM Fiat? Because it's as worthless and unreliable as the car.
MadDogMaddux
BBB?
Aemon
I think you can attain cinematic flare without crossing the line of stupidity. There are some circumstances that simply cannot be achieved and often, these are required by the Gamemaster in order to ensure game balance, or perhaps plot progression.

Ultimately, what you are suggesting is that if my Shadowrunner has a mission to whack some guy in Seattle and I know he's within 2km of my present position, I can fire a random shot up into the air, spend an Edge and roll my edge pool to see if my bullet miraculously lands on his head when it comes back down.

That is Stupid.

My experience with tabletop games - ANY table top game - is that there is no rule that supersedes the golden rule. And that is that the GM makes the rules.
Fortune
QUOTE (MadDogMaddux @ Nov 21 2006, 06:51 AM)
BBB?

The 'core rulebook' of the current (or alternately edition-appropriate if the discussion is SR1-SR3-related) edition of the Shadowrun game. wink.gif

It originally stood for 'Big Blue Book' in reference to the color of the first Shadowrun book. It was changed with the advent of SR2 to 'Big Black Book' to reflect that edition's color change, and that monicker was kept through SR3 because, well the basic color scheme was still black, so it just made sense.

Fuck knows what the actual letters stand for in relation to SR4, but I'm sure someone has put a lot of thought into it. biggrin.gif
Triggerz
Big Black Book... It refers to the core SR4 book, otherwise known as the (SR4) "Bible".

EDIT: Damn! Beaten to it! Hey, Fortune... Are you already up or not yet in bed? I think we're in the same time zone (give or take one, I think).
IvanTank
stands for "big black book". no, i don't know why. the book i not black.
Geekkake
QUOTE (IvanTank @ Nov 20 2006, 03:49 PM)
stands for "big black book".  no, i don't know why.  the book i not black.

Legacy term, previous edition corebooks were black.

Re: the Longshot rules being broken issue... Personally, it doesn't really affect my group. We don't do shit like Cain's example, or Aemon's. Unless, of course, it was for humor purposes, and wouldn't break the current situation. Furthermore, such a flagrant rules abuse would just end up turning against the player in some way or other, most likely with the GM using the same, broken tactic as an object lesson. Or, if it were me GMing, the Citymaster would veer into a gas station or flammable equivalent, toasting everyone in the area, or maybe the mayor's nephew's house, depending on the neighborhood. You get the idea.

However, I understand that these are non-mechanical solutions my group uses, which doesn't address the fundamental, mechanical problem. Nevetheless, I submit to you: Is it really that big of a deal? If you don't like use it as a way to do outrageous shit to break the game, and other people in your group do, you should probably form new groups.
Fortune
Beat you both nyahnyah.gif
Fortune
QUOTE (Triggerz)
Fortune... Are you already up or not yet in bed? I think we're in the same time zone (give or take one, I think).

Been up for a couple of hours. I don't sleep much. biggrin.gif

I's in Sydney, listening to the garbage men.
Fortune
QUOTE (Geekkake)
previous edition corebooks were black.

SR1 was blue. wink.gif
Geekkake
QUOTE (Fortune)
QUOTE (Geekkake @ Nov 21 2006, 07:52 AM)
previous edition corebooks were black.

SR1 was blue. wink.gif

Don't try to correct me, Mr. Fancy Pants "I Have a Memory" Guy!
James McMurray
Wow, folks actually let Cain drag them into another Mr. Lucky discussion? There's already been several threads explaining under what circumstances Mr. Lucky is broken (and they all require a GM with no stones and a campaign with fast edge refresh rates).

And, in his (Cain's, not Lucky's) usual fashion he presents a poor case. The example given is not a problem with the called shot rules. A -52 penalty in that situation is certainly a balanced rule. The problem arises from the longshot test being used, not the called shot rules.
lorechaser
QUOTE (Aemon)
Ultimately, what you are suggesting is that if my Shadowrunner has a mission to whack some guy in Seattle and I know he's within 2km of my present position, I can fire a random shot up into the air, spend an Edge and roll my edge pool to see if my bullet miraculously lands on his head when it comes back down.

That is Stupid.

Correction: That is awesome (in the Emo sense).

I can just imagine that. All the runners line up. "Everyone have a full edge pool?" "YUP!" "Bob, you have a camera on the target?" "Yup!"

"Okay, Mystic Mel, fire your gun!" *rolls edge* "Anything Bob?" "Nope." "Okay, try again!"

*repeat ad nauseum*

"Well, he's still standing. See you guys here next week, after Edge refreshes!"
Butterblume
Sad thing is, some people try to play this way.
James McMurray
SR4 was built with the assumption that the GM would use his GM-ness. If you ignore that aspect and adopt an "anything goes" policy then you can't complain about the repercussions. Heck, some folks might even have fun taking it to that extreme. If so, more power to them.
Geekkake
QUOTE (James McMurray)
SR4 was built with the assumption that the GM would use his GM-ness. If you ignore that aspect and adopt an "anything goes" policy then you can't complain about the repercussions. Heck, some folks might even have fun taking it to that extreme. If so, more power to them.

I was trying to come up with a proper way to say much the same thing. I prefer the system to be a functional vehicle for a competent group (namely, mine), than a steelshod, straightjacket monstrosity that results in entire sessions of vague rules arguments.

However, for those who play with unruly or exploitative players, whatever the reason, I can see why they'd want more canon controls. Furthermore, I don't think that kind of control is available in SR4 as written.
Triggerz
QUOTE (Fortune @ Nov 20 2006, 03:54 PM)
QUOTE (Triggerz @ Nov 21 2006, 07:48 AM)
Fortune... Are you already up or not yet in bed? I think we're in the same time zone (give or take one, I think).

Been up for a couple of hours. I don't sleep much. biggrin.gif

I's in Sydney, listening to the garbage men.

I don't sleep as much as I should, but I'm a night bird... Often go to bed when the sun goes up, which is what I think I'll do now. nyahnyah.gif

EDIT: I'm in Busan.
Fortune
QUOTE (Triggerz @ Nov 21 2006, 08:55 AM)
I don't sleep as much as I should, but I'm a night bird... Often go to bed when the sun goes up, which is what I think I'll do now.

I'm much the same ... I just had incentive to 'retire' a little early last night. wink.gif biggrin.gif

QUOTE
I'm in Busan


That's pretty cool. Native or working there?
mfb
QUOTE (Geekaka)
However, for those who play with unruly or exploitative players, whatever the reason, I can see why they'd want more canon controls.

for the record, this is far from the only reason one might want a more structured ruleset. some of us enjoy playing within the rules. it's more challenging.
Geekkake
QUOTE (mfb)
QUOTE (Geekaka)
However, for those who play with unruly or exploitative players, whatever the reason, I can see why they'd want more canon controls.

for the record, this is far from the only reason one might want a more structured ruleset. some of us enjoy playing within the rules. it's more challenging.

Duly noted. However, isn't that what wargames are for?
mfb
wargames are expensive, less portable, and offer less opportunity for roleplay. not to mention how much fun it is to paint all those minis.
James McMurray
It's possible to play within the rules of a loose game like SR4. If you need lots of structure and rigorous definition though, SR4 is probably the wrong place to look.

By the way, why do you come to this board if you hate SR4 so much? wink.gif
SL James
QUOTE (James McMurray @ Nov 20 2006, 03:46 PM)
SR4 was built with the assumption that the GM would use his GM-ness.

That's a Hell of an assumption. Not to mention that it begs the question, "If it relies heavily on GM Fiat, then why the fuck write rules in the first place?"

You know, it's been a year and I still have yet to have someone give me a decent answer rather than platitudes and general snark.

QUOTE (James McMurray)
By the way, why do you come to this board if you hate SR4 so much? wink.gif

Because it can be, and should be, better.
mfb
QUOTE (James McMurray)
It's possible to play within the rules of a loose game like SR4.

i disagree. people who say this don't understand--or at least enjoy--the type of game i enjoy playing/running.
James McMurray
Edit again: clarifying that this post was a response to SLJames, not mfb. mfb and I crossposted and the one below this is his reply.

Maybe because you don't believe it has a decent answer? You are obviously of the type that doesn't like GMs being GMs (hence calling it fiat instead of something else). That's cool. By all means play that way, but I for one am glad that SR4 was written like it was, and sincerely hope they continue down the path that has given me a game that works great for a mature group.

Edit: Forgot to give my answer to the question: because it's fun. I've played and GMed SR4 and never once had to say "no, you can't do that" to some ludicrous request (like a -52 dice penalty longshot test). I'm willing to bet that practically everyone who plays the game has also had their sessions be free of that sort of thing. If you can't have sessions free from that, or for some reason feel that the game must prevent it even if your group wouldn't do it, I can only suggest house rules or another game. /edit

By the way, that shadowy flash you saw? That was my joke with mfb going over your head. LOL
James McMurray
QUOTE (mfb)
QUOTE (James McMurray)
It's possible to play within the rules of a loose game like SR4.

i disagree. people who say this don't understand--or at least enjoy--the type of game i enjoy playing/running.

It's quite possible that I don't understand your type of game. If you need a game that prevents -52 dice pool long shots or they'll appear in the sessions and ruin it, SR4 definitely ain't for you. Have you ever thought about converting another system you like to Shadowrun's world? I seriously doubt that the company will be changing their design strategy away from the one that has worked so well for them, so it seems your views on SR4 will only get worse as time goes on.
mfb
i don't want to have to consider the possibility of silly things like -52 dice pool long shots in a game i devote time and energy to. i enjoy coming up with crazy ways to accomplish tasks that still fall within the confines of the ruleset. when you can do stuff like that, it takes the fun out of it. it's not that i want to keep munchkins from doing horrible things with the rules--though that's definitely a plus. it's that i want to play within a strongly-defined set of rules, because doing so allows me the opportunity to solve problems creatively. also, it allows me to solve problems consistently, under a wide array of GMs. that's probably more important to me than it is to others.

as for converting another system, the smartass answer would be "yes, i have--it's called SR3." the real answer is that, yes, i have been working on making a better ruleset. it's taking for-damn-ever, but it's coming.
Aemon
QUOTE (SL James @ Nov 20 2006, 05:40 PM)
QUOTE (James McMurray @ Nov 20 2006, 03:46 PM)
SR4 was built with the assumption that the GM would use his GM-ness.

That's a Hell of an assumption. Not to mention that it begs the question, "If it relies heavily on GM Fiat, then why the fuck write rules in the first place?"

You know, it's been a year and I still have yet to have someone give me a decent answer rather than platitudes and general snark.

QUOTE (James McMurray)
By the way, why do you come to this board if you hate SR4 so much? wink.gif

Because it can be, and should be, better.

I'm not sure I understand.

We're talking about the same genre of games here, right? Like, you know, where one person, the GM/Storyteller/DM--whatever, generates a setting, storyline, NPCs, adversaries, scenarios, etc. and runs the players through it, enjoying story, roleplaying, gunslinging and some good ol' sci-fi/fantasy action in the process...

A game that in many ways both mimics and decries realism... Where rules are set in place so all participants, both GM and players, have a common terminology, system and basis from which to play? Where ultimately, in order to ensure the game is fun, the authortative figure/GM has the ability, nay, the responsibility to ensure the enjoyment of the game comes first and foremost, above even if it means changing/altering rules as stated?

I guess we COULD play where the GM is just another player. But then it seems to me that would just become a PVP match. In which case, I'll just go load up World of Warcraft and go join a Battleground.

It sounds as if you have some chip on your shoulder concerning the idea that someone has authority in a game to change the rules as they see fit. Such is the nature of this game genre...
Fortune
To be fair, mfb mostly plays in a unique environment (Shadowland ... correct me if I'm wrong mfb), and as such, with its shared world, and equally shared GM-type responsibilities (a necessity for every single member), GM-Fiat takes on a whole new meaning, and arbitrary rulings can and do lead to future problems. A firm rules set as he describes would be ideal for the type of community in which he games.
James McMurray
QUOTE (mfb @ Nov 20 2006, 06:17 PM)
i don't want to have to consider the possibility of silly things like -52 dice pool long shots in a game i devote time and energy to.

My group never considered it, and we have lots of fun. smile.gif

And in case you think rules light is the only way we play, I've run a Spacemaster game that used Star Fleet Battles as the ship-to-ship combat system. that's as regimented as I've ever seen an RPG be and we had fun with it as well. We also played first edition Mage, whose magic system is as ill defined as I've ever seen.

I can understand the difficulty if you're playing in a setting where you have large numbers of players instead of just a tight group of friends. I run a couple D&D arenas and am forced to make lots of house rules because D&D books are not put out with the idea that everything from all of them will be used, so incredibly broken stuff (akin to -52 dice longshot tests) can happen if you're not careful. And since it's an open game with new players coming in all the time just relying on players not to do stupid stuff won't work, because everyone's idea of what stupid means is different.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012