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.

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.

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.

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.

i've never minded. encourages smarter tactics.

Are you calling me dumb, boy?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Long Shot test might not need the GM to say OK.
The GM DOES need to ok a Called Shot.

You know why they call it GM Fiat? Because it's as worthless and unreliable as the car.

BBB?

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.

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).

stands for "big black book". no, i don't know why. the book i not black.

Beat you both

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.

Sad thing is, some people try to play this way.

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.

wargames are expensive, less portable, and offer less opportunity for roleplay. not to mention how much fun it is to paint all those minis.

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?

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

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.

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.