so everyone wants to do headshots.
-4/+4, armored jacket, Thermal Smoke, Flashpacks, its only a -15DP modifier
they've been doing it with a wide burst on medium choke, twice per IP. -4/-5 for dodging and no armor kinda sucks.

so is there anything wrong with headshots every shot?

nothing I can think of, might wanna start fitting your NPCs with face armor though

...your PCs must have some hellacious DPs to be able to hit with a -15 DP modifier.

Can your players dance all day?

I'd not allow that. If you are spraying bullets you are not taking an aimed shot. I'd not allow the bonus for autofire (the to hit modifiers - damage is ok) to modify the roll. I'd probably just laugh and refuse that.

Also, can they SEE the head? Have them make the roll. 3 successes at -6 (distracted + thermal smoke) seems to be the roll needed.

Calling a shot means that the
character is aiming at a vulnerable portion of a target, such as a person’s head, the tires or windows of a vehicle, and so on. The gamemaster decides if such a vulnerable spot is accessible.

Wide Bursts
Wide bursts are intended to spray bullets around to have a better chance of hitting the target.

Also you'd have to deal with hit locations. If you were wearing a helmet with +1/+2 for example (and nothing else that can be interpreted as covering the face) I'd multiply that by six and have the face "location" be +6/+12. Same for body, left/right arm, left/right leg.

If someone can hit with -15 DP, more power to them. An expert marksman without enhancements has 12 dice; if someone can boost their dicepool up to where they can consistently hit with a -15 penalty, that means they're approaching double the skill of the best human marksman of today. They should be able to pull of nearly impossible shots...

Also, there shouldn't be an issue with firing a wide burst at someone's head. It's just a matter of sweeping the weapon across them at head level, covering a larger area but still targetting the head. A wide burst isn't shooting randomly, it isn't suppressive fire, it's just covering more area to increase the odds of hitting what you aim at.

Regardless, all your guards really need is helmets. I think Eyeless Blond's proposed house rule is totally unecessary because your PCs are using shot rounds (and I'm not sure why you would pick six as an arbitrary multiplier, except that you want to immediately and totally nerf head shots). There is a problem in the rules since flechette was eratta'd to be +2/+5, but they didn't fix the shotgun rules. But because shotgun use the normal rules for flechette rounds, that should change the rules for shotguns. Since each level of choke decreases DV by 2 and raises AP by 2, it's reasonable, in light of the errata, to conclude that medium choke has DV5/+7 AP. Thus, if the guards have helmets that only provide +2 ballistic armor, medium choke will give them +7 for 9 ballistic armor. Combine that with a body of 4, and the guards are going to take stun damage from the headshots and soak DV4, meaning that the headshots will only hurt a little.

Of course, if you're one of those folks who have adopted the "flechette cannot give more bonus to AP than the target's armor rating" house rule, then that won't work. Thanks to adopting a house rule, you will need another house rule to balance the first house rule, and the viscious cycle of house rules continues

Also, why aren't those silly guards in cover? They deserve head explody.

If we are going to live by the silly RAW, we get to die by the damn thing. And "spraying" isn't compatible with aiming.

I don't think that slapping any more penalties on top of the -15 is called for. Let's face it, only the best are going to be reliably hitting at that modifier. Besides which, according to the called shot rules, that isn't necessarily a head shot; it's any unarmored vital location.

If you don't want the players making that kind of called shot, just up the armor on the opposition. Adding a helmet and riot shield should do the trick. That'll take things up to -17 to bypass armor; and if they can still hit that, switch to Arsenal and get SWAT armor (12/10) plus helmet (2/2) and ballistic shield (6/4). Before visibility modifiers, that's -20 to bypass the armor. Considering that the very best pistols adept can start with 25 dice, if they're hitting -20 on a regular basis, they deserve to land headshots on every hit.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but wouldn't you need 10 body to not be encumbered by 20 ballistic armor? or do the shield and helmet not count toward that total?

RAW stands for "rules as written." Is "spray" a rule? It is not. It is a piece of fluff to explain the context for the rules. The rules are that wide burst gives -2 to dodge. The rules also say that you can make a called shot with a burst fire weapon. They don't say that wide vs. narrow bursts make any difference.

But as long as we're looking at this from a realism point of view, why couldn't you spray bullets at someone's face? You're using the word "spray" to imply almost random shooting. But look at the full piece of fluff you're using: "Wide bursts are intended to spray bullets around to have a better chance of hitting the target." You're spraying round to hit a specific target. If your target is someone's head, you're spraying rounds around their head area so that if their head moves, you'll be more likely to hit it. The specific purpose of the spraying is to hit a target more easily. This applies whether your target it a person, a person's face, or a coin you've thrown up in the air.

But to be clear: "spray" is not RAW. It's FAW; "fluff as written." It does not carry the power to x-out actual, concrete rules.

Wide burst called shot to the head? How big are these heads? Are they fighting sperm whales?

They're firing a three-shot burst in an arc in the hopes that one would hit. That's why it does the same damage as if the weapon were shot in single shot mode.

I don't see how doing a wide sweep aiming for the head instead of the center of mass is so unrealistic. You just aim the arc up slightly.

And don't forget, what's good for the goose is good for the shadowrunner.

I know full well in my games if I'm making headshots left and right, it's only a matter of time before the GM starts having the baddies do the same back at me. Your characters are skillfull enough to be making -15 shots without breaking a sweat, so be it; throw opposition at them that can do the same, and see how they like getting shot in the face once or twice.

We had the exact same thoughts when it came to dikoting our apds rounds in SR2. We asked the GM if it was possible, and were told "Sure, but if you do it so can other people." So suddenly the technology just didn't support it.

Personally, I'd go with the autofire burst is not compatible with an aimed shot.

1st off, they need to take aim [simple action], and then make a called shot [free action]..
..Which would imply not just firing a swathe of bullets at a target, with the intention of hitting with a called shot.

Also, since a complex action is needed to fire a burst, that would limit what a character can do in a IP.


As a GM, one of the most fun things to do is let characters build their Street Samurai of Perfection, then copy the sheets and use that version against the character

It's a Simple Action to fire a short burst.

It's allowable according to canon, but not in my games.

Yes, you're right..
..Simple Action = Burst-Fire Mode, 2 per action phase
..Complex Action = Full Auto Mode, 1 per action phase


I guess maybe we're arguing discussing what aiming means [since you have to aim to get the benefit of making a called shot]

For those of you insisting a called shot/burst isn't possible, is it solely because of game balance reasons, or because you feel it's implausible or unrealistic?

Because spending enough time playing any first person shooter should show you it's not only possible to make a head shot with a burst-type attack, but in fact significantly easier than with a slower firing weapon.

There is something wrong with -4/+4 on top of "bypassing armor". Select one.

And disallow called shots for shotguns firing shot, at least for wide bursts. Thats such a large affected area, everything of a metahuman target is in the fire zone. I COULD see it for narrow bursts.

Calling a shot is a free action. In SR4, you don't have unlimited free actions anymore.
I don't remember the exact problem, but I do remember that you have to be careful with how you use your free actions.

Did you factor in the double recoil penalty for uncompensated auto shotguns? Just curious...cause I forget that rule sometimes. Of course, if they are using a gyromount, it matters like not at all.

This actually got me thinking. I've had the gun bunny in my campaign ask to do a headshot, and as it was an unarmored area as well as really vulnerable, I used both penalties: -4 for unarmored area, then -4 for the +4 damage, thereby taking a -8 to the shot. This halved his dice pool, but he still made it.

Would you other GMs allow one called shot for both unarmored and more damage? Just curious.

I'll reread the rules when I get a chance, but I thought the RAW stated you could only do one or the other. I probably would allow both, but the penalty iirc is the appropriate armor rating being bypassed. ie It's harder to hit someone in an armord jacket than a chameleon suit somewhere that's unarmored.

There is no mechanic for a headshot at -4. Headshots done in that way bypass armor at a (-rating) DP mod. It is an abstract system. Hitting something vital is represented by getting many net hits. I would run it by the book, so you only ever get one option.

I probably should have specified that the armor in question was rating 4. Been up all night playing Diablo II, and my brain is fried.

I was meaning to cite a specific session, but rereading my post, it really did sound like I allowed people to bypass armor with just a -4 every time. Which would be nice and evil.

got a page number?

BBB p.149 - 'A character can aim (see Take Aim, p.137) and then call a shot at the time of the attack.'

I think that while you can aim and call shot, it does not necessarily mean that you have to aim before you can call a shot.

Agreed the English isn't wonderful - that sentence could mean that Take Aim is a prerequisite of Called Shot, or it could mean you can combine Take Aim and Called Shot. However, the second interpretation is somewhat redundant, given Called Shot is a Free Action so there is nothing in the rules stopping you combining them.

Given that the idea is that you are carefully aiming to hit a vulnerable spot and given the multiple uses of the word 'aim' within the Called Shot section, I favor the first interpretation.

I'm with toturi on this one. Remember, when aiming you can take no other action besides aiming and firing, not even free actions, or else you lose the benefits of the Take Aim action. (this is on pg137, if you're following along at home) Since calling a shot is a free action, you wouldn't be able to do it. I believe that line in the called shot section is a specific exception to the Take Aim action, so that you can aim and call a shot together. Would that sentence be less confusing if it were under the Take Aim action instead of Calling a Shot? I think perhaps yes, but even so, I'm pretty sure that was the intention.

As for the original issue, I don't have a problem with calling a shot with burst-fire weapons. Pg 149 specifically mentions burst-fire in the acceptable modes, so I say that applies to short and long bursts.
I can see a certain logic to now allowing called shots with wide bursts, but it really depends on the specific circumstances and what the called shot is going for, so like with all called shots, seek GM approval. This enrages some people, but let's not go there.

I'm definitely against multiple called shot options. You don't get the -4/+4 AND bypassing armor at the same time. The dice pick one and go with it, and the fluff can be "shoot him in the head" for either. Two characters standing next to each other could both call a shot to shoot the same guy "in the head", and one could choose to use the -4/+4 while the other uses -armor/no-armor. Neither one is necessarily an idiot, either, since they're using different weapons. Sometimes one option is better than the other. But using both is right out, because it gets broken and spawns threads like this and I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to be able to do that.

And as it's been said, since Call a Shot is a Free action, once they take aim and call a shot they only have a simple action left and can't call another one.

edit: quoted wrong post

Given that p.137 doesn't actually say that using a Simple Action to actually fire your weapon is an exception to the 'any action breaks Take Aim' rule, I always felt that the intent of the Take Aim section was to say 'you can't aim for a bit, do something else unrelated, and then return to your aiming and still get your cumulative bonus'. Again, the wording is ambiguous, but the intent is clear to me.

Granted, that doesn't really clear up whether you have to Take Aim before you can perform a Called Shot. I can see both sides of the argument - if you like the cinematic idea of people hitting peoples eyeballs with hip-shots, then no need to Take Aim, if you like things a little grittier then you have to Take Aim in order to Called Shot.

Either way is good, I'm just more of a fan of gritty and realistic (obviously as gritty and realistic as I can be in a world with dragons, people who can fry your brain, sometimes without even having to look at you and people who are more machine than person ).

Well, my characters always take aim before shooting in the eye...just to make sure the bad guys know I'm going to do it

Sweeping across is all fine and dandy, but it's better to zipper them up. Start at the torso and work up. That way, more rounds land on target. Besides, shooting little Sally down the street normally isn't a concern to players.

Then again, it is a game.

The stacking of called shots doesn't make sense in that such a unarmored vital area might not exist. If they are wearing a helmet than even though its a vital area (-4/+4), its armored so you can't actually negate its armor (-Armor). If someones wearing armor, its usually to cover their vital areas, They usually don't wear their full riot gear and leave large holes in the armor over their hearts and faces so that you can make your negate armor bonus DV shot. Thats why these should not be stacked.

They could be going for the head shot on someone without a helmet, or shooting someone in the eye who's not wearing protective covers (this must be why they still exist even though they are ridiculous on all the rules).

The (GM ruled) assumption should be made if you're shooting someone heavily armored (and they must be for -11 DP), their vital areas are covered so you can't get the +4 DV called shot as well.

what is this 'headshot' of which you speak? there is no headshot in SR4 (or SR3, for that matter), only calling shots to avoid armor. the answer, as someone else said, is to simply armor up the bad guys. if the bad guys are wearing 6-10 points of ballistic armor, and your PCs are still reliably able to do called shots to avoid armor (including the thermal smoke, etc), then, well, congratulations--your players have won SR4.

the "called shot to the head" when stated in game was "hey I'm gonna aim for his head!"
since there wasn't any armor there, and its the most vital spot the conclusion was the ending result.
considering I don't really understand the conversations of:
player: "okay I want to shoot im in the head."
GM: "you can't"
player: "what?"
GM: "you can either target a vital location or ignore armor."
player: "um...okay isn't the head a vital location?"
GM: "you can't specify the vital location you are going to target it says so right here..."

Perfectly understandable. IMO it should have been handled as:
player: "okay, I want to shoot im in the head."
GM: Cool, do you want to resolve that as a vital area -4/+4, or as bypassing armor?
player: Ummmm, I think option blah would be better.
GM: Gimme a roll.
And much fun is had by all.

Nope, it's not fun until someone loses an eye

Sorry. Then the continuation of my example is:
player: 6 hits!
GM: Awesome, you shot him right in the eye!
And then much fun is had by all. Except perhaps the guy who got shot. But hopefully he can still appreciate how much fun everyone else is having.

Well done, well done...a superb improvement, I wholeheartedly agree

OK all maybe you can check my math but isn't taking the armor bypass option just a waist unless you are trying to do something besides weapon damage (injection arrow, RFID round etc) Because your giving up dice that raise DV on a hit to neutralize dice the lower DV on a hit. All that means is you are more likely to miss out right because you rolled less attack dice vs there dodge. Am I missing something?

Ignoring armor means physical damage NOW. Not after 3 rds

No, you're completely correct. It's useful if you feel the need to inflict physical damage in stead of stun, or (more commonly) because there is hardened armor in the equation.

Ok I hadn't though about avoiding the P to S conversion supper, I could see it working on drones. I don't think my table will see armor bypass to get around hardened armor anytime soon. All we've seen with hardened armor is spirits and I don't think either GM would OK armor bypass on a spirit. So question what even has hardened armor besides spirits and dragons?

Well, theoretically there's hardened armor - if you have enough dice to bypass that, it might be easier than staging up past the rating.

(Let's see...12 points hardened vs. say a 7P weapon...need 6 successes to do any damage normally, but if you have 12 dice to give up, you'd be losing an average of 4 hits, and gaining an average of 4 damage (from the armor loss))

So yeah, there's definitely a window there - I'm not going to work out where the cutoffs are, though.

Tehcnically any critter can have hardened armor...it is the Sixth World afterall (and I am taking my ruling from pg 286 under the Powers header).

GM: "...but, heck i'll allow it. so, you're doing a called shot to the head--is that for extra damage or to ignore armor?"
player: "i don't understand. the head is a vital location, and he's not wearing a helmet. why don't i get to do both?"
GM: "hm. see, this is why i wanted to avoid the whole 'headshot' thing to begin with."http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=21057&st=25&gopid=649692&#
Complete Edit

it's not super-important, but limiting the terms you use is a good way to avoid rules abuses. if you phrase things in out-of-game terms, like 'headshots', it's easy to start trying to twist the rules to fit the out-of-game term, using the "it makes more sense this way" argument. keeping the game's terminology in mind helps prevent that. rather than trying for a headshot, you simply try for a vital/unarmored location. if the shot does a lot of damage, then you describe it as a headshot.

You might be encumbered, but better encumbered than dead.

Which is why the soldiers and Marines in Iraq are consistently failing to wear the 'total package' for their Interceptor Body Armor, leaving extra panels and plates back at the base....