Simple question, simple answer?

Balance.

Another possibility is that they should give 0.5 RC each rounded to 1, but 0.5*2 still is 1.

Game balance isn't a good answer. Nothing in electronic firing's description indicates that it reduces recoil entirely. Hence, the personalizes grip should still grant a RC bonus.

May not be a good answer but it is the correct answer.

If you've made you decision and you're the GM then just go with it. If you're not the GM, then that's who you need to convince, not the grand community of Dumpshock.

could be shopping for arguments to present the GM with.

The incompatibility rules you're referring to are pretty random, and could have been solved by simply defining accessory/modification locations on a weapon. Then you don't have to include idiotic rules like "bipods and tripods don't stack, and, uh, neither do underbarrel weights and... underbarrel weights."

Probably because once you go for electronic firing the benefit from having a better grip is lessened as you no longer pull the trigger.

Yes you do.

the restrictions on the sling for RC mods is a lot more complicated looking. it wont stack with either the stock or the underbarrel mods. but its a good idea anyway because its cheap and has other useful benefits.

This is the correct answer (though I'd say it's more .75 for the grip and .25 for the electronic firing). IRL, neither mod alone gives that much of an improvement in the stability of the gun (and EF only is noticeable in comparison to hammer fired guns).

Personally, I house rule the grip adds +1 to any attack made after taking aim (it makes the skilled more accurate, yet does virtually nothing for the untrained), and electronic firing only gives the perception modifier when used with a suppressed or silenced gun and no RC (as well as not occupying a mod slot).

There's a huge difference between the heavy pull weight of a double-action trigger and a hair electronic trigger.


As far as recoil comp goes... there's far too much of it available already. Nothing whatsoever wrong w/ the rules limiting certain sources from stacking. Really unless you're automatic you only need 1 point, and if you need more than that you're using the uber automatic weapons fire rules.

Ditto: you don't need more cheap and easy RC, and balance *is* a reason.

Yes, the weapon mod rules could use a little polishing. I miss Rigger 3 and Cannon.

1) When averaged across all guns, it's not that much really, and when you remove designs that are more than 30 years old today, the difference is even smaller.
2) The difference is in maintaining aim, not in reduced recoil.

In SR4 there is no difference in maintaining aim (in general, not the specific action) and reducing recoil - they both are one and the same.

Actually, according to the Arsenal, page 150, Combining Electronic Firing with Trigger removal is usually standard... though it does not have to be...

Keep the Faith

There are no rules for maintaining aim (holding the gun stead before firing), and with as little of a difference that is made by the switch from standard trigger to EF, giving a one die reduction to the penalty on follow-up shots for reduced trigger weight is not realistic.

Except for, you know, the Take Aim simple action.

You have a Take Aim Action...

EDIT: Damn, Ninja'd by Runner Paul, what I get for answering a question from my son...

Keep the Faith

Taking aim and maintaining aim are two separate things in shooting. Taking aim is lining the gun up on the target, maintaining aim is holding the gun on target. A heavy trigger only influences the latter (more-so with unskilled shooters).

The reason why they don't stack is because the rules say so! This is the only reason why. There are no other reasons.

Learn the rules. Embrace the rules! Do not question the rules or even think about them! Follow the rules, even the ones that contradict or don't make any sense or are outright broken. If you don't and you change or adjust even a single rule then you are not playing Shadowrun. You risk spending an eternity in torment just by considering anything else! Do you really want to spend an eternity in torment? Trust me, torment sucks! So, play the game and follow all the rules as they are written. This will make you a pious person!

But they're the same thing in Shadowrun. You have to keep performing the action until you fire, or you don't get the bonus. They just didn't want to clutter up the action list with a second title.

In precision shooting, the initial use of the take aim action is called aiming, using the take aim action to maintain the bonus is called holding aim, and maintaining aim is keeping the gun steady while pulling the trigger (which doesn't have an in-game rule). I guess I could have been a little clearer in my previous post.

Forget it guys, it's not worth arguing. This happens all the time, where you get someone new who just has to illustrate that they know it all about guns today. Then has to completely derail the thread in irrelevant minutia. Even worse, he's stuck on the initial aim as if he's in a slow-fire course and completely disregards the more important part (fast follow-on shots such as you'd see in a speed fire course appropriate to RECOIL COMPENSATION discussion). And yes, the heavier/longer pull (DAO) or even worse inconsistent pull (DA/SA) is generally considered a drawback.


And the difference is to those who don't understand... double actions cock the hammer by pulling the trigger and single-actions only release an already cocked & locked hammer. (and DA/SA's fire the first shot DA then follow-on shots as SA).

Considering you love doing that shit, too, I don't see where you have much of a leg to stand on when it comes to bitching about other people doing it.

Ok... here's one for ya then:

Has anyone come up with an alternate set of what is, or is not, compatible for reducing recoil that makes more sense, yet maintains a semblance of balance?

Or for that matter, an alternate gun mod system?

Lots of people have, but do the rest of us agree that the house rules are balanced? Your mileage may vary.

It's a matter of opinion, like anything else.

My system is pretty straightforward. Only one recoil compensation system per gun mount; Top, Barrel, Under, Butt/Grip, and Internal (including triggers, firing mechanisms, chamber designs, etc).

Which is all the rules had to say to begin with, since that's pretty much what they say anyway. With the sole exception of Electronic Firing and Personalized Grip, which to this day I don't see why they're specifically limited. Especially since Removed Trigger doesn't impact the benefits of Personalized Grip, which it should if half the arguments in this thread are supposed to make a lick of sense.

Heh... the one that always confused me the most is that stocks and shockpads are not compatible.

Stock = the wooden (or metal or composite) butt that extends from the trigger area to your shoulder.
Shockpad = the cushy or rubbery piece that is stuck on the end of the stock to make dealing with recoil more comfortable than just with the plain butt of the stock.

so... if they're not compatible, you pick one... so pick shockpad and stick it on your forehead so that when the gun recoils up out of control and hits you in the noggin it doesn't hurt as much?

I mean.. how can these two in particular NOT be compatible?

The thing is you can't add an additional stock to Long Arms and Assault Rifles. The already installed stock does not provide recoil compensation. Only SMGs and machine pistols benefit from a stock. If you want additional RC on larger weapons you need a shock pad on the existing stock.

The issue with that is that RL is not balanced.

Honestly, I don't know why P. Grip affects RC in the first place.

Probably because the developers thought that an unconditional +1 die would be too powerful.

that's basically what a personalized grip is, though.

By RAW only for melee attacks.

I don't buy that... I've never interpreted it that way, frankly, I don't see how it can be done. A stock provides recoil compensation. If it comes with one... and it's used... point. If it doesn't come with one, and it's added... point.

A shock pad would work the same on either situation, and the stock would work the same on either situation.

Bleh, just chalk it up to blatant efforts at balance without a single care for making sense; same as electronic firing and personalized grip.

I think it makes sense. Adding a stock to an non-stocked small weapon (SMG) gives RC, but longarms already have that factored in. They fire bigger bullets. It's not like you lose anything, because you can add a shock pad *instead*.

Exactly.

What if you add a stock and a shock pad to an SMG with no stock, why should you only get 1 point of RC?

Additionally, why do some rifles/ARs come with a "stock" stock yet get no RC benefits from it?

Because firing a rifle without a stock can be very dificult. The stock it comes it does benefit it, it lets you fire it without negatives. Part of the nature of rifles really.

Vehicles come with stock tires, but people don't ask how come you don't get a benefit from them. That's because without tires, you can't drive. There are times when things are there to make it work right, not to give extra benefits.

AFAIK, you *can't* add a stock and shock pad to an SMG. SMG gets stock, longarms (/assault rifles) get shock pads. Done.

If you're just dying for fluff, let's say that shock pads are for the bigger individual shocks of rifle bullets, so SMGs wouldn't benefit. Whatever you like.

Correct.

Thanks, that's a good analogy.