It doesn't actually say the 2-guns option works with multiple targets. It doesn't specifically say it doesn't, but none of the multiple target examples that *are* 1 Simple Action aren't bursts.

No, that's an extrapolation; the -2 in Multiple Targets is for a second target as a separate action within a single IP, or one or more with a spray of bullets, within a simple action. Shoot A then shoot B or spray at A and B.

I'd argue that aiming two different guns at two different targets to shoot them with the same action is way more difficult than a simple -2 to your split pools would justify.

So you're saying its easier to hit two different targets as long as you're using two guns at the same time than it is to fire at a single target with both? o.O

Now if you wanted to shoot two bursts from two smg's then you'd split the pools and add -2 per additional target to each pool, though if you aren't aiming both smg's at the same group of people I'd add blind fire to one of them... unless you wanted to house rule stretching the capabilities of a Rating 3 Attention Coprocessor

No, It is way more difficult to shoot 2 targets with 2 weapons because you SPLIT YOUR POOL, and THEN apply a -2 to the 2nd Target...

But that is not in the rules.... You are adding a Houserule.

Well sure. As would saying two targets with two guns in one action would be a house rule.

It actually is not. All the rule says is that you fire at two targets in a pass. Nothing in the rule you quoted about ACTIONS (Simple or Complex).

Correct, nothing in the "Multiple Target" quotes mentions "actions". However, nothing in the "Attacker using a second firearm" quote says anything about firing at TWO targets at the same time.

The Semi-Auto "Multiple Target" section is referencing a penalty to changing targets within the same action phase. The Burst and Full Auto "Multiple Target" sections are referencing a penalty to spreading your spray of bullets across multiple targets. Implied by them being referenced under the sections corresponding to regular Semi-Auto, Burst, and Full Auto fire modes. You're extrapolating "Semi-Auto at 2nd target in a phase means -2" + "Semi-Auto in each hand means split dice" = "Semi-Auto in each hand at two separate targets means split dice at only -2 but I can do it in a simple action". Extrapolation = House Rule

If you want to run a John Woo game then I'm sure that works fine; I'm a big fan of his work. However, since you can't really aim at more than one target at a time I think the penalty would be higher.

All in all:

2 Guns + 2 Simple Actions = Possible to shoot at 4 dudes or one dude four times.

2 fists + 2 Feet + 1 Complex action = Hit as many people as you can reach once each (generally 2) or one guy once.

Pretty much, yes.

It is higher. You lose any aiming bonuses (Smartlink and Lasers) and then you split your pool, and then you lose -2 per additional target. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

As I said, the rules don't say you can't do (two guns, two targets, one Simple Action), but it's hard to blame the conclusion that you can't. It is indeed not spelled out, and the presumed penalty *does* seem very low. It's only -2 compared to the one target version.

But really, it is more than just a mere -2. Loss of Smartlink (They are ubiquitous after all) is a -2, you use a split pool, so your dice pool is less to start with for each shot (so up to a loss of 1/2 of your dice, if you split evenly), and an additional -2 on your second target. That is a significant reduction (that some still say is not enough) in your chance to hit your targets. Now, to be fair, those characters that can pull this off constantly tend to have a DP in the high Teens to low 20's. so you do not really see any real impact. But for a chartacter that goes from 12 Dice (on a single shot) down to a splt 5/5 pool, and -2 to the second shot (so, 5/3), you are now far less likely to hit, let alone cause any damage.

Like I said, *compared* to the 1-target option. Using 2 guns on 1 target already loses you the smartlink.

And yes, that's kind of the point: this disproportionately favors huge-pool characters. Normal-pool characters can't try this trick even at the arguably-RAW -2, but huge-pool ones can do it pretty easily. The issue is that it's barely harder than shooting one target. That feels wrong to some people.

Yep, I get it. I have tried the Gunbunny Adept dual wielding character before. And while it is entertaining to mow through mooks, that build has a much more difficult time with prime runners, or even high Professional Rating Threats (Tir Ghosts, etc.). In the end, I retired the character for something a bit more fun.

If I want to just mow through mooks, I play Feng Shui. Have an interesting port going on for Shadowrun currently. Looks to be a blast.

[double post]

Or more with reach.

I dont think these numbers are fair comparisons though. Four shots can easily = 1 melee complex action. Dont assume each melee test is = 1 strike. It is assumed that in many situations your melee test against one opponent includes you hitting them multiple times, just summed up in one attack.

I once saw a fight were my friend (the football player from before) punched a guy probably 30 times in 15 seconds. No, I dont think that my friend is some kind of awesome physical adept that gets extra IP, i just think that one complex action used in melee accounted for two or three strikes.

Never said it was. In fact the book says it is explicit NOT.

My point was: for the same amount of damage, melee actions take longer AND require closer range AND have a higher defense pool AND lack some of the easy bonuses that guns have (i.e. smartlink).

Thus, why go melee, ever?

(Hell, even dragons get the shaft: regardless of their strength, their melee DV is 10!)

Indeed. Damien, what makes it a fair comparison is time. Those four bullets will just do vastly more damage.

Only if they use their Natural Attack power, they get 10P AP -2. If they use their fists, heads or tails they get the normal STR/2S AP 0.

Or, you know, they could pick up a tank...

Too bad they would have to resist damage if they use the ramming rules.

@CanRay
If you end up with improvised blunt weapon(tank) you are doing something very wrong or very right...

It's can . . not easy to figure it out, but usually, we go with awesome for simplicity reasons . .

Just make sure it is a military tank and not a liquid filled storage tank. We had a GM running us in a Star Wars game and the fight was taking place in a munitions factory. GM said there was three tanks along one wall and all the players figured.. "Ok a tankity tank tank shoots things with a big gun". So during the fight the Force user says "I'ma grab that tank and chuck it at the bad guy!" GM blinked, said roll it, saw the level of success was quite high then turns to me and says "Ok.. roll fortitude to not get turned into a Popsicle from the super cold liquid that was in the tank."

(Which is why most of them know an Elemental Aura spell and hit people with their tails instead...)

I wonder if the game designers had a hard cap of 10DV on melee in mind when they set that?

A troll cyber adept can easily get 17+ DV with his bare hands... poor dragons

With that massive strength, I would think Dragons would want to grapple! Hard time imagining anyone trying to wrestle with a creature 40x their size.

I guess it was at some point intendet as 10 + 1/2 strength like everything else. But I guessed they realised how bad natural weapons for spirits would become...

Instead of a grapple.. I'd say its more like pinning them down with the sharp end of a claw.

Only if they fight with fang and claw. Once they start making fists or using the rest of the body, you are in trouble. Even the weakest dragon does 15S AP 0. Western Dragons do 20S, the rest 18S.

Like the dragon wouldn't Stunball them to death, since they are all magicians. Also by RAW (unless you read the mitigating Running Wild) Natural Attacks are critter powers and as such bypass ItNW.

And Grappling will probably result in fine rest mist, with a damage of 30-40S.

God damn it. Now you're going to make me scour the internet for a scene out of Dragon Riders: Chronicles of Pern (that mediocre 90s video game) where the main character's dragon stands on a guy.



It's called FLRM. Fine Lingering Red Mist.

*blink* They made a videogame of McCaffery's books?? Why did I never hear of that?

Because it was pretty shitty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Riders...onicles_of_Pern

I never finished the game due to a bug in the engine slash unlisted key in the manual. There was a generic "do action" key (i.e. a use key) that would activate things--like stealth--depending on what actions were possible in that location.

There was one spot that had both the triggers for Stealth and Activate Lever, but only the Stealth one showed up on the player's screen. There was an unlisted key that allowed you to switch between various actions (i.e. swap from the available, but unwanted Stealth action to the available, but invisible Use action). But I didn't find out about this key until some years later, by that point no longer having my save data, or the desire to play through some 15 hours of mediocre game with flimsy plot and bad voice acting.