Regarding staging damage.... SR3 page 113 states:

What about using called shots to bypass vehicle armor? Has anyone had to deal with that much in their games? They'd still halve the power of their weapons and reduce damage code by one, but it still means somebody could damage a tank with a predator, which just seems...wrong.

That is best dealt with by a BBB to the back of the head.

~J

Sometimes, it's worth writing out an opinion on a topic. Other times, you can just point at someone elses opinion.

A rant from a D&D designer named Sean K. Reynolds. While about D&D in particular, most of the arguments are perfectly applicable to SR and shouldn't require any knowledge of d20 to comprehend.

Personally, I believe called shots should never increase damage. It leads to stupid shit with statistics where players calculate exactly when it's optimal to perform called shots vs normal shots to maximize damage. Something like calling shots for Stress as outlined in M&M is palatable to me. I came up with something like this when one GM of mine couldn't be dissuaded from adding called shots to the game in some fashion that bypassed armor.

After successfully rolling an attack, you may choose to subtract any number of successes. If the attack still hits after the target rolls dodge, reduce the effective armor of the target for the purposes of soaking that attack by 1 for every success you subtracted.

The end result is just the same damn thing as increasing the power of the attack, except since I said it was 'reducing armor' I was able to convince him it was a way to treat bypassing armor. I also pointed out that this made it easier to dodge 'called shots', to reflect that they're aiming at a smaller target.

Seeing as how my character was a phys adept with lots of combat pool, this did nothing but make it easier for me to dodge shots.

You don't like people actually thinking about what they're doing?

~J

The problem with called shots is that they'll either be A.) too hard to do so it won't be used, or B.) too easy to do and therefore done all the time. Balance it be hard especially with junk like SL-2 and in the end you get little out of it. The only time it'll matter is when you'll taking a free shot (either from ambush, snipering, whatever) at which point it really doesn't matter as you'll blow him away either way.

I really like the explanation used in Exalted about called shots and extra damage, in that characters will always try to do the most damage they can limited by the dice and the level in the skill. If you'll rolling a ton of dice to hit, you'll get a lot of success meaning you hit somewhere nice (either an unarmored spot or someplace like the head). Sure they still get armor, but that can reflect the effort in hitting the same spot (as if they used an theoritcal called shot to bypass armor).

Exactly. I guess the question is thus: when, in battle, are you *not* trying to "call your shot", in the sense that you try to shoot somewhere important or vital? The "called shot" modifier, IMO, should really only apply to Option 3, when you're trying to hit the tires on a car, for example.

How about requiring an aim action before you can make a called shot?

Nothing wrong with that. You could argue that to call a shot you have to spend a significant amount of time making sure your weapon is pointing specifically at that point and not just at the target in general. On the other hand, it might be possible to aim at certain spots instinctively -- it's certainly possible in computer games, I'm not sure how well it works IRL... Also, the 1.5 second time span to "fire a weapon" for a <11 init character could be considered to include enough time to call a shot anyway.

This has no impact on other considerations of called shots, though. Just a small modification, like using a larger TN penalty for calling a shot at a moving target.

Why not just make a Called Shot a Simple Action? That way you're not dropping a point off the modifier with the required Aim action. I really don't understand why calling a shot is a Free Action while aiming is a Simple Action anyway. Seems to me that calling a shot basically means aiming for a particularly small area, which would require more effort than simple aiming. I think shooting without aiming/calling a shot would be more like Applegate's "point shooting" technique, which focuses more on speed of engagement than pinpoint accuracy.

Sorry about the delay - Monitor died.

I don't see how a reasonable called shot mechanic is a crutch... most people with 3 skill aren't going to be making incredible shots too often. He asked for a situation where someone with low skill needed to make a quick kill, and I gave him one.

Really, the dynamics of precision aim both in SR and in real life are such that in combat, they are really only viable for the highly trained and very capable. The less competent you are, the more you should be worried about getting as many rounds on target as quickly as possible. Called shots are not for people with low skill who need to make a very fast kill. Called shots are either for highly skilled/highly augmented people who need a fast takedown or less skilled people who have time to line up a shot.

Skill level already accounts for "called shots." The higher your skill level, the higher your chance to hit a vulnerable spot on your target. That's the entire point behind staging damage due to successes. On top of that, the simple action to aim gives you all the benefits you need to actually steady yourself and make a calculated shot.

The system already accounts for a quick shot at a vulnerable spot and a steady, patient aim at a vulnerable spot. So what exactly is a Called Shot supposed to be again?

Called Shots belong inthe sole domain of vying for a very specific effect (blowing out a tire, shooting a weapon out of an opponent's hand, etc.). Raising the Damage Code is redundant and ignoring armor breaks the system used to determine armor ratings in the first place.

If armor completely negated your ability to do damage, such a system would be viable. If armor had a set Barrier Rating that determined how much protection it granted regardless of its location on the body, such a system would be viable. If the system didn't use an abstract mechanic that combined cover and the ability to stop a round, such a system would be viable.

Unfortunately, none of those are the case.

Unless you want to go through and completely revamp the combat system from the ground up, such a system will continue to be nonviable. To do it, you have to change what Skill Ratings mean. You then have to change how Staging works. You then have to eliminate the Aim Shot action because it then becomes superflourus. You then have to completely change how Barrier Ratings work. You then have to completely change how Cover works. And so on and so forth.

Yes, you can twirl your finger in the air and claim "or I could just use the Called Shot rules and ignore all the other stuff!" But it doesn't change any of the facts above.

Stupid double posts.

In any case, if you want a system that would make bypassing armor more cohesive with the system, something like allowing every two successes on the Ranged Combat Test to either increase the Damage Level by +1 or lower the effective armor of the target by -1. This way, you're either aiming for a vulnerable spot (raising Damage Level) or trying to get around armor (reducing Armor Rating). Aiming your shot lowers your target number. A lower TN gives you more successes. More successes gives you a greater effect either way you want to go.

At least that would be the most consistant way to handle it within the context of the rest of the system.

Well, I'd go with -2 armor per two successes, down to a minimum of one-half worn armor, but otherwise that works for me.

Wow, I'm agreeing with the troll. Weird.

That does, largely, negate the requirement to re-do armor ratings. However, if you want to get very logical (and I mean far more logical than SR canon ever was) you'd have to change Power ratings etc as well.

Currently, I guess the excuse for Heavy Pistols doing 9M and ARs doing 8M is that HPs do more damage if/when they do penetrate. If you add hit locations and armor ratings based on those, you know when you've got clear penetration and when you don't. A Heavy Pistol penetrating better than an AR is really bad already, and it gets a whole lot worse when it really does penetrate better when you hit a guy with an Armored Vest square in the chest.

If you don't want more logic than SR canon comes with, it's no problem. It's just that some of us who create "realism" house rule sets and share them also be sure to make those rules hyper-logical, to cut down the amount of "Your rules suck" comments.

Yes you do have to change Skill Ratings. As they currently stand in combat, they represent your accuracy at hitting a vulnerable spot. Called Shots toa vulnerable location conflict with this because you're already doing it by default.

You also have to change how staging works, because due to the way Skill Ratings work, the number of successes you gain determines how vulnerable a spot you hit. Called Shots to a vulnerable location conflict with this because you're already doing it by default.

Cover and Barrier Ratings have to be changed because now you have to use them for armor locations. If armor only protects certain locations, you effectively have Cover in those locations. Different armors will also have to have different Barrier Ratings because now that they work as cover, if you hit an armored location, you have to know if it penetrates or not. The standard Armor Values do not work here because they're a composite of the two. The plating of an Armored Vest with Plates is *not* equal to the flimsy material of Form-Fitting Body Armor. Called Shots to a vulnerable location or to bypass armor conflicts with this.

You also have to completely redo Damage Codes because now they're a composite of penetration power, damage potential, and size/viciousness of the wound. Since Called Shots to a vulnerable location or to bypass armor force the above changes, they also require this change in order to remain internally consistant.

etc.

Again, sure, you can be flippant and say "I just wanna bypass armor" and "I'm just going to say what areas armor protect," but none of that will fix the inherent problems. It just makes the whole system extremely more unrealistic, not the other way around.

There are no 10S LMGs, unless I'm very much missing something.

~J

The "and HMGs" was what I was missing

~J

Skill covers what and how well you hit. Period. If you want to avoid killing someone, I believe that's already covered in the game by holding back dice from the test (if not specifically, then in spirit from other rule sets). You can't be "more lethal than lethal" when trying to kill someone... at least not without aiming, and that's precisely what aiming reflects and results in under the rules as written.

Called Shots simply don't fit in the system. At least not the damage-oriented ones. They're the obnoxious red-headed stepchild of the combat rules. They're only there because of players who don't understand how the system works as it stands.

As it stands now, you can easily say "I'm shooting the guard in the head" and then roll normally. The GM then describes what happens based upon the staging and other scenarios. If the final result is a Deadly wound, bam, you nailed him right between the eyes. If it was reduced to a Light wound mostly because of his armor, then either your aim was off or he moved at the wrong time and your shot richochetted off his armor. If you only got one or two successes and didn't stage very well, that represents a poor shot. etc. If a player doesn't specify, the GM has even more sway over resolving what the die rolls and modifiers result in.

I don't know why I bother getting into it everytime I run into one of these threads. It's a well-established fact that you can't talk sense with gun nuts, katanaphiles, or people who have it in their head that the system sucks and needs to be "more realistic." So I'm pulling out. I've said what I have to say, take it for what its worth, which is obviously not very much.

I totally agree with toy here, (except for the part about degrading the gun nuts and katanaphiles ) the system that already exists, coupled with a GM that is competent at giving good descriptions of combat already accomplishes all that a called shot mechanics system already would, with absolutely nothing added. That's how I handle it in my games.

Okay, against my better judgement I've decided to start plowing through this. Its up to four pages so you guys must have something good to say Maybe I'll even weigh in on this if everyone hasn't already made my points...

reviving an old thread here, but had a related question:

Do the canon rules for bypassing armor apply only to personal armor, or do they also work against drone- and vehicular armor? I don't think they specifically limit it in the errata.

the rules in the FAQ apply to all armor, as far as i'm aware.

Yes, for a +4tn technically you can destroy the Vault Door at NORAD and an Main Battle Tank with a pistol by bypassing it's armor and aiming at a vulnerable part.

But, of course, no GM should interpret the Called Shot FAQ the way you keep wanting to, BitBasher. When you find a GM that interprets it that way, and runs it that way, let me know.

Whether or not that's how GMs interpret it is of little consequence. As written, the rule allows it. It's just one of the many reasons why it's such a poor rule.