How you hold it, carry, fire it, reload it, and basically how you use it in a combat situation.

Shooting rifles and shotguns are two different skills.

not going to bother with the rest.

Great stuff! I only disagree about the edged weapons. A Daito and a combat knife need slightly different handling. Maybe Edged: short blade, edged: long blade, and polearms should be separate cathegories?

i for one miss the 'firearms' skill from SR2. though i do like dizzo's layout, as it does make more sense than either just having the overall 'firearms' skill or having so many skills as they do now.

it's a karma/creation point issue though...i'm all for the break down of skills - let's just not break them down too far. right now, i agree that there are too many firearm skills, and that you only really need the categories that dizzo suggested

In SR3 canon they are, there's no reason why they'd have to be in SR4.

And yet you have no trouble with LMGs fired from the shoulder and HMGs fired from a tripod using the same skill, even though the two are used in very different ways in combat? Doesn't the very idea of a pintle-mounted machinegun being fired with the same skill (Gunnery) as Surface-to-Surface Missiles cause you terrible pains? What about getting past Maglocks and Electronic Warfare using the same skill (Electronics), or Biotech covering both Organ Culture & Growth and giving 1st Aid?

It's not a question if firing this kind of gun is different than firing that kind of gun. Of course it is. The question is, is firing this gun as different from firing that gun as driving a car is from driving a bike, or as different as different as tampering with a maglock is from setting up explosives with electronic detonators.

Face it: The skills covering the use of firearms are far more fragmented than any other skills in SR3 canon. With a division such as Handguns/Long Arms/Heavy Weapons/Launch Weapons they would at least be less obviously so.

Of course, if you wanted to have less generic skills, the skillset would also be more consistant if you did indeed split up all the other skills just like Firearms was split up. Basically, that'd take splitting apart all the non-Combat Active skills in SR3 by Specializations. I'm personally very much against this, because I don't like the idea of likely more than 50 active skills for any generalist-type of character. I'm also quite confident that the game designers would never do this.

But nowhere near the same as the difference between Athletics and Car B/R, or Biotech and Computers, which is basically how it is reflected in SR3.

You're right. They should break up the heavy weapon skills, too.

Personally, I'm more of a fan of the older way of handling skills. You have a base skill representing general knowledge, then a concentration on a tigher group of skills within that base skill, and finally a specialization for one specific use of that skill.

If I changed anything for the better (within the current system), it would be that the default TN for any action is based upon which set of those skills you were using. Base (Firearms) TN 6, Concentraiton (Heavy Pistols) TN 5, Specialization (Ares Predator) TN 4. Defaulting penalties would be revamped as well. Or, more correctly, using a default TN of 6 for all actions and a -1 bonus for Concentrations and -2 for Specializations.

I agree with you that it would be great if they cut the number of firearms type skills down to four or five instead of the (eleven?, don't have books on hand) that they have now.

I just think that they should break up a few of the other 'umbrella skills' too. I mean, general computer use and computer programming are really vastly different in the world of point-click interfaces. (it wasn't as different in the early-mid 80's when most UI's were command line) I think it would be reasonable to have someone be 'very good' at exploiting hosts with pre-cooked programs, but not be capable of programming their own.

same with Sorcery- right now, every magic character is equally as good at, say: casting and defense... split it up too. simplifies introducing players also- since alot of the time there is confusion stemming from some skills (sorcery, computing) doing six things, while most skills (car, pistols, etc) only do one.

the confusion stems most from Sorcery, and the related 'skill dice allocation' rules that were apparently included purely for balance (i.e. must allocate x dice to cast, y to drain, z to defense, and x+y+z <= skill) it's the only skill in the game I'm aware of that does this. since you have to split the dice all the time anyway, why not have seperate skills? (less fluidity- increase the spell pool then, and axe defense as skill related or something.) it's complex. and there's no real simple solution that doesn't rework alot of the basic assumptions behind the 'balance' of the magic system.


and yes, electronics and Electronics B/R doesn't make much sense. combine them, maybe look over the whole b/r system for a possible rework. I find it's mostly under-utilized. might just be my games though.

No, they are not. Assuming the same type of sights, a shotgun handles no differently than a rifle of similar length and weight.

Huh?

I would think, that at the most, you could get 1 die of Spell Defense without effecting your spellcasting, not 6.

Assuming a lot, there, aren't you?

What, that combat shotguns don't use a rail sight like you would for hunting or skeet shooting? I wouldn't call that "assuming a lot", no. I'd call that a fact.

Regardless, even if the sights were different, it'd still be the same skill - in that case, the difference is no bigger than between two rifles that use different types of sights.

I think you need to get out and shoot more...

New specializations are bought at the level of the base skill, plus one. They cost half the level of the new specialization. If my base Sorcery skill is at 5, then my new specialization in Spell Defense is at 6. This costs half the level of the specialization in karma, or 3.

Since I'm using spell defense, the dice would be drawn from my Spell Defense specialization, not the base skill, and when I do anything else with Sorcery besides Spell Defense, I would be using Sorcery, the base skill, which is uneffected by how many dice I have allocated from my specialization. I can also buy a specialization in Spellcasting at 6 for 3 karma, further seperating the two, if that's not good enough. Now why on Earth would my Spellcasting, Astral Combat, Dispelling, etc. be effected by my use of Spell Defense if the dice I'm drawing is from a specialization? There's nothing in the rules about it, so far as I know.

The point is that the "dice put aside" mechanic has some rather odd effects when specializations are used. Odd, and nonsensical. In the case of Spell Defense, only Spell Pool dice should have to have been allocated in addition to the base Sorcery skill or Spell Defense specialization, which would have been constant. It would have made more sense if a mage could use Spell Defense without having to "allocate" anything besides Spell Pool, and just give them a +1 TN modifier for all magical tasks while Spell Defense is up to simulate concentration on the defense (or something).

It might work this way for skill-use kind of skills (shooting a gun, driving a vehicle), but for Spell Defense, you are allocating the dice to defense, thus giving them up for use in spellcasting.

IMO, once your specializations being allocated to other purposes is greater then the difference between your base sorcery skill, you start to lose dice for spellcasting. It's still not a bad way to get some dedicated Spell Defense dice.

That's how I rule it anyway, but I guess technically, the rules work as you say.

Geez, what happens when your Spell Defense specialization is _lower_ then your Sorcery.


I can see where some clarification is needed for 4th Ed.

Neither's really great. The way I outlined bypasses the whole limitation on Spell Defense. The way you outlined doesn't really make sense: there's just no mechanical reason why dice allocated from a specialization should effect the base skill, and scant little in-character reason (although anyone can come up with something with enough creativity).

I don't think that's possible. The only ways to get specializations, from chargen or from karma use by an existing PC, require the specialization to be higher.

Bingo. That was the point of my post. It treats a skill like a dice pool, which in my mind is as much a clunky abberation from the norm as Open Tests.

What's so hard about it? You normally get X (in your case 5) dice to allocate for Sorcery, but you get an extra Y (in your case 1) dice for raising the specialization that many levels above the base skill. What's the big deal?

On a related note, my wife's cousin - who belongs to a large farming family - is the local fox exterminator in his area (this is not intended to devolve into a discussion on foxhunting, btw) and from what she has recounted to me he seems to use some kind of a shotgun with a low powered telescopic sight attached for shooting them. I don't know what kind of shotgun that would likely be, but since it was relevant to the similarities in use between rifles and shotguns I thought I'd toss it in there

What houserule? You're straight up wrong.

Sorcery, "To cast a spell, make a test using allocated Sorcery dice, plus dice from the Spell Pool, if desired." SR3 pg 182.

Spell Defense, "To use Spell Defense, allocate Sorcery dice, plus any Spell Pool dice desired, to defense." SR3 pg 183.

Now, say you have Sorcery 5 (Spell Defense 6)

You want to cast a spell, so you allocate 5 sorcery dice and 0 pool to it. You then want to have dice for defense, so you allocate the remaining 1 die (as you can only allocate the last one to spell defense) to defense.

Alternately, you could do something like, 3 dice to sorcery, 3 to spell defense. It isn't treated seperately, its a base off of the original skill.

Actually, if I was going by your definition which says it isn't a part of the base skill, you couldn't allocate ANY, because the text says allocate sorcery dice. If the specialization isn't a part of socery, you can't allocate any dice from it.

Only by being overly literal in interpretation. The book never states how to use specializations as different from base skills. For example:

Firstly, my contention wasn't that it isn't a "part of" Sorcery, just that it is used on its own when the specialization applies, but more on that later. Secondly, if your literal reading were correct, then one should never bother specializing Sorcery at all, because specializations are never explicitly used in defining the functions of the skill (and this is true in most cases). In other words, if you had Sorcery w/ specialization Spellcasting, you'd never use Spellcasting at all, since the rules say to use Sorcery, and not anything else.

Of course, this is nonsensical. We all commonly understand that if you have a specialization and it applies, the number of dice you're rolling is equal to the specialization rating. So if you have Sorcery X (Spellcasting Y) and you want to cast a spell, then you're rolling Y dice. Even if the rules may say that you should roll X dice for Sorcery, and even though the rules never explicitly state how we arrive at the value, Y, as the number of dice to roll.

The most intuitive way of looking at this is that we get "Dice Rolled = Y" becuase we're using the specialization, not the base skill. The interpretation you're asking me to accept as definitively correct says that we arrive at Y through the function "Dice Rolled = X + (Y - X)," which will equal Y, but is much more cumbersome.

And you know what? The fact that the rules never really say which is right or explicitly support the ruling you do, the fact that we're arguing this at all, only supports the actual contention that I was trying to make in the first place: that the rules are unclear, and that the mechanic in question here is pretty wonky.

And I think we can agree that the possibility that this has just never come up exists. This is actually something I've meant to talk about for a while and never gotten around to.

Again, you're asking me to look at the end result of a specialization as being, For Skill X (Spec Y), Potential Dice Used = X + (Y - X), and this is just counterintuitive. For any other specialization, I just look at the rating of the spec. for the dice to be used. I don't worry about what the base skill says, and for the most part, for other specs, I bet you do the same. You look at Pistols X (Predators Y) and when it comes time to fire a Pred, you don't worry about what the base skill rating says because the specialization applies, so roll Y dice.

In the case of Sorcery and SD, it's not so clear. I looked at the situation, as have the people in my group, and thought the makers of the game fucked up in allowing free SD dice to be easily obtained. Later, I felt the fuck up of making a skill work like a pool in some ways but not others for one unique activity was more worrisome. In any case, it wasn't a big deal to us because we simply don't use SD very much. So we decided to make it work like every other specialization seems to: when you're using the specialty, use the spec. dice and don't worry what the base skill rating is.

You and perhaps your group probably saw a bigger problem, and decided a fix was in order. The solution you came up with works well enough and maintains balance. But 1) it would have been nice for this to be cleared up in canon, and 2) it'd be even nicer is they could have found a way to do it that worked the same way as everything else, instead of using Sorcery as a pool instead of like every other skill when it comes to SD. This would seem a textbook example of the sort of streamlining initiative that's driving SR4. Which was, again, my whole point.

You're being very vague here. What, precisely, am I not taking into account? The only limitiations on a specialization because of the base skill that I can recall in canon deal with a spec's maximum rating and starting rating. Hell, the number of specializations a character can have is governed by the linked attribute. So what specific limitiations do the SR3 rules and errata, that is, the actual text of the game canon, have for specializations that I'm missing? Because you're acting like your interpretation of the rules for the SD spec. is based on some well-known principal that is laid out somewhere in SR3, and I'm not seeing a page reference.

Just so that you know exactly what I'm talking about, I'd like to see a page reference where SR3 says that the dice that can be used in a specialization is equal to X + (Y - X), where X is the base skill rating and Y is the specialization rating. Alternately, some section of either SR3 or MitS where is clarifies what to do for the Spell Defense specialization would be nice. Because I'm just not seeing either anywhere, and in fact, whenever I and anyone else I've played SR with has used specializations or the SD spec., we've just taken the number of dice used to be Y and treated Spell Defense accordingly.

This is a mathematically correct way of looking at it, and it does resolve a balance issue that might otherwise have gone unchecked, but
1) It's counterintuitive considering the way in which pretty much all specializations are actually used, and
2) It's not spelled out in canon. If that were, indeed, "how it works," I would expect the rules to explicitly say so. It doesn't. So either your interpretation is in fact a house rule, maybe even a very common one, meant to patch an unclear point in the rules, or the rules need to have been written more clearly.

Now, I just read the section in SR3 about specializations. I doesn't say either way what's correct. And the section on Spell Defense doesn't clear things up either. Maybe it was clear to you what you felt should have been done. Clearly, not everyone came to the same conclusion.

I never doubted that specializations are part of the base skill. That you can use a base skill to preform any specialization is proof of this. But when you actually look at how many dice you need to roll, do you really start with the base skill and then add the difference between the base skill and the specialization? Or do you just pick up dice equal to the specialization? The fact that SD requires a unique and confusing use of a skill is only half the problem for me; the fact that they never said how the specialization for SD was supposed to work for when its application is different than any other skill in the game is the other.

When I have my character fire his Predator, I intuitively think that I should either roll Pistols, or the Predator specialization if he has it. Not Pistols + (Preadator - Pistols). So when I looked at SD, I figured it was the same. With a specialization, I'm taking dice from the specialization, not the base skill, just like in every other situation where a specialization is used. Is it really so hard to see how one could make that conclusion?

What if you have Sorcey X (Spell Def Y) (Dispelling Z) (Spellcasting W), etc.? You don't really have a skill at rating Y, Z, or W. You have a base skill at X and specializations at Y, Z, and W that are used when they come into play. I can see the way you're looking at it. It just isn't how I usually do, or ever had before this thread.

As I said, your view of Specializations is totally correct ... for every single skill in Shadowrun except Sorcery. Spirits knows why the powers-that-be decided to do things the way they did with that one single skill.