Post/Author/DateTime	Post
thrinidel 03-09-08, 11:37 PM	What are the rules regarding called hits, and more importantly where are such rules defined? For example, let's say a fighter is facing a Beholder, and wants to hack off an eyestalk, I would think of this as a called shot to hit, which I would think would suffer a penalty to hit (since the target is harder than just the monster in general), and then some specific percentage of the beholder's remaining hp to disable that eyestalk. But I have no idea how much of a to hit penalty, nor how much damage need be done (percentage? raw amount of hp?)? Or am I even on the wrong tack entirely, and there is a different mechanism for this (or it is explicitly disallowed)? I'm not sure if there are precedents in the rules to support this? As usual, I'm not only interested in answers, I'm also interested in knowing rationale and references, so I can learn how to research and answer these questions for myself, rather than always asking others. Thanks in advance!
runestar 03-09-08, 11:47 PM	Called shots were deliberately left out of 3e for this very reason - they did not work. Called Shots Do Bad Things to the Game (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/calledshots.html)
Shular 03-09-08, 11:50 PM	Hmm, if chopping off a body part, I'd use sunder rules (and thus provoking an attack of opportunity if you don't have Improved Sunder) similar to dealing with a hydra. Set a reasonable hp for the part and, maybe, adjust the AC by the size of the part part in question. For the boholder example, a standard behold has 93 hp and 10 eyestalks, so maybe 8-10 hp per stalk would be appropriate. Beholder's large with 26 AC, so maybe treat the eyestalks as medium, thus having a 27 AC. It, on the other hand, it is a held item, then Sunder or Disarm are directly appropriate. If someone wants to make a "called shot" with a ranged attack, they should take the Ranged Sunder and/or Ranged Disarm feats from Complete Warrior. That being said, I don't know if there are any set rules on this. (If you wanted, for example, to shoot someone in the eye, for example, I'm not sure how you'd do it.)
Shular 03-10-08, 12:00 AM	Called shots were deliberately left out of 3e for this very reason - they did not work. Called Shots Do Bad Things to the Game (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/calledshots.html) LOL I'll concede this to runsestar. He's quite right...don't bother. Assume the target can move to protect vulnerable spots. If the target is helpless, then do a coup de gras.
Crimson_Concerto 03-10-08, 03:21 AM	I believe what the OP is looking for is the rules for Critical Hits. Ways to improve this ability come in the form of the Improved Critical feat and the Sneak Attack class feature of the Rogue.
LustSwordsinger 03-10-08, 04:01 AM	what my group has allways done is the attacker takes a -4 on the attack roll, but can negate that by spending a turn aiming/studying the specific part. i think this might be what was done in 2ed. but dont quote me on that. ither way, its allways worked for us.
MnemonicSV 03-10-08, 06:13 AM	Here is a link to a very good old thread on this subject: Called Shots (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=936231). It discusses many pros and cons of the "called shot" system in general, and makes some valid points. In fact, some of the people who have posted in this very thread appear in the old thread as well. As stated above, there are no official rules for called shots in 3.5e. BTW runestar, thanks for the link. Good read! Not to shoot down Mr. Reynolds (I'm a fan of his work) or anything, but there was only one flaw in his argument: If you can move your shield to defend any part of your body normally, why can't you just as easily move any armoured part of your body to defend the unarmoured bits? Why would an unarmoured limb be easier to hit if the character can just as easily place that limb behind an armoured limb? Personally, I had always assumed thats one of the ways that armour works in the first place. You're never completely armoured... you're just treated as such by virtue of the fact that combat is very fluid. That being said, this (below) is more or less a copy and paste (with minor revisions) of my post in that old thread, reprinted for convenience (okay... and maybe shameless self-endorsement). This system does not "bypass armour" at all, as was the major sticking point in the Sean K. Reynolds article, nor does it track separate HPs or damage, nor add or substract HP damage, nor does it use any kind of "armour map" for body parts, nor does it slow down gameplay any more than say a disarm or trip attempt would. All the DM needs to keep track of is a -2 penalty for some checks, which isn't any worse than any other enemy de-buff in the game. ---------- Called Shot You can make a called shot attempt as a standard action (a melee attack). When you make a called shot, you attempt to damage a specific part of an opponent's body, instead of damaging whatever part of the opponent's body is most vulnerable at the moment. Step 1: Attack of Opportunity. You provoke an attack of opportunity from the opponent you are making a called shot attempt against. (If you have the Improved Called Shot feat, you do not incur an attack of opportunity for making a called shot attempt.) If the defender's attack of opportunity deals any damage, your called shot attempt fails. Step 2: Attack Roll. You make an attack roll with a -4 penalty. (If you have the Improved Called Shot feat, you do not incur a -4 penalty to the attack roll.) The defender gains a special size bonus to AC (overiding it's usual size bonus to AC), depending on the size of the appendage you are attempting to strike. Use the following table to determine what the defender's special size bonus to AC is for that appendage (for non-humanoid creatures, the DM may need to make judgement calls): Arm or Leg: One size category smaller than creature's usual size. Hand, Foot, or Head: Two size categories smaller than creature's usual size. One Eye or One Ear: Three size categories smaller than creature's usual size. Step 3: Critical Hit? If the attack missed, you have failed to cause any damage to the creature. If the attack was successful (but did not result in a critical hit), resolve damage normally (the specific damage is cosmetic-only for game purposes). If the attack was successful and resulted in a critical hit, the specific appendage of the creature's body has sustained damage. In addition to resolving damage normally, refer to pg 27 of the Dungeon Master's Guide to determine what additional penalty should be applied to the defender, depending on the specific area damaged. Note: Any creature that is not subject to critical hits suffers no penalties to having a specific part of it's body damaged. The DM always has the final say on what appendages may be targeted; For example: The DM may rule you cannot target an eye with a club (without simply hitting the head), or that a helmet prevents you from targeting an ear, or that an appendage may simply be out of reach (depending on creature size and position). ---------- I thought about adding a variant, by which a 20-20-hit would automatically sever/crush/impale the appendage, rendering it permanently damaged (requiring use of regeneration or a similar effect to repair), and would not instantly kill the creature (unless the head was targeted). Obviously, use of this special attack would be easier with an Improved Called Shot feat, which is in essence described above. Of course, I never had a chance to test out this system, so I may never know how well it works. Oh well.
thrinidel 03-10-08, 10:35 AM	Called Shot You can make a called shot attempt (...) Thanks, both the thread link and the house (albeit well-documented) rule are quite helpful. The requirement of a crit to succeed the called shot does make it rather hard to do actual damage on the called shot, but perhaps that is appropriate. I also agree with your assessment of the Reynolds article, upon reading it. It's well written, but rests on dubious premises (at least from my naive perspective)... If the attack was successful (but did not result in a critical hit), resolve damage normally (the specific damage is cosmetic-only for game purposes). I don't understand the qualification of "cosmetic-only" damage? Are you simply saying that the target takes normal hit point damage with no specific disabling of the targeted limb/appendage/organ? That would make sense, given how you've phrased the rule. Of course, I never had a chance to test out this system, so I may never know how well it works. Oh well. Can you explain the "of course" from above? Why were you never able to test it out? Thanks again for the response!
thrinidel 03-10-08, 10:48 AM	I believe what the OP is looking for is the rules for Critical Hits. Ways to improve this ability come in the form of the Improved Critical feat and the Sneak Attack class feature of the Rogue. Thanks, but no, I was not looking for crit rules, and am familiar with both sneak attack and the improved crit feat. I was specifically looking for solutions to the players' desires to make the combat more interesting by being able to concentrate firepower on specific monster bodily "features", rather than on increasing generic damage. The problem specifically is that D&D's combat system is too generic in its treatment of hit points, thus obviating any way for players (or intelligent monsters) to disable foes in more interesting/effective ways than just "hack until it falls to 0hp"... To be even more specific on it, please refer to the example I gave in the original post, in which I cite the desire to target a specific eyestalk of a beholder. Critical hits and sneak attacks would not address disabling that eyestalk. In the interest of playability, at the time, I went for a simple, impromptu "-4 to hit, must deal 10% of creature hp to disable" ruling at the time, which arguably could have made it far easier for the player to achieve their intent. I believe that "no called shots in D&D" would have made the experience far less engaging for the players, and disturbed the game immersion (and encouraged meta-game banter and griping), so I went for the impromptu ruling instead. In the future, I will refine that to incorporate the AOO and size bonus to AC of target mentioned in this thread, and perhaps the crit requirement as well.
Crimson_Concerto 03-10-08, 06:53 PM	(I was trying to insinuate that Critical Hits and Sneak Attack ARE the D&D called shot rules, actually, because as written, they are, but I see being somewhat vague won't work here.) How has nobody already come in here with the True-Striking Kobolds argument? :P The argument is simple. If your PCs think it's cool to be able to take a penalty to hit or miss chance in order to deal extra damage or inflict specific effects, then what you're supposed to do is send them up against an army of level 1 Kobold Sorcerers with crossbows. They all cast True Strike (+20 to hit, negates miss chance) and then proceed to blind the PCs, etc. This is the fundamental flaw with basically all Called Shot house rules. The penalties are always simply too easy to overcome for too great a benefit. The only way to prevent this is to make Called Shot mechanics so crippling that nobody wants to try them anyways. Take MnemonicSV's suggestion, for instance. In his example, it's almost always a better idea to try for a called shot than not (if you're using a ranged weapons anyways so you don't take the AoO). The size bonuses to AC are almost insignificant, and the further -4 is easily negated by a simple feat. As it currently works, that house rule is only slightly better than the classic "Special Critical Hit Effects!!!" table (and you don't want to get the boards started on those... :rolleyes: ). I know what you're thinking, probably something like "Well look at Improved Trip! You can take a simple feat to negate all the penalties for that too, and it's always better to try for it than not!" The problem is that's not true. You need to succeed on an opposed trip attempt, first of all, which isn't difficult enough to optimize per se, but at that point you need an actual specific build to do it. Also, Improved Trip has the penalty that if you fail to actually trip, then you don't get to attack and deal any damage. Further still, and probably most importantly, causing the enemy to becomes prone is not nearly as severe a penalty as inflicting blindness on an opponent. The benefit of called shots is too great for not enough of a penalty. In the end, the army of Kobolds argument still applies. A reasonably large (aka, CR appropriate) group of level 1 arcanists, preferably with ranged weapons, will make short work of a party. MnemonicSV's can be saved perhaps if failure to roll a critical hit also means failure to deal any damage at all, but at that point the system is crappy such that nobody wants to use it at all anymore unless you're talking specific crit-range optimizing builds. I understand the desire to give martial characters something a little bit more interesting to do in combat, but Called Shots aren't the way to do it. They simply don't work in D&D 3.5. My suggestion to you is to pick up a copy of Tome of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords. The martial adept maneuver system may be just what you're looking for to make melee interesting again. :)
Mindolin 03-10-08, 07:09 PM	Allow me to suggest the Critical Hit deck, a Gamemastery Product. It has that sort of thing, and it's pretty fun to use
MnemonicSV 03-11-08, 01:48 AM	Take MnemonicSV's suggestion, for instance. In his example, it's almost always a better idea to try for a called shot than not (if you're using a ranged weapons anyways so you don't take the AoO)... Agreed. Which is precisely why I wrote them as melee-only. You are quite right though about ranged attacks and called shots... there is simply no way to balance them out. Note also that in my version you still need a critical hit to succeed at dealing specific damage. Although true strike will certainly aid in confirming such critical hits, it will do nothing to aid in the threat range. I also agree with your assessment of the Reynolds article, upon reading it. It's well written, but rests on dubious premises (at least from my naive perspective)... Yeah... he did kinda pull a "chewbacca defence" there. While I agree with him completely that "armour mapping" and "damage tracking" are unnecessary and cumbersome, he didn't really elaborate on why he felt that his (intentionally flawed) method of called shots is the only way to do it in the game. He effectively created his own worst-case example, then shot it full of holes, to make his point. It would be a little like myself making the rant: "The Flumph is a completely unreasonable monster, since it never misses on a natural 1, is immune to all magic, and HP damage only heals it." Well... it's not the Flumph itself that's unreasonable: It's the game mechanics I made up on the spot for it that's unreasonable. I don't understand the qualification of "cosmetic-only" damage? Are you simply saying that the target takes normal hit point damage with no specific disabling of the targeted limb/appendage/organ? That would make sense, given how you've phrased the rule. Yes... that is exactly how I intended it. Can you explain the "of course" from above? Why were you never able to test it out? I just haven't DM'd a campaign since I came up with this system... been just a player for a while. No chance to try it out yet. If you do choose to use it, PM me to let me know how it works out (if you don't mind of course). In case anyone's wondering, I intentionally designed this combat option so as not to be something that any warrior would want to do all the time.. hence the -4 penalty, the fact it only triggers a penalty on successful crit, provoking an AoO, and making it a standard action to make a single called shot attack (instead of making it something that could be used on a full attack). A low-level warrior will try to avoid the -4 penalty, whereas a mid to high-level warrior probably won't want to sacrifice his full attack routine to attempt it. Obviously, weapons with a high threat range offer an slight advantage over others with this system: It may be justifiable to balance that by raising the price of the keen weapon enhancement slightly, and/or increasing the prerequisites for the Improved Critical feat slightly. Not much mind you, just a little. Personally, I wouldn't bother. Oh, and understand that called-shot variant rules can be a potentially contentious issue on the boards. There are some in this forum who will fight tooth and nail to the bitter end that all called-shot systems are inherently flawed and unreasonable. Some forum members will make reasonable and valid points as to why such systems may not work (like Crimson_Concerto, above). Some others however only shoot it down because it's not "officially supported." Still others only don't like the idea because Mr. Reynolds and company don't like them. The reasons are varied. I've been on the boards for a long while now, and every few months a new called-shot thread pops up... and in some rare cases people got bitter. So, bearing that in mind, remember that nay-sayers are omnipresent here.
MnemonicSV 03-11-08, 02:29 AM	Hmmm.. just had an idea how to balance it against the whole "blindness" thing (since that repeatedly comes up as the imbalancing bit). Rule 0 that you can't use called shots to blind an opponent (-2 penalty maximum only). Problem solved. Gee... that was hard.
thrinidel 03-12-08, 10:43 AM	In case anyone's wondering, I intentionally designed this combat option so as not to be something that any warrior would want to do all the time.. hence the -4 penalty, the fact it only triggers a penalty on successful crit, provoking an AoO, and making it a standard action to make a single called shot attack (instead of making it something that could be used on a full attack). A low-level warrior will try to avoid the -4 penalty, whereas a mid to high-level warrior probably won't want to sacrifice his full attack routine to attempt it. Yes, to me this is the primary balancing attribute of the system. I like it. Thanks again! And yes, I'll PM you with how it works, if it comes up again.
DESC 03-12-08, 12:59 PM	The that my DM, who has been doing it for many many years, and is very good at just coming up with stuff, ran it was that to make a called shot, you took a large negative, depending on what you were attacking. A -20 for a head shot, a -15 for an arm or leg, that kinda thing. Then, if you hit, depending on the amount of damage that you did, the effect was different. Some of the effects that happened where, the arm being disabled, when I hit someones head, they had to make a fort save, which was relative to the damage done, or take tons of negatives on pretty much every roll. However, this was a higher powered game where at level 17 my character could, with one hit, do 30d6+12d10+1d8+5 damage, and he could have a +42 to his attack while doing this. He was a Duskblade(PHBII)/Jade Pheonix Warrior(9 swords). So in a lower powered game, this might not work, but that is what we did