Aim for the head!!! [Archive] - Wizards Community

Aim for the head!!! [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Lord_of_Lights
11-23-06, 05:05 PM I wonder how the DnD mechanic work for an warlock trying to aim the face of an enemy with the acid version of his eldritch blast.
-What will be the bonus to AC of the target
-THE % TO MAKE HIM BLIND
-Bonus to damage for hitting the head (with for an archer to)

Is this called a called shot?

And finaly how strong will yell out the victims!!!!
smrtgmp
11-23-06, 05:14 PM there are no more called shots in 3.X (though sneak/death attacks, sunder, disarm, etc. could all be concidered called shots of sorts).
Seeker95
11-23-06, 05:33 PM Throw acid in the face of your opponent and he takes the same number of hit points of damage as he would take if you threw it on his hand. No more, and no less.
Mula
11-23-06, 05:53 PM It's really hard to actually hit someone's head as opposed to his torso or legs. You roll normally, but if you get a natural 20, you roll again - if you beat the enemy's normal AC, you deal twice as much damage with the blast. Neat, eh! :)

You can also become better at these head shots if you take the feat Improved Critical.
Salla
11-23-06, 08:24 PM It's really hard to actually hit someone's head as opposed to his torso or legs. You roll normally, but if you get a natural 20, you roll again - if you beat the enemy's normal AC, you deal twice as much damage with the blast. Neat, eh! :)

You can also become better at these head shots if you take the feat Improved Critical.

Nicely sarcastic, I approve. :cookie:
Lord_of_Lights
11-23-06, 08:58 PM Ty for answering...

If there is not rule for this, I mind that I should discuss about that with my DM and maybe we will make an house rule for this.
Maybe making to have 10% miss chance to hit the target and a +2 size mod (tiny).
The target should allowed to a fortitude (or reflexe) save to resist
the blind effect [for the acid] (DC = the attack result of the shooter).
And this should do an additionnal 1d6 damage
Salla
11-23-06, 10:37 PM Ty for answering...

If there is not rule for this, I mind that I should discuss about that with my DM and maybe we will make an house rule for this.
Maybe making to have 10% miss chance to hit the target and a +2 size mod (tiny).
The target should allowed to a fortitude (or reflexe) save to resist
the blind effect [for the acid] (DC = the attack result of the shooter).
And this should do an additionnal 1d6 damage

I highly recommend that you don't ... game balance will pretty well go out the window. Called Shots Do Bad Things To The Game.

http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/calledshots.html
TheCobra
11-23-06, 10:58 PM Only losers aim for the head. Go for the eyes, Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!

;)
Catra
11-23-06, 11:05 PM Remember that damage is also in some sense partially abstract. When you "hit" a character, that doesn't necessarily mean you mortally wound him. On some level it means wearing down your opponent and studying his moves untill that "telling blow" when you finally wreck his face and he goes down for good.

If you accept this definition, characters that deal more "damage" aren't necessarily better just at dealing more raw damage (although this certainly might be the case with barbarians or fighters), they're better at quickly finding the chinks in another character or monster's armor and fighting style and expoiting them. Special maneuvers like sneak attack and Dirty Fighting come to mind. This also means that characters with more hit points are better at avoiding such "telling blows" as well as absorbing damage.

So when you "hit", you don't necessarily hit.
Mula
11-24-06, 08:41 AM So when you "hit", you don't necessarily hit.Then how does injury poison work exactly?
Pandaemoni
11-24-06, 09:01 AM Ty for answering...

If there is not rule for this, I mind that I should discuss about that with my DM and maybe we will make an house rule for this.
Maybe making to have 10% miss chance to hit the target and a +2 size mod (tiny).
The target should allowed to a fortitude (or reflexe) save to resist
the blind effect [for the acid] (DC = the attack result of the shooter).
And this should do an additionnal 1d6 damage

I highly recommend that you don't ... game balance will pretty well go out the window. Called Shots Do Bad Things To The Game.

I second this. Called shots like the ones you want are invariably more powerful than regular body attacks, especially when people start throwing touch attacks around. If your warlock can "go for the head," then why can't a fighter with a sword "go for the throat" or specifically strike the unarmored legs of someone wearing a chain shirt?

A system of called shots might work for some game systems, but they have always been disasterous in D&D...at least all the ones I've seen.

In any event, the ability to blind a target (for 1 round only) with an Eldritch Blast is a lesser invocation already...it shouldn't, imo, be given away for free to anyone who takes vitriolic blast. If you want blindness too, you should take that invocation (beshadowed blast). If you want blindness that lasts longer than a round, you should discuss creating a new Greater Eldritch Essence invocation with your DM. You could possibly suggest one that allows you to deliver either blindness or deafness (as per the Blindness/Deafness spell) with your blast.
Beckett
11-24-06, 11:31 AM I allow called SHot, but the rules are pretty heavy. Forst the target gets +4 AC, and you automatically take a -4 to your Attack. It is a Full ROund Action, and you make your single Attack as normal. The A.C. is the targets normal A.C. plus the specific areas SIZE bonus, (usually +4 - +8).
If the creature has a specific weakness, say Vampire vs Stake to heart, the weapon bypasses the (natural) D.R., and may instantly slay the creature, if a minimal damage is attained, (usually something like i damage per HD). If not, the stake is lodged in, but deals no damage, and may be attempted again later, similar to a grapple.
Pandaemoni
11-24-06, 11:38 AM I allow called SHot, but the rules are pretty heavy. Forst the target gets +4 AC, and you automatically take a -4 to your Attack. It is a Full ROund Action, and you make your single Attack as normal. The A.C. is the targets normal A.C. plus the specific areas SIZE bonus, (usually +4 - +8).
If the creature has a specific weakness, say Vampire vs Stake to heart, the weapon bypasses the (natural) D.R., and may instantly slay the creature, if a minimal damage is attained, (usually something like i damage per HD). If not, the stake is lodged in, but deals no damage, and may be attempted again later, similar to a grapple.

Doesn't that just beg for the True Strike spell? Any bow-oriented warrior with sorcerer 1 in in build and a wand of true strike can kill any vampire in two rounds....
Catra
11-24-06, 12:45 PM Then how does injury poison work exactly?

Ranged touch attack.
Mula
11-24-06, 01:01 PM Ranged touch attack.Isn't that contact poison?
Seeker95
11-24-06, 01:25 PM So when you "hit", you don't necessarily hit.Then how does injury poison work exactly?The same way it always does.
The key word was necessarily.
Sometimes when you hit, you really do hit.
Salla
11-24-06, 02:06 PM The same way it always does.
The key word was necessarily.
Sometimes when you hit, you really do hit.

Winner. :)
High Octane
11-24-06, 02:12 PM Trying to put called shots into D&D is like trying to prune your hedges with a flame thrower. You may think you have it under control, then something bad happens.
Beckett
11-24-06, 03:17 PM NOt really, I've never had a problem. It is not usually an instakill. Vampire in the example, have a single specific weakness, that no D&D book has ever gone into detail about, and it happens to work well as an example, but for most other cases, a persons hand become useless until either a Full round Heal check or 1hp is cured. An arrow, is not a stake, by the way, so does not get be the D.R., takes all the normal penulties, and I would probably say just rule of thumb, if your going for a called shot to the heart, the range penulty is -2 for every 5ft away.
Beckett
11-24-06, 03:20 PM And, if they players try to abuse it, well have someone roll a nat 20 crit on them, and lop off an arm or two. . . "Oh ****, I can't use a shield, can't two weapon fight, cast spells, use a two handed/double weapon, climb, etc. . . until I level and afford to find a Cleric to cast Regen. on me. . . Then I'll have to explain what I was doing to lose my arm in the first place."
High Octane
11-24-06, 06:29 PM And, if they players try to abuse it, well have someone roll a nat 20 crit on them, and lop off an arm or two. . . "Oh ****, I can't use a shield, can't two weapon fight, cast spells, use a two handed/double weapon, climb, etc. . . until I level and afford to find a Cleric to cast Regen. on me. . . Then I'll have to explain what I was doing to lose my arm in the first place."

This is not being a fair or effective DM. Abusing your privelages as a DM for them abusing a rule you knew could easily be subject to abuse.

How easy to abuse? True Strike easy.
Teron Gorefiend
11-24-06, 06:49 PM And, if they players try to abuse it, well have someone roll a nat 20 crit on them, and lop off an arm or two. . . "Oh ****, I can't use a shield, can't two weapon fight, cast spells, use a two handed/double weapon, climb, etc. . . until I level and afford to find a Cleric to cast Regen. on me. . . Then I'll have to explain what I was doing to lose my arm in the first place."
You're an awful DM.

"Ha! Try to have fun now!" :rolleyes:
Beckett
11-25-06, 08:20 AM Why do you say that. I've never had it happen, I was giving an example of why it is not that bad as far as abuse goes. If they try to abuse it, like trying to blind every encounter by Striking the eyes, then it is going to happen to them. If they act mature and use it when called for, like against a hydra, or a vampire, or the like, then it works just perfectly. It is similar to Improved Sunder. Sure, you can try to destroy each enemies Armor and weapons, but one, you do not damage to them, two, thats less treasure for you, and three, you might get yourself killed before you actually destroy anything, (or destroying it might be the cause of your death [Staff of Magi]).
I was trying to drop a helpful suggestion, that has not once, in over three years caused any problems for me. You don't like it, fine. My players have enjoyed it. Go me.
Beckett
11-25-06, 08:21 AM I good Dm makes their players regret trying to abuse the system, not takes their stuff away cause they can't handle it.
Witch
11-25-06, 09:53 AM No, a good DM doesn't implement a broken system for the heck of it.
Ra-Tiel
11-25-06, 10:09 AM Trying to put called shots into D&D is like trying to prune your hedges with a flame thrower. You may think you have it under control, then something bad happens.
:rofl:

No, a good DM doesn't implement a broken system for the heck of it.
:clap:

Anyways, I crinche whenever I see the words "called shots" and "DnD" in one sentence. It is a bad idea, no matter what you think. It's just like critical fumbles. Only worse. :shifty:

If you enjoy your painstalkingly created recurring BBEG masterminds being slaughtered by called shots to the head only in the first round of combat, go ahead. If you enjoy your players having to roll up new characters every 2nd session because some called shot killed, lobotomized, or crippled their characters beyond redemption, go ahead. If you enjoy your combat taking roughtly 7 times as long as normal because of calculating the additional modifiers, ACs, attack bonuses, et al, go ahead.

I'll stay with DnD in the meantime, thank you very much.
AlanBruce
11-25-06, 10:13 AM I have yet to comprehend the need many DMs and players alike have to end battles as quickly as possible. As a DM, I spend hours a week creating fun, challenging scenarios for my players, particularly when they're about to fight some main villain. I enjoy fleshing out these characters and giving them bizzarre and fun abilities that will leave lasting impressions on my players for a long time. As a player, I design my characters to make them strong not always in the battlefield, but in roleplaying situations as well. I choose feats, skills and spells that will enhance the feel of the campaign being played at the time.

It sure isn't fun to lose your PC in a second because of a -4 penalty called shot to the neck with a dagger.

I believe fights should go as normal. Burn it to the last HP.
BloodSpill
11-25-06, 10:20 AM Called shots? Isn't that another name for Power Attack? Or was it Sneak Attack? Hmm, I think there was a Hamstring feat once. How about that Crippling Strike class feature?
Ra-Tiel
11-25-06, 10:40 AM Called shots? Isn't that another name for Power Attack? Or was it Sneak Attack? Hmm, I think there was a Hamstring feat once. How about that Crippling Strike class feature?
True.

Anyways, I thought there already was an invocation making the target blind on a failed save? :thinks:
Mula
11-25-06, 11:21 AM The same way it always does.
The key word was necessarily.
Sometimes when you hit, you really do hit.I love using injury poison on maces and clubs. :)
Lord_of_Lights
11-25-06, 11:51 AM I love using injury poison on maces and clubs. :)

Yea not bad about that, a big bash with a hard metallic object still make you bleed.

PS:
I dont why everyone is panicking about single hit kill with head shot.
I never said that, I only said that it could do an additionnal 1d6 damage for any type of weapon and hitting on the head in face of someone that is seeing you is not a sneak attack (an the 1d6 for head shot dont stack with sneak attack bonus)

Another suggestion of mecanic for head shot
Usually the fighters know that they have to protect there weak points more carefully, so maybe finaly we should allow only head shot on criticals hits and no additionnal damage than the crical provide, but if you aimed for the head you could make a check with d% 50 is left eye and 100 is right eye, any other is another part of the head. You could imput a -2 (or more) damage penality for aiming head instead of the hearth (for the critic).
Ra-Tiel
11-25-06, 12:34 PM [...] PS:
I dont why everyone is panicking about single hit kill with head shot.
I never said that, I only said that it could do an additionnal 1d6 damage for any type of weapon and hitting on the head in face of someone that is seeing you is not a sneak attack (an the 1d6 for head shot dont stack with sneak attack bonus)
I admit we're overreacting here. Probably because we are "burnt children", so to speak. At least I personally have had already bad experiences with "called shots".

Not only is the mechanical implementation tricky (tricky as in: "how do we do it without completely screwing the PCs?"), it also brings up logical questions (like: "why does not every bandit make called shots when they are so effective?") that inevitably lead back to the "tricky" part.

Another suggestion of mecanic for head shot
Usually the fighters know that they have to protect there weak points more carefully, so maybe finaly we should allow only head shot on criticals hits and no additionnal damage than the crical provide, but if you aimed for the head you could make a check with d% 50 is left eye and 100 is right eye, any other is another part of the head. You could imput a -2 (or more) damage penality for aiming head instead of the hearth (for the critic).
But how does this enhance your game? There are no rules for "one-eyed-ness". Nor is depth-perception an issue. At most, you could probably use the optional rule from the DMG.

Additionally, this brings up the issue that an enemy was probably never meant to survive the combat in the first place, and thus it doesn't matter if he is "accidentally" castrated, made blind on one eye, or looses 3 fingers on each hand. But how about the characters? Is it also neglectable for them? What in a low-magic campaign? Or when the PCs for whatever reasons cannot just walk to the next Clerics'R'Us and get their extremities regrown/organs healed?

Imho such rules are always more hassle than they are actually worth it. Perhaps you could try the injury system from Unearthed Arcana, thus going away from HPs and leaving more to the DM's description?
Salla
11-25-06, 01:37 PM It is similar to Improved Sunder. Sure, you can try to destroy each enemies Armor and weapons, but one, you do not damage to them, two, thats less treasure for you, and three, you might get yourself killed before you actually destroy anything, (or destroying it might be the cause of your death [Staff of Magi]).

Important note: The Staff of the Magi only explodes in a retributive strike if the wielder of the staff deliberately and intentionally breaks it to generate that effect. Any other breakage of the staff does NOT result in an explosion.
Catra
11-25-06, 02:16 PM Any other breakage of the staff does NOT result in an explosion.

:(

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Lord_of_Lights 11-23-06, 05:05 PM	I wonder how the DnD mechanic work for an warlock trying to aim the face of an enemy with the acid version of his eldritch blast. -What will be the bonus to AC of the target -THE % TO MAKE HIM BLIND -Bonus to damage for hitting the head (with for an archer to) Is this called a called shot? And finaly how strong will yell out the victims!!!!
smrtgmp 11-23-06, 05:14 PM	there are no more called shots in 3.X (though sneak/death attacks, sunder, disarm, etc. could all be concidered called shots of sorts).
Seeker95 11-23-06, 05:33 PM	Throw acid in the face of your opponent and he takes the same number of hit points of damage as he would take if you threw it on his hand. No more, and no less.
Mula 11-23-06, 05:53 PM	It's really hard to actually hit someone's head as opposed to his torso or legs. You roll normally, but if you get a natural 20, you roll again - if you beat the enemy's normal AC, you deal twice as much damage with the blast. Neat, eh! :) You can also become better at these head shots if you take the feat Improved Critical.
Salla 11-23-06, 08:24 PM	It's really hard to actually hit someone's head as opposed to his torso or legs. You roll normally, but if you get a natural 20, you roll again - if you beat the enemy's normal AC, you deal twice as much damage with the blast. Neat, eh! :) You can also become better at these head shots if you take the feat Improved Critical. Nicely sarcastic, I approve. :cookie:
Lord_of_Lights 11-23-06, 08:58 PM	Ty for answering... If there is not rule for this, I mind that I should discuss about that with my DM and maybe we will make an house rule for this. Maybe making to have 10% miss chance to hit the target and a +2 size mod (tiny). The target should allowed to a fortitude (or reflexe) save to resist the blind effect [for the acid] (DC = the attack result of the shooter). And this should do an additionnal 1d6 damage
Salla 11-23-06, 10:37 PM	Ty for answering... If there is not rule for this, I mind that I should discuss about that with my DM and maybe we will make an house rule for this. Maybe making to have 10% miss chance to hit the target and a +2 size mod (tiny). The target should allowed to a fortitude (or reflexe) save to resist the blind effect [for the acid] (DC = the attack result of the shooter). And this should do an additionnal 1d6 damage I highly recommend that you don't ... game balance will pretty well go out the window. Called Shots Do Bad Things To The Game. http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/calledshots.html
TheCobra 11-23-06, 10:58 PM	Only losers aim for the head. Go for the eyes, Boo! GO FOR THE EYES! ;)
Catra 11-23-06, 11:05 PM	Remember that damage is also in some sense partially abstract. When you "hit" a character, that doesn't necessarily mean you mortally wound him. On some level it means wearing down your opponent and studying his moves untill that "telling blow" when you finally wreck his face and he goes down for good. If you accept this definition, characters that deal more "damage" aren't necessarily better just at dealing more raw damage (although this certainly might be the case with barbarians or fighters), they're better at quickly finding the chinks in another character or monster's armor and fighting style and expoiting them. Special maneuvers like sneak attack and Dirty Fighting come to mind. This also means that characters with more hit points are better at avoiding such "telling blows" as well as absorbing damage. So when you "hit", you don't necessarily hit.
Mula 11-24-06, 08:41 AM	So when you "hit", you don't necessarily hit.Then how does injury poison work exactly?
Pandaemoni 11-24-06, 09:01 AM	Ty for answering... If there is not rule for this, I mind that I should discuss about that with my DM and maybe we will make an house rule for this. Maybe making to have 10% miss chance to hit the target and a +2 size mod (tiny). The target should allowed to a fortitude (or reflexe) save to resist the blind effect [for the acid] (DC = the attack result of the shooter). And this should do an additionnal 1d6 damage I highly recommend that you don't ... game balance will pretty well go out the window. Called Shots Do Bad Things To The Game. I second this. Called shots like the ones you want are invariably more powerful than regular body attacks, especially when people start throwing touch attacks around. If your warlock can "go for the head," then why can't a fighter with a sword "go for the throat" or specifically strike the unarmored legs of someone wearing a chain shirt? A system of called shots might work for some game systems, but they have always been disasterous in D&D...at least all the ones I've seen. In any event, the ability to blind a target (for 1 round only) with an Eldritch Blast is a lesser invocation already...it shouldn't, imo, be given away for free to anyone who takes vitriolic blast. If you want blindness too, you should take that invocation (beshadowed blast). If you want blindness that lasts longer than a round, you should discuss creating a new Greater Eldritch Essence invocation with your DM. You could possibly suggest one that allows you to deliver either blindness or deafness (as per the Blindness/Deafness spell) with your blast.
Beckett 11-24-06, 11:31 AM	I allow called SHot, but the rules are pretty heavy. Forst the target gets +4 AC, and you automatically take a -4 to your Attack. It is a Full ROund Action, and you make your single Attack as normal. The A.C. is the targets normal A.C. plus the specific areas SIZE bonus, (usually +4 - +8). If the creature has a specific weakness, say Vampire vs Stake to heart, the weapon bypasses the (natural) D.R., and may instantly slay the creature, if a minimal damage is attained, (usually something like i damage per HD). If not, the stake is lodged in, but deals no damage, and may be attempted again later, similar to a grapple.
Pandaemoni 11-24-06, 11:38 AM	I allow called SHot, but the rules are pretty heavy. Forst the target gets +4 AC, and you automatically take a -4 to your Attack. It is a Full ROund Action, and you make your single Attack as normal. The A.C. is the targets normal A.C. plus the specific areas SIZE bonus, (usually +4 - +8). If the creature has a specific weakness, say Vampire vs Stake to heart, the weapon bypasses the (natural) D.R., and may instantly slay the creature, if a minimal damage is attained, (usually something like i damage per HD). If not, the stake is lodged in, but deals no damage, and may be attempted again later, similar to a grapple. Doesn't that just beg for the True Strike spell? Any bow-oriented warrior with sorcerer 1 in in build and a wand of true strike can kill any vampire in two rounds....
Catra 11-24-06, 12:45 PM	Then how does injury poison work exactly? Ranged touch attack.
Mula 11-24-06, 01:01 PM	Ranged touch attack.Isn't that contact poison?
Seeker95 11-24-06, 01:25 PM	So when you "hit", you don't necessarily hit.Then how does injury poison work exactly?The same way it always does. The key word was necessarily. Sometimes when you hit, you really do hit.
Salla 11-24-06, 02:06 PM	The same way it always does. The key word was necessarily. Sometimes when you hit, you really do hit. Winner. :)
High Octane 11-24-06, 02:12 PM	Trying to put called shots into D&D is like trying to prune your hedges with a flame thrower. You may think you have it under control, then something bad happens.
Beckett 11-24-06, 03:17 PM	NOt really, I've never had a problem. It is not usually an instakill. Vampire in the example, have a single specific weakness, that no D&D book has ever gone into detail about, and it happens to work well as an example, but for most other cases, a persons hand become useless until either a Full round Heal check or 1hp is cured. An arrow, is not a stake, by the way, so does not get be the D.R., takes all the normal penulties, and I would probably say just rule of thumb, if your going for a called shot to the heart, the range penulty is -2 for every 5ft away.
Beckett 11-24-06, 03:20 PM	And, if they players try to abuse it, well have someone roll a nat 20 crit on them, and lop off an arm or two. . . "Oh ****, I can't use a shield, can't two weapon fight, cast spells, use a two handed/double weapon, climb, etc. . . until I level and afford to find a Cleric to cast Regen. on me. . . Then I'll have to explain what I was doing to lose my arm in the first place."
High Octane 11-24-06, 06:29 PM	And, if they players try to abuse it, well have someone roll a nat 20 crit on them, and lop off an arm or two. . . "Oh ****, I can't use a shield, can't two weapon fight, cast spells, use a two handed/double weapon, climb, etc. . . until I level and afford to find a Cleric to cast Regen. on me. . . Then I'll have to explain what I was doing to lose my arm in the first place." This is not being a fair or effective DM. Abusing your privelages as a DM for them abusing a rule you knew could easily be subject to abuse. How easy to abuse? True Strike easy.
Teron Gorefiend 11-24-06, 06:49 PM	And, if they players try to abuse it, well have someone roll a nat 20 crit on them, and lop off an arm or two. . . "Oh ****, I can't use a shield, can't two weapon fight, cast spells, use a two handed/double weapon, climb, etc. . . until I level and afford to find a Cleric to cast Regen. on me. . . Then I'll have to explain what I was doing to lose my arm in the first place." You're an awful DM. "Ha! Try to have fun now!" :rolleyes:
Beckett 11-25-06, 08:20 AM	Why do you say that. I've never had it happen, I was giving an example of why it is not that bad as far as abuse goes. If they try to abuse it, like trying to blind every encounter by Striking the eyes, then it is going to happen to them. If they act mature and use it when called for, like against a hydra, or a vampire, or the like, then it works just perfectly. It is similar to Improved Sunder. Sure, you can try to destroy each enemies Armor and weapons, but one, you do not damage to them, two, thats less treasure for you, and three, you might get yourself killed before you actually destroy anything, (or destroying it might be the cause of your death [Staff of Magi]). I was trying to drop a helpful suggestion, that has not once, in over three years caused any problems for me. You don't like it, fine. My players have enjoyed it. Go me.
Beckett 11-25-06, 08:21 AM	I good Dm makes their players regret trying to abuse the system, not takes their stuff away cause they can't handle it.
Witch 11-25-06, 09:53 AM	No, a good DM doesn't implement a broken system for the heck of it.
Ra-Tiel 11-25-06, 10:09 AM	Trying to put called shots into D&D is like trying to prune your hedges with a flame thrower. You may think you have it under control, then something bad happens. :rofl: No, a good DM doesn't implement a broken system for the heck of it. :clap: Anyways, I crinche whenever I see the words "called shots" and "DnD" in one sentence. It is a bad idea, no matter what you think. It's just like critical fumbles. Only worse. :shifty: If you enjoy your painstalkingly created recurring BBEG masterminds being slaughtered by called shots to the head only in the first round of combat, go ahead. If you enjoy your players having to roll up new characters every 2nd session because some called shot killed, lobotomized, or crippled their characters beyond redemption, go ahead. If you enjoy your combat taking roughtly 7 times as long as normal because of calculating the additional modifiers, ACs, attack bonuses, et al, go ahead. I'll stay with DnD in the meantime, thank you very much.
AlanBruce 11-25-06, 10:13 AM	I have yet to comprehend the need many DMs and players alike have to end battles as quickly as possible. As a DM, I spend hours a week creating fun, challenging scenarios for my players, particularly when they're about to fight some main villain. I enjoy fleshing out these characters and giving them bizzarre and fun abilities that will leave lasting impressions on my players for a long time. As a player, I design my characters to make them strong not always in the battlefield, but in roleplaying situations as well. I choose feats, skills and spells that will enhance the feel of the campaign being played at the time. It sure isn't fun to lose your PC in a second because of a -4 penalty called shot to the neck with a dagger. I believe fights should go as normal. Burn it to the last HP.
BloodSpill 11-25-06, 10:20 AM	Called shots? Isn't that another name for Power Attack? Or was it Sneak Attack? Hmm, I think there was a Hamstring feat once. How about that Crippling Strike class feature?
Ra-Tiel 11-25-06, 10:40 AM	Called shots? Isn't that another name for Power Attack? Or was it Sneak Attack? Hmm, I think there was a Hamstring feat once. How about that Crippling Strike class feature? True. Anyways, I thought there already was an invocation making the target blind on a failed save? :thinks:
Mula 11-25-06, 11:21 AM	The same way it always does. The key word was necessarily. Sometimes when you hit, you really do hit.I love using injury poison on maces and clubs. :)
Lord_of_Lights 11-25-06, 11:51 AM	I love using injury poison on maces and clubs. :) Yea not bad about that, a big bash with a hard metallic object still make you bleed. PS: I dont why everyone is panicking about single hit kill with head shot. I never said that, I only said that it could do an additionnal 1d6 damage for any type of weapon and hitting on the head in face of someone that is seeing you is not a sneak attack (an the 1d6 for head shot dont stack with sneak attack bonus) Another suggestion of mecanic for head shot Usually the fighters know that they have to protect there weak points more carefully, so maybe finaly we should allow only head shot on criticals hits and no additionnal damage than the crical provide, but if you aimed for the head you could make a check with d% 50 is left eye and 100 is right eye, any other is another part of the head. You could imput a -2 (or more) damage penality for aiming head instead of the hearth (for the critic).
Ra-Tiel 11-25-06, 12:34 PM	[...] PS: I dont why everyone is panicking about single hit kill with head shot. I never said that, I only said that it could do an additionnal 1d6 damage for any type of weapon and hitting on the head in face of someone that is seeing you is not a sneak attack (an the 1d6 for head shot dont stack with sneak attack bonus) I admit we're overreacting here. Probably because we are "burnt children", so to speak. At least I personally have had already bad experiences with "called shots". Not only is the mechanical implementation tricky (tricky as in: "how do we do it without completely screwing the PCs?"), it also brings up logical questions (like: "why does not every bandit make called shots when they are so effective?") that inevitably lead back to the "tricky" part. Another suggestion of mecanic for head shot Usually the fighters know that they have to protect there weak points more carefully, so maybe finaly we should allow only head shot on criticals hits and no additionnal damage than the crical provide, but if you aimed for the head you could make a check with d% 50 is left eye and 100 is right eye, any other is another part of the head. You could imput a -2 (or more) damage penality for aiming head instead of the hearth (for the critic). But how does this enhance your game? There are no rules for "one-eyed-ness". Nor is depth-perception an issue. At most, you could probably use the optional rule from the DMG. Additionally, this brings up the issue that an enemy was probably never meant to survive the combat in the first place, and thus it doesn't matter if he is "accidentally" castrated, made blind on one eye, or looses 3 fingers on each hand. But how about the characters? Is it also neglectable for them? What in a low-magic campaign? Or when the PCs for whatever reasons cannot just walk to the next Clerics'R'Us and get their extremities regrown/organs healed? Imho such rules are always more hassle than they are actually worth it. Perhaps you could try the injury system from Unearthed Arcana, thus going away from HPs and leaving more to the DM's description?
Salla 11-25-06, 01:37 PM	It is similar to Improved Sunder. Sure, you can try to destroy each enemies Armor and weapons, but one, you do not damage to them, two, thats less treasure for you, and three, you might get yourself killed before you actually destroy anything, (or destroying it might be the cause of your death [Staff of Magi]). Important note: The Staff of the Magi only explodes in a retributive strike if the wielder of the staff deliberately and intentionally breaks it to generate that effect. Any other breakage of the staff does NOT result in an explosion.
Catra 11-25-06, 02:16 PM	Any other breakage of the staff does NOT result in an explosion. :(