Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Ellanon 04-17-05, 07:15 PM	A member of our group had a real problem with 3.5's lack of location specific damage. In response, our DM created the following set of house rules. Are these balanced? Can they be exploited? Opinions (good or bad) are greatly appreciated. -------- Aiming: a variant rule for use with 3.5 d20 system. Aiming has two real problems with it. One, if you aim, then the enemy must be allowed to do the same in order for CR’s to be held up. Two if you allow aiming, then the effects should be both devastating but hard to accomplish. The second problem is more detailed in that if the effects are devastating, then should that not be allowed to damage the CR of the encounter? Yes, I believe it should, but any more than what A DM should be entitled to add or subtract a percentage (10 I believe is the amount) for an encounters value. The first issue of being allowed to have NPC’s use aim as well as the PC’s is really a non- issue, because if the variant is allowed, then all parties available are now affected by it. The second issue of the devastating effects can correlate with the effects of the rule outlined in the DMG. Typically, any body part hit correlates to a -2 on certain skills. This in effect creates a ‘devastating effect’, but does not allow for a randomness of effect. The house rule that I am envisioning is both more devastating, but also more challenging to achieve. The first rule that I am to put in place is that aiming requires a +2 to the dc of armor class score (This is an addition overall, so it applies to flat footed as well as touch only armor class). The second rule I put forward is that the defending agent is allowed a saving throw of either Reflex or Fortitude (defenders choice) against the DC of the damage result total. If the saving throw is failed, the amount that the result is missed by (i.e. damage dc missed saving throw result) is divided by 2 and this is the penalty that the defender takes to his skills/abilities as resulted from the chart in the DMG. Should the defender make his saving throw, then only the damage is applied, no penalty. The tertiary rule that I will have in place is that the attacker is in jeopardy of an attack of opportunity by the defender should his attack fail. This is a special situation that I have devised to ensure balance on the combat field. After the attack, the defender is given a circumstance bonus of +10 on a spot check to find the attacker, and may then attempt an attack of opportunity with those rules in place as normal. A Variant on criticals and aiming: Should a character claim an aiming attack, and score a threat and then a critical result for their attack, the saving throw the defender normally receives is removed, and the maximum possible penalty (damage / 2) is placed upon the defender’s skills and or abilities for area struck. A Variant based upon attack type: Attack types should be acknowledged when deciding upon an aiming attack. One cannot poke out another’s eye with a weapon unable to enter the eye socket such as a club. With that in mind, certain weapons could give bonuses or penalties to the saving throw of the defender based solely on the attack type vs. intent of aim. This is a maximum bonus or penalty of 2. A Variant aiming based on size: An attacker who is of a size category differing from the defender has more difficulty hitting. This is a bit more complex, because the size category of the weapon being used plays a part as well as the ability to hit a body part that may be out of reach. Trying to hit a diminutive creature’s pinky toe with a great sword should be an absolutely impossible task. The easy way is to double the armor class bonus due to size for the creature. This makes it easy to deal with and generally makes sense for creatures smaller than the attacker. However, in the case where a diminutive creature may want to attack a colossal creatures head, the penalty is no longer a harder to hit option, but a bonus to hit. In this case, the larger defender is now much more able to dodge the effect. To represent this, their size bonus/penalty is nullified for the action/attack. A Variant on ignoring the effects: Should a defender be overwhelmed by his effective penalties, he can make an attempt to ignore them by a will save (dc is still the same for the injuring aim attack) for his/her attack action. This allows for one move action, or an attack action, but not both without penalties for that round. A variant on Aiming permanent effects: After healing is applied, a saving throw can be applied to the injured party in which he may overcome to remove the penalty forever. A bonus is applied to the fortitude saving throw for healing bestowed equal to character level of healing party plus the type of care as shown below: TYPE: BONUS Magic (Lesser 1-6) +4 Magic (Intermediate 7-12) +6 Magic (Greater 13-18) +8 Magic (Epic 19+) +10 Full days rest +2 Several Days rest* +2, +1 per day beyond 1st * Herbal application +1 Personal care +1 per day Bandaging wounds constitution bonus applied again. Or +1 whichever is higher * This is a time span in which it can only apply once, and if the injured character changes the healing process in any way, the effects of the bonus ends there, and the fortitude save is applied at that point. If the injured character fails the saving throw by more than 5, it is a permanent affliction that can only be cured by improving the healing bonus (change the type of care for a superior). The fortitude save can be done as many times as the character wants within reason. Any change in care should mean a new saving throw applied. All these bonuses stack, until the character stops care all together and begins exerting itself again as normal.
Fixxxer 04-17-05, 11:25 PM	So to make certain I have this straight, you take a -2 to your attack roll, but if you hit and the target fails a save, you not only damage his HP, but you cause a potentially signifigant penalty to the use of any skill checks he may need that particular appendage to make (which may or may not include attacks, if the limb used to attack with is damage...the entry is unclear on this). Additionally, if you try to hit a specific part of the body and miss, you provoke an attack of opportunity. Is this correct? I'll say this much...at least this system is different from most others I've seen in that it doesn't appear to be balanced entirely to the benefit of the user. Sure is clunky as hell, though.
Lord Ian Stark 04-17-05, 11:29 PM	Well -2 to attack for even a low level character is nothing. So basically everyone will be aiming for body parts. This also breaks when using a ranged attack as how do you get an AoO from a dude 30 feet away?
Ellanon 04-21-05, 05:34 AM	My issue with it is that it looks like more work than the rest of the normal combat system. Plus existing mechanics should already work...
The Wasp 04-21-05, 06:01 AM	Bad, bad idea. If you are fighting somebody, you are ALWAYS trying to make a called shot - you are going for the part of the body that will be the most damage vs most convenient. You want to go for a less convenient part of the body, an excellent mechanic already exists: Power Attack. And to model those extra special times when you hit somebody in the eye. or whatever? Critical hits. This is just a clunky mechanism that replicates things that already exist. And of course, we run into the True Strike problem. Anyone with that spell would completely break the system.
Temrek 04-21-05, 06:01 AM	I just ruled that a if a PC scores a critical hit he can sacrefice the extra damage to inflict either leg or arm related penelties (for humanoids). Seems to satisfy most PCs. Most attacks are usually taken in the arm or something like that for flavor puropses (ie 1 damage out of 20 hp) and I might chose to severe a limb or something from the PCs instead of killing them should they be taken down to -10 hp or less.
krichaiushii 04-21-05, 06:45 AM	If you MUST use a critical hit and called shot system, then Bastion Press has Torn Asunder (http://www.bastionpress.com/Products/torn.htm), which is nearly excellent and quite thorough, as far as critical hit/called shot systems go. Its rules on healing and scarring dovetail nicely into their critical hits, but are also worthwhile on their own. Failing the above, I have always toyed with the idea that a Concentration check is required to specifically aim at a body part; the smaller the part, the higher the DC. Passing the Concentration check allows you to aim; failing it results in a regular attack. Some advice from experience with critical hit systems; once the players realize that they can be affected by them as well, then they often balk at using them.
Asciiman 04-21-05, 06:56 AM	The Wasp has it all right. This is a horrible idea. The DM is going down the road that many bad DM's have done before. As a general rule, when it comes to house rules... less is more. Not this clunky piece of crap.
Thoronmir 04-21-05, 10:09 AM	Two if you allow aiming, then the effects should be both devastating but hard to accomplish.My opinion certainly reflects my personal bias in favor of Ranged Attacks, but this rule is grossly unbalanced in favor of Power Attacking melee Fighters and Sneak Attacking Rogues. As others have noted, -2 to an Attack Roll is hardly debilitating to anyone. The “difficulty” in achieving an Aimed Attack lies in the Reflex/Fortitude Save granted the target to avoid the effect altogether. The higher the damage from the Attack, the higher the DC for the Save. Ranged Attacks will always be at a disadvantage. Also, I’d dump the “Weapon Type” argument. Yes, it’s hard to poke someone’s eye out with a club, but it’s not that hard to blind someone with a hard blow to his head. Focus more on the status sought rather than the aesthetics of how that status is achieved. It would help simplify the rule and remove one of the levels of subjective analysis. If I want to slow someone’s Movement Rate by attacking their leg, I can either shoot an arrow through their thigh, shatter their knee with a blunt weapon, or slice their hamstring with my dagger … three different weapon types that can all achieve the same status. If I want to blind him, I can fire my arrow into his eye, slash his face, or bash him so hard that his skull cracks. If I were ever to add a signature to my posts, it would be what I’ve said over and over … “D&D rules are intended to simulate the real world, not replicate it.” Personally, I’d never accept this rule. Anything that makes combat more dangerous inevitably has a greater impact on the PCs for the simple reason that they are the only true constants in the campaign. If I use an Aimed Attack to blind an Orc, it won’t affect the game that much since I’m unlikely to ever see that Orc again (assuming he even survives our encounter). But if the Orc blinds me, it has a longer effect on the game (perhaps permanent). The only “Called Shots” rule I’ve ever agreed to abide by as a player was the rule proposed by the DM in my last long-term group. He wanted to provide a way for characters (both PCs and NPCs) to add “status effects” to their attacks in limited situations. He got this idea from a background I’d written about a Ranger/Rogue I was playing (in my background, my PC shot someone in their leg to slow their Movement Rate so he could enjoy “running” his victim a little before he killed him … he wasn’t a nice guy). My DM settled on the following rule: When you score a successful Critical Hit, you have the option of forgoing the bonus damage and, instead inflict regular damage plus a “status effect” based on what part of the body you chose to hit. All status effects were temporary. For example, if you hit someone’s arm, he would suffer a -2 penalty to Attacks and any Skill Check that required use of one’s hands. A headshot would either Stun or Blind the victim for a short period of time. As noted in my example, a leg wound would impose a -10 penalty to Movement and -2 to skills like Jump, Balance, Tumbling, etc. My DM prepared a chart that set out all of the possible status effects and their durations. Note, I didn’t want this rule in our game. As I said, any rule that makes combat more dangerous has a greater impact on the PCs. But I agreed to test the rule because (a) it had an element of randomness (needing to roll within your Crit Threat range); (b) it accounted for relative strength of the combatants (you must then “hit” again to score a successful Critical Hit); (c) the penalties were relatively minor (-2 in most cases); (d) the penalties were extremely brief (most expiring within the time required for the battle); and (e) it was egalitarian in that it didn’t favor one method of attack over another.
Ellanon 04-21-05, 12:33 PM	I just ruled that a if a PC scores a critical hit he can sacrefice the extra damage to inflict either leg or arm related penelties (for humanoids). Seems to satisfy most PCs. Hmmm... I talked to the GM. He seemed to like this idea. How would you all feel about actually rolling the extra damage on a chart that gets more devastating the more damage you give up? For instance, with a short sword, if I only roll a 1 on the extra die, I would not do as devastating a hit as if I had rolled a 6. With that kind of simple scale, a short sword just couldn't do as devastating a hit as a long sword could. A greatsword would do even more. Large or bigger weapons would have an even better chance to get higher on the list of things that could go wrong. However, since you are only giving up the extra damage, this means that I would STILL be doing 1-6 (+Str) in regular hp loss as well as whatever devestating effect may happen. I think this should be kept in mind when deciding how devastating the effects should be. The only problem I have is that I am not creative enough for this. What would you all propose for a list?
Thoronmir 04-21-05, 02:10 PM	How would you all feel about actually rolling the extra damage on a chart that gets more devastating the more damage you give up?I'd oppose such a rule since it fails to satisfy concerns (c) and (e) listed in my previous response. I would want the effects of such an attack to be minor. I would also prefer a system that isn't weighted based on the type of attack used. Granted, bow attacks get that scrumptious x3 multiplier for Critical Hits, but that's offset by the smaller Threat range. So, varying the effect based on amount of damage would still favor melee Attacks.
olshanski_home 04-21-05, 02:19 PM	As a DM, I have an "aiming" rule that works very well. 1) The DM assumes that all attacks made by all players are always aiming for the most vulnerable part of the opponent.. be this the eye, the neck, or whatever. 2) If a player wants to aim ANYWHERE else... legs, hands, whatnot, they can do so. They must declare where they are aiming before they shoot. If they hit, I say "You hit the creature in its X" or whatever is appropriate. 3) If a player wants to do additional damage with an "aimed" shot, they must take levels in a class that allows a sneak attack or a favored enemy, and then meet all conditions for the sneak attack or favored enemy to apply. Alternately, if they have the power attack feat, they can take a penalty on thier roll "to hit" in melee combat in exchange for additional damage.
DMDaddy 04-21-05, 03:30 PM	I would never accept such a rule. I always use a -3 or more for any called shot depending on the difficulty. Results of such a hit are usually minor. I usually give the standard, -every shot is a called shot-. Then I explain that the rules are there to keep balance, and that they are generalizations of real battle. Just like explaining hit points. Some players want to understand the , whys and how comes,... My opinion on players who bring forth new rules: Many times they are just looking for ways to gain an advantage. Called shots, crit. tables, spells, magic items, weapons, abilities/skills, etc... My question is always the same, "what's wrong with the current rules?"
Thoronmir 04-21-05, 03:56 PM	olshanski_home: LOL :) ... now that's a rule I would willing accept as a player. My opinion on players who bring forth new rules: Many times they are just looking for ways to gain an advantage. Called shots, crit. tables, spells, magic items, weapons, abilities/skills, etc... My question is always the same, "what's wrong with the current rules?"Exactly. Perhaps it's the roleplayer in me, but I always "call my shot" when I attack. I usually announce the location after I see the result of my Attack and Damage rolls. Misses are universally referred to as "Warning Shots"; Critical Hits are usually head or throat shots if I score enough damage to kill; every other result depends on the amount of damage. For example: I miss the Orc: "I fire a warning shot at the Orc in the corner, just to let him know he's in range." I hit the Orc, but score light damage: "My arrow grazes the Orc." I hit the Orc and score heavy damage, without killing the Orc: "My arrow sinks deep into the Orc's shoulder." I hit the Orc (who has taken other damage) and my arrow slays him: "My arrow strikes the Orc in the chest, causing little bubbles of blood to gurgle through the wound." I kill the Orc with a single shot (usually a Crit): "My arrow impales the Orc's throat and he dies without making a sound." BTW, I make similar comments to describe the hits I'm taking as well. For example, "Ouch! The Orc's blade slices deep into my side, knocking the wind out of me" or the ubiquitous "Bah! It's only a flesh wound!" I'm fortunate enough to have a DM who understands the concept of "flavor" ... he knows I'm not trying to achieve some undue advantage in my descriptions. But without such "color" in the game, combat quickly becomes rote and boring.
DMDaddy 04-21-05, 11:04 PM	olshanski_home: LOL :) ... now that's a rule I would willing accept as a player. Exactly. Perhaps it's the roleplayer in me, but I always "call my shot" when I attack. I usually announce the location after I see the result of my Attack and Damage rolls. Misses are universally referred to as "Warning Shots"; Critical Hits are usually head or throat shots if I score enough damage to kill; every other result depends on the amount of damage. BTW, I make similar comments to describe the hits I'm taking as well. For example, "Ouch! The Orc's blade slices deep into my side, knocking the wind out of me" or the ubiquitous "Bah! It's only a flesh wound!" I'm fortunate enough to have a DM who understands the concept of "flavor" ... he knows I'm not trying to achieve some undue advantage in my descriptions. But without such "color" in the game, combat quickly becomes rote and boring. I like this flavor. Since I'm starting with a new group, I may attempt to add such a flavor and encourage all players to make such descriptions. It will go good with the "can't speak out of character at the table" rule that I may incorporate. Two of my players are fanatics. They ought to love this flavour.
Ellanon 04-22-05, 01:18 AM	I'd oppose such a rule since it fails to satisfy concerns (c) and (e) listed in my previous response. I would want the effects of such an attack to be minor. I would also prefer a system that isn't weighted based on the type of attack used. Granted, bow attacks get that scrumptious x3 multiplier for Critical Hits, but that's offset by the smaller Threat range. So, varying the effect based on amount of damage would still favor melee Attacks. How does that favor melee attacks? A Composite Long Bow will do 1d8 damage. For a crit, they would roll 2-16 (2d8). How is that NOT better than the extra 1-6 (1d6) a short sword does when crit? And as for the severity, how can you say that I failed to satisfy concern C of yours when the actual effects have yet been determined? Don't get me wrong guys, I am opposed to messing with the rules. I like them as they are. =)
Droog 04-22-05, 01:50 AM	Some advice from experience with critical hit systems; once the players realize that they can be affected by them as well, then they often balk at using them. I'd have to agree with this statement. I can't help but remember a player in another system who used to use called shots to the head with just about every attack. I can still remember the look on his face when one of his enemies attempted to shoot him in the head. He wasn't so keen on called shots after that. Utlimately it's your game, so its up to you.