Post/Author/DateTime	Post
RandTorgan 01-22-08, 09:35 AM	How would you all handle a PC that aimed their ranged weapon at an enemies leg, arm, etc. to slow down the enemy or disable his arm. I had a case last time my group and I got together. They were questioning a fence and after it was obvious they were getting no where, one shot the fence in the leg and another in the arm. I went ahead and let them do it since it was not a combat situation, but how would you all handle it? Both in and out of combat.
kelvinaw273 01-22-08, 09:53 AM	How would you all handle a PC that aimed their ranged weapon at an enemies leg, arm, etc. to slow down the enemy or disable his arm. I had a case last time my group and I got together. They were questioning a fence and after it was obvious they were getting no where, one shot the fence in the leg and another in the arm. I went ahead and let them do it since it was not a combat situation, but how would you all handle it? Both in and out of combat. I wouldn't. I would explain to the player that called shots are not available in D&D; they can hit, trip, bull rush etc. but called shots are not available. On the other hand, they can achieve their aim of trying to slow down the enemy by tripping them, or disable their weapon by grappling or disarming. If they are at range, well that's too bad. They can try to bring the person down, but that's about all they can do.
iserith 01-22-08, 11:42 AM	I would permit them to inflict grievous wounds on a captured enemy such that it hampers the movement of the NPC or hinders his ability scores or checks until healed. I mean, he's already captured - the combat is over. I would most likely consider this torture and therefore an evil act. I would not permit it in combat. The rules as written do not support called shots. You can certainly describe the hits as being in the leg or arm, but it affords no futher benefits to the PCs.
LeeAlucard 01-22-08, 12:09 PM	You could make a set of rules about hitting specific body parts... However, if I were to do such a thing, I'd make it so that they only hit a specific area on a critical hit. After all, people move around in combat, even if they don't leave a five-foot square. Anything other than a critical deals ordinary damage, and on a "called shot," instead of doing double damage, the attack injures that body part. (After all, if you can't aim for the heart, what's the use of wielding a wooden stake against a vampire, right?)
jamfalconthegnome 01-22-08, 12:10 PM	Somewhere in the DMG there is a page that has effects of being hurt in diffrent areas (hands, arms, legs, feet, eyes, ect.) I'd also say maybe a -2 on the attack role, becuase the target is harder to hit.
Salla 01-22-08, 02:16 PM	I'd instruct the player to give his character an appropriate feat or class ability at the next available opportunity (like Hamstring or the various Ambush feats from Complete Scoundrel).
Faren 01-22-08, 06:07 PM	I like the idea of saying that you can call a shot and you only get to hit that specific area if you roll a critical hit. I see no reason why the DM couldn't make house rules to say that you hinder the opponent's movement by shooting them in the leg so they are far less mobile, or shooting them in the foot so they have to rip the arrow out of the ground in order to move. D&D was meant to be realistic, right? If everyone agrees on house rules, go for it.
rikimaru75 01-22-08, 10:26 PM	I like the idea of saying that you can call a shot and you only get to hit that specific area if you roll a critical hit. I see no reason why the DM couldn't make house rules to say that you hinder the opponent's movement by shooting them in the leg so they are far less mobile, or shooting them in the foot so they have to rip the arrow out of the ground in order to move. D&D was meant to be realistic, right? If everyone agrees on house rules, go for it. But with that said, what's to prevent people from always shooting someone in the head? Or some vital part of the body and end combat in one or two moves? That's what I found somewhat disheartening in other RPGs like Rifts. As cool as it sounds, the system just doesn't seem to account very well for called shots. At the very best, so long as it's not a head shot, a penalty could be incurred, but that only goes so far. This also kinda goes along with the cheap trick of drowning things. No matter how tough, if you can grapple and pin them, then you can drown them in water/oils/etc, no matter how many HP they have (unless they had water breathing, are aquatic, etc.).
LeeAlucard 01-22-08, 11:18 PM	In the case of being hit in the head specifically, I'd say to apply normal critical damage for it. Obviously, if they survived it, then it wasn't a "bash your head in/slice your head off/skewer you through the eye socket" blow in the first place. As for the drowning bit, there are creatures that one can't drown. Undead, constructs, oozes, the Tarasque... none of them can be killed by drowning.
Crimson_Concerto 01-22-08, 11:32 PM	Called shots do not exist in D&D. In fact, I've seen quite a few lengthy articles floating around on why it's a bad idea to implement them as a house rule. That being said, what you want can be done simply by picking up appropriate feats like Ranged Trip, Ranged Disarm, Hamstring, and various Ambush feats. Since it wasn't a combat situation, there was probably nothing wrong with just letting them do it, but just be aware that no matter what attack penalty you assign to a called shot, there's always a possibility of encountering a hoard of level 1 Kobold Sorcerers who case True Strike and then aim for the eyes. Hey, if the PCs can do something, so can the NPCs. :P
Ayzain 01-23-08, 02:31 AM	Well, hiting a specific target is, in actuallity, what everyone in combat tries to do. Hence the critical system - when do players make a successful critical threat and not take the critical? If players want to select targets, it should be no more difficult than selecting a vital spot, the truth behind a critical hit. Well, you could say that rather than deal double damage, players choose to deal normal damage but "critically hit" a target location for some other effect that's equally devastating to the target as double damage. Criticalling a leg might reduce a target's move speed by one or two increments per success. A critical strike to the arm might impose a cumulative -4 or even more to each successive attack roll for the target. A blow to the chest or throat might "knock the wind out of" the target, causing fatigue or, if you really want to be linient, exhaustion. But this is just a thought.
kelvinaw273 01-23-08, 06:29 AM	Thinking about it, you can burn Action Points to emulate feats you haven't got ... so a character could blow an action point to emulate a Ranged Trip feat, if you run action points ...
AntontheDM 01-25-08, 02:48 PM	I like the idea of saying that you can call a shot and you only get to hit that specific area if you roll a critical hit. I see no reason why the DM couldn't make house rules to say that you hinder the opponent's movement by shooting them in the leg so they are far less mobile, or shooting them in the foot so they have to rip the arrow out of the ground in order to move. D&D was meant to be realistic, right? If everyone agrees on house rules, go for it. D&D was meant to be cinematic, not realistic. Realistic is getting hit with a sword once and falling over, then bleeding out. Cinematic is taking several hits before finally going down. Hit points are abstract, a combination representative to your rolling with a punch or making a solid hit just a scratch (or flesh wound... :D ). When HP hit 0, you are actually hit and wounded and bleeding. So for D&D you'll have to cook up house-rules, a hit location chart and such. The Unearthed Arcana book has rules that let you decide how much of a penalty a person has for an injured foot, had, leg, and what skills are affected. The Star Wars Saga edition RPG has damage levels, the more injured you are the harder time you have doing things. In real combat, you get hit and can either fall over or keep fighting, depending on where you were hit. In real life, people make aimed or called shots, I can empty a .45 into the head of a target 25 meters away in about 5 seconds. That's 9 rounds for my pistol. And I can hit small moving targets too, where I want to hit them. Real combat can be very short and not-fun. That's why we have RPG's. In D&D or D20 Modern, a higher attack bonus is that called shot, adding dex to ranged damage is that too. Throw in the massive damage rules and someone can be dropped with one arrow. If you don't mind the "sudden death" aspect, you can use those rules.
The_Wyld 01-25-08, 03:02 PM	If you want called shots OP, second edition is that way ---->.
Zombie_Babies 01-25-08, 03:03 PM	I like the idea of saying that you can call a shot and you only get to hit that specific area if you roll a critical hit. I see no reason why the DM couldn't make house rules to say that you hinder the opponent's movement by shooting them in the leg so they are far less mobile, or shooting them in the foot so they have to rip the arrow out of the ground in order to move. D&D was meant to be realistic, right? If everyone agrees on house rules, go for it. Realism for the win! That's why my car has an armored roof and extra thick glass. No damned dragon's gonna get me on my way to work! [/sarcasm] This is not a game that's about realism. We have wizards shaping matter with their minds and clerics bringing back the dead. Once you get too wrapped up in realism you lose what this game is about. It's about creating experiences that you cannot possilby replicate in reality. It's about exploring crazy places and fighting terrible beasts. If it were supposed to be about realism we'd all be making d20 rolls to key in the correct fax number. Or to pour our cups of coffee. Not fun. Nope. On topic: 2nd ed had called shots tables in the Warrior book. IIRC it was -8 for the head. What happens when you start using called shots? Well one thing is that once PCs start thinking "Gods! I need a nat 20 to hit this guy!" they start calling shots constantly. If it's only a small penalty or you need a nat 20 to hit anyway why not try to kill the thing in one shot? Not to mention that this game is built around minimizing penalties to an acceptible level. Look at power attack. Sack a to hit bonus for damage. Don't all barbarians take this? Why wouldn't they call shots on every hit when it's just a little penalty? I would. Or I'd use my second to last and last iterative attack on it. Hard to hit with those anyway, right? If I'm hasted I'll just use one "good" attack to try. That way if I fail I still do damage. The game was not designed for this. Crits are one representation of hitting a more vital area. So is Sneak Attack (says so in the description, IIRC) and Sudden Strike. The rules are already there. Use them.
pangalactic 01-25-08, 05:24 PM	I started gaming with 2nd edition, so called shots have always been somewhat a part of my D&D experience. I tend not to use miniatures as well, so combats are generally more descriptive than "Regdar moves 30', passing through two threatened squares and provoking AoO" or whatever. As a result, even with 3e we tend to allow called shots if it heightens the gaming experience. If a character really wants to kneecap the charging orc with his crossbow, I'll let him. We don't use any complicated rules, we just wing it as and when. And my players accept that monsters and NPC badguys will use the same tactics. If you've got a mature group who won't try to True Strike jugular arteries during every combat, and who care about the dramatic nature of the game, then I see no problem with it. Just keep it simple, and don't let the rules get in the way of telling a good story and having a great time doing it. Just my :twocents: