Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Pelor 10-23-03, 02:48 PM	Ok, My PCs are accustomed to aiming for specific parts of the body and just adjusting their AC accordingly for size. Example, the head of a medium size creature is Tiny, so you add the AC as if you were trying to hit a tiny creature. Well, the hard part is determining what happens when they hit it. I mean come on, if you take an arrow to the throat, it has obvious effects. Are there any rules out there that cover this? I have seen the table for damaging to specific body parts, but it just gives negatives to skills and or attacks. What about extra damage? If I hit you in the head with an arrow, is it an automatic critical hit? What if I aim for the eye of a Humanoid and hit it from 100 ft away? I would think that an arrow through the eye would kill most people, but that is hardly fair for a lv 20 fighter to be killed by a single nonmagical arrow simply because a lv 1 sorceror uses a true strike spell with his bow. Any help? Advice?
Fixxxer 10-23-03, 03:05 PM	This is why called shots don't exist in 3rd edition D&D. How much longer would the DMG and PHB have to be (and how much more would the books have to be to accomodate the extra printing costs) to accommodate detailed rules on the subject? How long would it take for a group to run a single combat round if all of the PCs and all of the opponents are aiming for specific areas? How much whining and moaning would a player do if his 250 HP fighter was killed by a single arrow through the eye?
Pelor 10-23-03, 03:51 PM	Ok, I guess I can just use the penalties listed...and of course not allow for anything as specific as an eye...they can aim for the head, body, arms, or legs. Then I will just use the table for damage to specific body parts but I won't award extra damage.
Moblin 10-23-03, 03:56 PM	I can hardly believe it but that sounds like the first useable called shot system (if you insist to have one) I’ve seen on the boards. Sounds good (sort of)
StormKnight 10-23-03, 03:59 PM	A general attack with the intent to do more damage (such as aiming at the eye, throat or other vulnerable point) would be represented by taking one of the maneuvers that increases your attack at the cost of your AC. This represents a more aggressive and dangerous attack. For shots designed to disable, keep in mind that HP doesn't just represent how much injury a character can take - it also represents their ability to avoid injury and minimize its effects. Otherwise, you would need to increase AC as combat skill increased to maintain even a semblance of realism; its much harder to hit an experienced fighter than a novice one. This is represented in game by extra HP. So be very careful when allowing players or NPCs to inflict extra effects while ignoring HP. You might require an attack to cause some fraction of a creature's remaining HP or more before it has any special effects.
Moblin 10-23-03, 04:03 PM	He could rule that they do 0 or half damage when trying to damage a body part.
krichaiushii 10-23-03, 04:25 PM	There ARE printed rules for called shots - a workable system, too, or so say the reviews. Torn Asunder, from Bastion Press - www.bastionpress.com - its primarily about critical hits, but called shots are a logical extension of criticals, so are included. http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/9/9651.phtml http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/9/9665.phtml www.gamewyrd.com and www.enworld.org sport reviews as well. As for myself, I have no problems with the idea, as long as NPCs and monsters get the option, too. If the benefits and/or capability of making called shots are so great that NOT making called shots is a foolish endeavor, then I would be leery of that ruleset - either seeking a better method or just not using called shots at all.
Wayward Son 10-23-03, 04:25 PM	Speaking as someone who used to play the original Cyberpunk RPG (set in 2013, complete with a combat system designed around FBI firearm statistics and not only a hit location chart, but individual player handouts charting where they have been hit and how many "hit points" each location had), my advice is to drop called shots entirely and use critical hits instead. This style of play slowed the game to a crawl in combat, and the players quickly lost interest. A PC with the right feats and weapons can have an obscene crit range, and it is really the best representation for such shots under the d20 system. As for specific damage, play it by ear, in terms of what is good for the story and will keep play both interesting and moving along. If it's useful to the story for the PCs to blind that cyclops with a sharpened stick, and they roll it out well, let them blind it. If they try to make it their "trademark attack", let it fail more than it works. Take it case by case, and let the game roll onward.
StormKnight 10-23-03, 05:23 PM	He could rule that they do 0 or half damage when trying to damage a body part. The point I was trying to make was more that tagging a character with only 8 HP in the leg for 4 points might really slow the person down, but the same 4 point leg hit on a 20 HP character wouldn't do more than stagger him a little.
Pelor 10-24-03, 07:44 AM	But if we use that system I would have to keep track of how much damage was done to a specific body part - "Ok, so that's 4 damage from the bolt, 8 from the two arrows, and 3 from the shirukens...Ok, thats enough to give him penalties." That would be like the cyberpunk example given a few posts up. However I do agree that 4 points of damage would do nothing to a fighter with 250 hps. To combat this, how about this idea: If you aim for a specific body part and hit, it does normal damage with no extra effects. However, if you aim for a specific body part and hit it with a Critical Hit, then it does its critical damage + the effects listed on the damage to specific body parts table. I like that one because lets face it, you can be as tough as they come, but if my sword slashes your hand (with a critical hit- i.e. in a critical spot on your hand) you are gonig to have difficulties using it.
DakezDarkenblood 10-24-03, 07:54 AM	Called shots are always a bad idea in a fantastic game system for the simple reason that they inevitably end up with 'how many hit points the head has is how many hit points the enemy has'. Seriously. For the greatest example of this, check out Palladium systems like Robotech or Rifts. Yes, the body of the power armor has 250 'hit points' , but the head only has 50. Therefore blow the head off. It's a small target so you get a -6 to hit... from your +10 or so to hit. Pays off nicely. For internal inconsistancies sake, however, they did not use this system for organic creatures for a long time... then they did, giving a percentage of main body 'hit points' each location would have (5% on a hand, 15 - 25% on a head) and everyone died. It would be no different in D&D.
Pelor 10-24-03, 08:23 AM	If you kept track of how many HPs each body part had, then I would agree with you. But we are saying that damage to a body part takes HPs away from your total.
DakezDarkenblood 10-24-03, 09:09 AM	But then you run into things like 'what's the point?' A Greataxe to the head would be like a greataxe to the left foot. Most players want called shots for an extra chance to kill an enemy. Which is exactly why I use description to arbitrate called shots. I assume they're already trying to hit the enemy in the best spot to kill them with their attack roll... that's the point, after all. So I say things like "You bring your greataxe down in a powerful overhanded chop. The orc king gets a moment to register surprise on his face before the axe clefts his skull in half hard enough to chop down to his sternum. He takes 35 damage from the hit, dropping him to well below -10 and is slain."
Pelor 10-24-03, 09:22 AM	The point is to add some negatives to their attacks. A specific hit to the head gives them negatives to everything including saves and attacks. If you were able to aim for the head and with a successful hit kill the guy, then everyone would aim for the head. Aiming for a specific part is not suppost to be overpowering, it is just to add an alternative to the same old same old "I attack with my scimitar. I rolled a 24." " You hit." "I deal 7 damage." Instead you get, "I swing at his head with my scimitar, I rolled a 24." "You slash the side of his face giving him a nasty scar." or on a critical, "You slice his ear clean off and he steps back grabbing the side of his head in agony. (The guy now takes negatives to listen checks, attacks, saves, all skills, etc...)." You don't have to allow your players to aim, its just a variant rule that would change things up and add a bit of control for the players. I mean I could use your example and assume that every player is trying to kill the enemy as quickly as possible, but what if the player wants to aim for the legs because he knows that the guy might run if low on HPs? What if the player wants to kill the creature in a signature way, like piercing him through the heart? The aiming rules allow for the players to customize their attacks, which my players LOVE to do. If I told them where they hit every time, eventually they would feel like they weren't in control of their characters as much as they would like.
RPG 10-24-03, 10:02 AM	EDIT: Copying this over here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=120889). While I don't use a hit location or called shot system (I used to back in 1e and 2e, it was brutal), I have been bouncing around an idea for some feats to create a feat chain based on improved critical. I haven't implemented it IMC, I'm still mulling it over. Bear in mind, IMC, we don't use auto success/failure on a 20/1. We use the -10/+30 variant rule in the DMG (page 25, 3.5 DMG/page 64, 3.0 DMG). These feats take that into account.CALLED SHOT [General, Fighter] Prerequisites: Improved Critical (weapon of choice), Fighter level 10. Benefit: When using the weapon you selected, you no longer need ro roll to confirm a critical hit. Clarification: When rolling to hit, if the result of the d20 roll is within the threat range of your chosen weapon, and that result plus your current attack modifiers is high enough to hit your target's armor class, you do not need to roll to hit again to confirm a critical hit. A fighter may select Called Shot as one of his fighter bonus feats. IMPROVED CALLED SHOT [General, Fighter] Prerequisite: Called Shot (weapon of choice), Fighter level 12. Benefit: When using the weapon you selected, your critical multiplier is increased by one. A fighter may select Improved Called Shot as one of his fighter bonus feats.I'm actually thinking of flipping the feats around. Meaning the increase crit multiplier at 10th, and the no-crit-confirm-needed feat at 12th. And perhaps I'll bump the level reqs up by two. I dunno yet, but I thought I'd display this here so y'all can critique these feats/make fun of me. :D
Pelor 10-24-03, 10:14 AM	hmm... Improved Critical, Called Shot, Improved Called shot, all with dual +5 keen Bladed Gauntlets ,Exotic wpn proficiency, abmidexterity, TWF, ITWF and we got a fighter that can crit on a 9-20 x 3 that I never have to re-roll to see if it is a critical. With a 26 str were talking a minimum of 42 pts and a max of 57 per hit and I am making 5 attacks per turn with 23/23/17/17/12 at level 12. Thats a potential of 285 pts of dmg in one round for a level 12 (of course assumeing that he could afford dual +6 items and the enhancements to his str). Unless I missed something, that seems a Tad overpowered. EDITED: Oh yeah, add 1 level of barbarian to rage (a level 13 character), that gives you +4 to str, for a 30. Now your dealing a min of 48 and a max of 63. Attacks at 26/26/21/21/16, and a max potential of 315 pts of damage in one round. Dragon hunting anyone?
StormKnight 10-24-03, 10:29 AM	I don't think you need to keep track of locational HP to have a creature's total hit points taken into effect. Ok, first off I'm looking at things from the following point of view: A normal shot is an attempt to do maximum damage, hitting in the most vital areas. Called shots to inflict more damage are just full attacks. A called shot might be done to inflict specific injuries on the target however - say, to hit a fleeing enemy in the leg so he can't run but can be captured alive, strike an arm to try to disarm a foe, etc. My suggestion would be that you would take a penalty to your attack, and if the damage you inflict is at enough damage compared to its hit points, you cause the desired effect. I would probably work it like this: If your called shot hits, roll normal damage. Multiply the total damage you are inflicting by 3; if that equals or exceeds the target's current hit points, you cause the intended effect and then inflict your normal damage amount (before being multiplied by 3) on the target. If the total is less than its hit points, you just cause the normal damage amount and do not impair the target in any way. I would go off current hit points - a foe that is already badly wounded is going to be less able to defend. So, let's say your fighting an infamous bandit and the reward for him is more alive than dead. He starts with 40 HP. You decide to swing at his leg to try to make it harder for him to run. You hit, and cause 7 points. 7x3 = 21, so this doesn't have any effect other than the 7 points. A few rounds later, he's down to 14 HP and runs. As he does so, an archer in the party fires an arrow, taking a called shot at his leg. He hits for 5 points. 5x3 = 15. The bandit drops to the ground, clutching the arrow in his leg, with a sizeable move penalty until he gets some healing. He is now at 9 HP, since the arrow only caused the original 5 points of damage. The x3 is just for deciding whether or not special effects are caused.
Pelor 10-24-03, 10:34 AM	That looks like a good system StormKnight. I like it.
gnimish 10-24-03, 11:00 AM	A couple of thoughts: 1) I encourage called shots from the players because it adds to the dramatic visualization of the combat. I do not give penalties to hit, or give any special bonuses for a "normal" (non-critical) hit. Remember one VERY important thing here - part of the hit point total represents your ability to move/dodge/twist etc. to avoid taking that arrow in the vitals or in the leg or whatever. Critical hits mean that you were unable to get out of the way and take the full brunt of the blow to some degree. The easy answer is to give some reasonably common sense result for a called shot, but ONLY on a confirmed critical hit. I say common sense because an arrow in the leg of a dragon is not likely to slow it down much, but an arrow in the leg of a humanoid would. I would suggest some speed penalty (-5 to -10 feet) and maybe a -2 penalty to skill checks like jump, climb and so on. Be careful about making it too easy, as you take away a mid to high level rogue ability if you do. 2) Called Shot: I would recommend giving a bonus on the roll to confirm the critical rather than a guaranteed automatic critical.
krichaiushii 10-24-03, 11:13 AM	A related thread is going on in the players area of these boards. http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?threadid=120115 I think Tarkin sums it up best.
RPG 10-24-03, 04:43 PM	Originally posted by Pelor [B]Unless I missed something, that seems a Tad overpowered.Yeah, you're missing the fact that Keen and Improved Critical no longer stack, and the threat range for Bladed Gauntlets was knocked down to 19-20 in the Arms and Equipment Guide. Unless you're using 3.0. Which I am not. This would be one of the reasons. ;)
Fixxxer 10-24-03, 05:01 PM	The point is to add some negatives to their attacks. A specific hit to the head gives them negatives to everything including saves and attacks. If you were able to aim for the head and with a successful hit kill the guy, then everyone would aim for the head. Aiming for a specific part is not suppost to be overpowering, it is just to add an alternative to the same old same old "I attack with my scimitar. I rolled a 24." " You hit." "I deal 7 damage." Instead you get, "I swing at his head with my scimitar, I rolled a 24." "You slash the side of his face giving him a nasty scar." or on a critical, "You slice his ear clean off and he steps back grabbing the side of his head in agony. (The guy now takes negatives to listen checks, attacks, saves, all skills, etc...)." The thing that you seem to be missing is that this is how 3rd edition D&D works anyhow. Players are encouraged to describe what they're doing (trying to do) and it's the DM's job to describe what has just happened. Negatives to hit don't need to be added for this system to work. In all fairness, I wouldn't add negatives to the attack rolls without some form of payoff for it (such as increased damage). If you do, you're looking at getting a lot of "I stab at his chest." "I stab at his chest." "I stab at his chest." Though as far as I'm concerned, this is a moot point, since I don't allow called shots.
fenrisvulfe02 10-24-03, 09:52 PM	I created a new topic regarding this here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=120877) , but I forgot about this thread. What I mentioned there, in short, is a possible solution to the complaint that allowing called shots to vital organs means vital organs only will be targeted, and also I feel a good balancing factor for called shots. In real life, the big disadvantage of always going for, oh, the head, is that your tactics will become predictable and the defender will adjust his or her tactics so that the head is better defended. Therefore, I proposed the idea of called defense, which would work in a way similar to this: As a free action during their turn, a character may change his/her defensive stance to favor a certain area of the body. This may include the upper body (head, shoulders), rightward body (right arm, right flank/torso), leftward body (left arm, left flank/torso), and lower body (legs, abdomen, etc). The defender recieves a -2 to AC to all undefended areas and a -1 to overall AC, but recieves a +7 bonus to AC to the areas covered by the stance. Note that a stance favoring the abdomen and torso is considered effectively a neutral or normal stance, as it is situated to defend all areas equally, and does not provide any special bonuses.) I said more that I won't repeat here, because it's already said there. I'm fine if you want to respond to me here and not there, but I'm not going to repeat myself here any further. :P And Fixxxer, I think he meant that aiming for specific body parts bestows penalties depending upon the area hit, pretty much along the lines of those mentioned in the 3.0 DMG under 'damage to specific body parts', I think it was. Extra damage, as you say, wouldn't be a good idea, because then they'd just always go for a particular area, but having it interfere with the opponent's performance in other ways makes it far more interesting. Combined with the idea I proposed, though it is a greater burden to calculate, it does add more depth to combat, I believe.
Twilly 10-26-03, 07:28 AM	We use the following system. You can target an attack to a specific bodypart. Arm -4 to hit Leg -4 to hit Head -8 to hit Eye -12 to hit Hand -8 to hit Foot -8 to hit Abdomen -4 to hit When a specific bodypart is hit for x damage, and x equals 25% of the targets total hitpoints if not wounded, an attack or skillcheck related with that bodypart suffers a -2 penalty. If the body part is hit for 50% damage then the bodypart becomes useless/numb/cut of/broken/something else (DM's choice). When you do not make a called shot then you suffer no penalties to your attackroll and the damage dealt is targeted on a random bodypart that is determined by the attackroll - attackbonuses. 20- head 19- throath 18.....and so on
bg2soatob 12-10-03, 10:44 PM	Instead of 25%, I would say a -1 penalty to checks for each 10%. The penalty amounts also should probably be revised. About "uncalled" called shots. I would make damage normal except on a crit.
Ginyu549 02-16-04, 11:04 PM	Yeah, the first time this came up in my circle we had been fighting this troll and he just wouldn't burn, we figured out that he had a ring of fire resistance on and we wanted to cut off his hand. That could become a real problem in a game if everyone went around tring to hack peoples hands off so they would loose their rings, and there is always the whole thing in the MM about how long it takes for a troll to regrow severed body parts, but I found it odd that there were no rules for severing them. My feeling is that it adds some realism to the game, but the more realistic you want the system to be the slower combat will go. Therefore I made a compromise in favor of speed that i just say a called shot is -20 to hit and you have to modify for size, and cover (if for instance an eye is called and the foe is wearing a visor) This means you can get a called shot almost every time with a true strike spell (which makes sense) and as far as severing limbs, I just make a judgement call as to how much damage it would take to sever a limb. (Dont foget to figure in sundering damage against armor and such) By the time you're making called shots players are usually doing 20-30 dam per shot or more(for ftrs) which is about 1/4 hp's for most mid-high lvl threats. It seems to work out ok and the players dont abuse it because they know I can too.
Rock_Slice 02-17-04, 12:56 PM	If you look at the feats list closely enough, there is already a very simple method for called shots already included in the system. The Power Attack feat subtracts a number from your attack roll, and adds it to the damage. I would interpret this as going for a smaller target (eg. head), and doing more damage if you hit.
Magius 02-17-04, 03:56 PM	I interpreted it as taking momentum and striking more reclessly, plus its slower so he can dodge more easily. Otherwise: Why doesn't it work for ranged weapons? Called shots don't just do damage, they have other effects. If you hit the hand, it will do less damage(the hand has no vital organs or arteries) but will make it harder to use a sword. Regardless, who likes the effects of the system so far. That is, the -1 per 10% of total life?
bg2soatob 02-17-04, 03:58 PM	Sorry about that. I posted the last message, but forgot to switch usernames.
Edymnion 02-17-04, 05:04 PM	*sigh* Players want Called Shots? Sure, next encounter is a band of Kobold Rogue/Sorcerers with crossbows, True Shot, and a penchant for making called shots to the head. After the total party kill from lousy little kobolds doing called shots, they'll never want to hear those two words again. Okay class, repeate after me, "Called shots are bad, mmm'kay?"
primemover003 02-17-04, 05:37 PM	Just say no to called shots.
Phist 02-17-04, 08:07 PM	I try not to stop people from doing something unless there's a reason beyond that it's unfair. What's to stop a player aiming an arrow to the enemy's eye? And if they succeed, what's to stop the enemy from dying? I know a rogue who likes to sneak up from behind people, tilt back their heads and slit their throat. Explain to me why that would not be an instant kill.
primemover003 02-17-04, 08:50 PM	It's called a coup de grace, it's in the combat section. D&D is not realistic combat. It's not supposed to be. Called shots just muck up a system meant to be simple, easy to use, and straightforward.
Edymnion 02-17-04, 09:45 PM	The D&D system assumes the attack is ALWAYS aiming for the most vital, least guarded section on the opponent. If they shoot someone in the throat, its called a critical hit with near maximum damage. After all, if you have to make a called shot to hit something vital, just what are you supposed to be aiming at the rest of the time, their pinky finger? One thing that you really have to realize, something that the players never seem to think of. If they can do it to the monsters, then the monsters can do it to them. Any sort of called shot that is an instant kill should scare the poo out of the players. After all, they are going to have more shots aimed at them then they will ever aim at any single monster in the game. Pure statistics say that they are virtually garunteed to get hit by something, no matter how unlikely, at least once during the campaign. Have your players sit down with you and go over called shots. Make sure they understand that anything they can do, the badguys can do to them. If they want instant-kill shots, no matter how hard they are to make, they must realize that enemies will use this against them. If they want called shots to chop off arms or legs with their greataxe, then then have to realize that the orcs can chop off THIER arms and legs too. If the players agree to this, then it might not be too bad. Just don't play enemies stupid. Weak enemies with any intelligence and access to ranged weapons are going to try to kill/incapacitate the PCs as quickly as possible, using their superior numbers to their advantage. 20 differant kobolds firing crossbows, chances are one of them is going to roll that natural 20 for an auto-hit. However, there are already called shots built into the system, just under a differant name. Disarm = Called Shot Hands Sunder = Called Shot to Weapon Trip = Called Shot to Legs CdG = Called Shot to Head And thats just the most obvious ones. Fixxxer (or was it tarkin? sorry guys, can't remember who usually posts up the entire list) should be in eventually with the entire list of stuff. Its your game, and if you want Called Shots, then you can have Called Shots. I'll agree with you, I play an Archer, and I would very much like to be able to just shoot somebody in the leg so they can't run away without risking killing them. DM and I comprimised though. We agreed that I'd do normal damage, but if I called that I was aiming for the leg, I couldn't take him down to less than 0 hp, meaning he'd hit the ground and pretty much be at our mercy, without having to impliment an entirely new system for it. Perhaps you could do something like this?
bg2soatob 02-18-04, 04:20 AM	That's it! This is the fifth thread about called shots that I've seen ruined by protesters. For the last time: IF YOU DON'T WANT CALLED SHOTS, DON'T BE IN THE THREAD. THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT WHETHER CALLED SHOTS ARE GOOD, BUT IS ABOUT MAKING A GOOD SYSTEM. And by the way, I'm against insta-kill called shots and they have no place in my system. A called shot to the head would cause little damage in my system, but would give a penalty to ALL checks due to the dizziness and inability to think straight. Disarm = Called Shot Hands Sunder = Called Shot to Weapon Trip = Called Shot to Legs CdG = Called Shot to Head Sunder is most certainly a called shot to the weapon, although it's not a called shot. Trp and disarm are NOT called shots, since they deal no damage and last only until a MEA has been made. Not all CDG are to the head.
bg2soatob 02-18-04, 04:28 AM	Now for the draft of my system, using '/' to indicate things I'm uncertain about. When you make a called shot, you choose a certain non-vital organ (hands,legs) in order to do less damage, but cause a negative effect. You recieve a penalty on the attack, not yet decided. You must then deal 5%/10% of your target's life in one hit. For each 5%/10% you deal, the creature get's a penalty to certain checks, rolls, and skills. The exact checks are in the DMG, though I don't have it in front of me at the moment. If you deal 50% of the creatures life total in one hit on a called shot, the organ is severed, broken, or otherwise rendered completely inactive. The actual damage dealt to the target on a called shot is half/? your damage roll, done after you check minuses. Opinions?