Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Captn Blake 08-24-06, 09:22 PM	I *know* this must have come up a thousand times but without a search engine... Do you have any house rules for called shots? "I aim for his knee caps" Right now, I'm basically increasing the AC. If it makes the increased number, it makes the called shot. If it doesn't but it still beats the unmodified AC, then it hits, but just not where you aimed. I'm not really sure what numbers to use to modify the AC though. If you were trying to hit the eye of a running badger, that sounds pretty dang hard to me, like +10? -CB :confused:
Seerow 08-24-06, 09:26 PM	I always liked just using Power Attack for called shot. Remove the Str requisite, the Two Handed Bonus (or make it +2 for any weapon), make it usable with any weapon, and change its name to called shot. When they want to hit a more vital area, they take the penalty to hit and gain extra damage.
wrecan 08-24-06, 09:32 PM	Called shot to legs: Trip Called shot to arm: Disarm Called shot to item: Sunder Called shot to vitals: Power attack or Improved Critical
DocSavage 08-24-06, 09:51 PM	so, if a character doesnt have those feats its not possible? i usually just add as much of a - modifier as i feel is needed.
wrecan 08-24-06, 10:20 PM	You can trip, disarm and sunder without a feat. It just prookes an AoO. Critical attacks on vitals is pretty silly. A good combatant is always trying to hit his foe's vitals. Power attack and improved critical merely represents greater training in precision attacks. Anything else is just looking for a way around the hit point system, which is fine, but really requires you to find a different game.
DocSavage 08-24-06, 10:26 PM	An AoO, good point and i do see how it would be bypassing the HP system.
Aeromus 08-24-06, 11:07 PM	You could also apply a negative to the called shot and if they succeed just have them do max damage. I called shot him in the head!!! Roll to hit with a -10. Wow a 17, - 10 + my bonus; of 11 = 21 did I hit? Yup, what;s your max damage. Well 8 for long sword, 2 for weapon spec, 3 for strengthm, and 2 for magic, so 15. Gratz you hit for 15 damage. But had you missed you get nothing.
highbulp 08-24-06, 11:44 PM	I use a Wounding varient (where certain hits, think criticals, inflict status effects and penalties and such). Where the wound occurs is based off a die roll (a d12 because it isn't used enough. Example: 1 is a hit to the foot, 12 is a hit to the head). So I allow called shots where for every -2 to the attack roll, you can move the location die up or down one step assuming you get a wound. It means you can aim for the head if you want, but most likely it isn't going to help you out much (making a called shot isn't that tactically sound, unless you have something else going for you). Just though to post, but as it's based on a whole house-ruled combat system, I don't think you'd want to use it.
keropie 08-25-06, 01:53 AM	I would definitely say that if you do use an increased AC/attack penalty to model your called shots, then missing the higher AC is just a miss, not a hit somewhere else. Otherwise, I'd just be going 'called shot eye' or 'called shot throat' everytime. I don't have anything to lose, right? But generally, I agree with the idea that you use trip/sunder/etc. to model called shots. Afterall, it SHOULD (generally) provoke an AoE (at least in melee, in ranged is possibly different), as you're not aiming at the mistake he just made, you're lining a shot up at his eyes. He might notice and decid that's a good time to smack you hard. But definitely NOT a no penalty called shot (which seems to be what you're using).
DarkRhystar 08-25-06, 02:15 AM	Let's visit a reason why some called shots may be bad. Remember, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Picture 4 level 1 Goblin Wizards ambushing a 4 person party... *Goblin 1 casts True Strike* *Goblin 2 casts True Strike* *Goblin 3 casts True Strike* *Goblin 4 casts True Strike* ... *Surprise Round* *Goblin 1 shoots a bow using Called Shot (Neck)* *Goblin 2 shoots a bow using Called Shot (Neck)* *Goblin 3 shoots a bow using Called Shot (Neck)* *Goblin 4 shoots a bow using Called Shot (Neck)* ... *Four dead Arrow-To-Neck party members later* Players: "Let's not use called shots anymore."
AntiDjinn 08-25-06, 02:50 AM	It is likely that over the course of a character's career he is going to be targeted by more attacks than he dishes out. Picture the party of 5 going up against dozens of orcs. The orcs who are not in melee have nothing to loose by using called shots too if feats are not required. They have nothing to loose if a called shot that hits normally is still a hit, just not in the intended location. (Are you ever not aiming for someplace where it is going to hurt?) End result: The party is going to suck up more damage from this table rule than it is going to dish out just by number of attack rolls incoming vs. outgoing. There are multiple systems that use called or aimed shots (GURPS in one and has thousands of loyal players). You would be better off to use such a system then try to reinvent then rebalance the wheel by addding a level of realism this system wasn't designed to support.
Krusk 08-25-06, 03:19 AM	The Star Wars RPG by wizards has a book called the Heros Guide that has a really detailed account of what the AC is for called shot anything and what the effect is. I carried it over to Dnd really easy. The only change was from blaster to bow. On the same page it also has rules for having crits hit said body part like a called shot and deal damage onto of a cool effect. so you crit with your greataxe dealing damage. roll on chart, it hits leg, they suffer X penalty. They also have diffrent charts based on bludgeoning slashing and piercing.
SnowSage 08-25-06, 09:10 AM	I say that it's part of regular combat... as someone already stated, a good combatant is always aiming for the vitals {assuming he knows where they are} and should be treated accordingly. If a person says "I aim for his legs." I give the enemy a +5 to AC representing that if he misses he is likely to hit somewhere around the leg which would be the ground more likely than not, and also a +10 to AC representing the difficulty to hit said spot. These bonuses apply at different times, they do not stack. If you beat the AC with the +10, you hit where you intended to, congratulations, if you beat the AC with the +5, you got lucky, and even though he avoided your shot to the leg, you managed to hit him in the lower torso, dealing regular damage. If you did not hit the +5 AC, too bad, you missed. In my games, anyone who beats an enemy's AC by 15 scores a crit, with the critical doing one more multiple of the damage than usual, as most criticals represent getting lucky and running the enemy through close to, or just touching an important organ, While this represents going streight for where it counts {Brain, heart, throaght, etc.} This encourages players to make sure that their attack bonus is high, as well as giving them a reason to maintain a reasonably high AC even at levels where the enemies get +30 to attack rolls and will always hit anyway. This also gives people a reason to play snipers, a type of charracter nobody seems to want to play due to the fact that you cannot get bonus damage due to extream accuracy, which is the way snipers work. EDIT: to clarify, I do not use divination magic at any point, nor do I allow it, therefore I don't have to worry about kobolds true striking for mass sniping damage.
Azezel 08-25-06, 10:11 AM	This way lies madness. Not merely because anything that makes combat more deadly hurts PCs much more than foes, and helps PCs much less than foes. The more critical aspect of called shots is this: in the Attack-Roll/AC/HP abstraction that is DnD Combat a character is always making a called shot. Every single attack is a called shot to whatever part of the foe is most vulnerable at the time the attack is made. Sometimes a character is fortunate enough to strike a particulalry important spot on his foes body, and thus scores a critical (or sneak attack). The fact of the matter is that our d20 combat system simply cannot support called shots, and does not need to. Fortunately there are dozens of systems that have called shots built right into them - some of them are even good systems. Try them.
Echodork 08-25-06, 10:31 AM	Right now, I'm basically increasing the AC. If it makes the increased number, it makes the called shot. If it doesn't but it still beats the unmodified AC, then it hits, but just not where you aimed. Be aware that there's no reason NOT to make a called shot on every attack with this system. If you hit the increased AC, great! If not, you still hit and do damage anyway, so why not call every shot? I think the question is, what are you trying to accomplish with called shots? Attacking a particular portion of a monster's anatomy is generally handled under existing rules. Wrecan is correct in stating that if your character wants to take a called shot to a goblin's knee, that's handled as a trip attack. Monsters like hydras and beholders list their various heads/eyes separately, so no called shot is necessary in those cases. Now, if your characters are trying to cut off the enemy Fighter's hand to make him drop his sword, that's a bit touchy. The rules don't really support that, because the rules don't support attacks made to sever limbs. It seems like something you SHOULD be able to do, somehow, but core D&D doesn't provide for it. If you want to houserule a situation like this, make your players aware that regenerate is a 7th level Cleric spell, and it's fair game for the monsters to try to cut off bits of the players as well. All in all, I think it's safest for everyone to just not go down that avenue (but purists will probably argue that you SHOULD be able to do whatever you want).
Crash169 08-25-06, 11:08 AM	Called shots would be broken no matter what you come up with. They have rules and feats to balance the game and still be able to make a "called shot" type of maneuver. Disarm, sunder, trip, these are the called shots of 3.5. There are also feats like, hamstring, pain strike, arterial strike.. The list goes on, but these are all "called shots". Of course most of you think that as a character ascends in level he would be able to pinpoint vital areas easier, and therefore finish his enmies off faster. He does. As you ascend in levels you are able to take more feats and more damage adding attacks. Thats why feats like weapon specialization, greater weapon specializaion, and melee, or ranged weapon mastery have level requirements. This damage is added because you become more familiar with that certain weapon in combat. You know how to use the weapon in ways that are more damaging to your opponents. Sneak attack. Sneak attacking an opponent is the same as hitting them in a more vital spot on their body. As you gain more levels, your sneak attack damage goes up. Why, you may ask? You get better with experience. "Oh but I don't only want to sneak attack them, I want to hinder their movment with a swift strike to the leg!" Then take the feat hamstring and cut their leg up instead of doing massive damage.
Captn Blake 08-25-06, 02:13 PM	Hoooly cow, you guys - I'm totally humbled. I didn't think of any of those vices to the called shot system. I'm just glad none of my players picked up on the weaknesses before I asked you all. Yay D&D Boards! Ya, sounds like a change in house rules is in order. The fact that the feats accomplish relatively the same things as called shots to vitals totally eluded me. I wonder it that's because I learned back in the AD&D days when we didn't have such a thing as feats? I think that's pretty fair to require a feat to be accurate in a called shot. Obviously, a trained sniper would be better at called shots than a school boy, presumably becaus ethe sniper has training (ie. feats). So that works for me. So long as the player is specific in what he's trying to accomplish by applying his Power Attack. I guess Improved Crit applies on every swing. Yah. I'm satisfied. Thanks, everyone! -CB
Amon_WinterfallIV 08-25-06, 02:19 PM	This is bad news, and I suggest that you not do called shots. Consider the following: Wiz: I cast true stike on the ranger. Cleric: Bless the Ranger Ranger: Shoot the Dragons Eye with a called shot. Does 48 hit? DM:. Dragon instantly dies. There goes 248 HPs in one shot... That's rather imbalancing, so it should not be done...
Echodork 08-25-06, 02:27 PM	Wiz: I cast true stike on the ranger. Wouldn't it be awesome if True Strike weren't Range: Personal? :)
SnowSage 08-25-06, 02:31 PM	The recent points are exactly why I disallow divination magic, or any magic that raises a persons attack bonus in any way besides ability bonus by more than 2 points, as that unbalances it if I give accuracy based bonus damage, which I do.
Wulfgar 08-25-06, 03:07 PM	I think that people don't really understand "called shots". Called shots turn up in all sorts of fiction and fantasy; Robin Hood, the Lone Ranger, Green Arrow, Daredevil, Batman, Zorro, Vash The Stampede, and others, make extensive use of them, for ranged disarms, trips and the like. 2e had a system for called shots that did not allow for insta-kills -- no shooting someone in the eye, neck :rolleyes: or crap like that; the best that you could do would be to stun someone, knock an item out of their hand, trip them up, cut their belts, cut an initial into their clothing (a la Zorro) or pin a limb to a tree, wall or the like or maybe, if the DM allowed it, do extra damage based on the location. In the case of stunning, a character could always make a CON-based check against it to avoid the effect. Called shots called for something like a -4, plus a more extensive negative based on the location, like an additional -10 for something like the head (I don't have my books handy, but those numbers seem right). It has little to do with "realism" and much more to do with "Cool Factor X". I swear, though, if someone tried an insta-kill called shot in my campaign, the best that they'd get would be stunning or bonus damage for a successful hit.
DarkRhystar 08-25-06, 05:23 PM	It has little to do with "realism" and much more to do with "Cool Factor X". I'll never understand why people absolutely must have a game mechanic be associated with every little piece of flavor and vice versa.
Aeromus 08-25-06, 05:35 PM	I'll never understand why people absolutely must have a game mechanic be associated with every little piece of flavor and vice versa. Because not everyone chooses Fighter, Power Attack, Weapon Focus, and Greatsword when they play D&D.
AntiDjinn 08-25-06, 07:06 PM	Called shots turn up in all sorts of fiction and fantasy; Robin Hood, the Lone Ranger, Green Arrow, Daredevil, Batman, Zorro, Vash The Stampede, and others, make extensive use of them, for ranged disarms, trips and the like. And D&D has feats and other abilities to cover sunder, ranged sunder, trip, ranged trip, disarm, ranged disarm. If you want to do these tricks then you just need the feat. If you shoot the weapon out of someones hand then you just did a trick shot because your ranged disarm feat or ability, not because you whined to the DM that you should be allowed to call any shot without having to put character resources into it.
LostPassWordDoesNotWork 08-25-06, 08:27 PM	More of an idea as I read the posts. What is a called shot? It is a called hit in hopes of disabling part of the targets limbs. What it is not. Extra damage. sneak attack damage and critical does that. 1-hit-KO You can coup degrace a helpless person. It does do not any of the following: Trip, stun, disarm, or sunder. Called Shot: Bonuses to a call shot attack: All of the normal ones, plus bonuses based on your class awarded at the DMs discretion. (Example: A assassin may get a +2~4 bonus, or striking the leg of a monster twice your size) Your skills play a part in this as well. Take one half of your ranks in the appropriate skill and add it to your attack. Human-like: humans, elves, dwarfs, halflings; Healing. Most animal-like things: dire wolf (wolf), phoenix (bird of pray); Knowledge-Nature. Defenses to protect from a called shot. Normal AC total, plus double your dodge and deflection bonuses and add 10 again. (Effectively just add your touch AC to your full AC) If you are flat footed when you are attacked you do not get the extra bonus to AC. What the shot can do. Leg: Target moves at half speed. If the other leg is hit then the target is considered to lose its dex bonus to AC This only affects AC and not skills or abilities that depend on them losing their dex bonus to AC (i.e. a rogue may not sneak attack someone with two hurt legs) With both legs hit the target can only move 5ft per round. More than two legs? One half of the total number of legs must be hit for the half speed penalty kicks in. All of the legs must be hit for the loss to AC and 5ft movement cap. Arm: Attacks and damage made with that arm have a -4 unnamed penalty attached to them. Shield arms may be attacked but they gain an extra +4 bonus to avoid getting hit. Example: a ranger using two weapons gets hit in the right arm (on hand) his full attack changes to -(TWF + 4) with the on hand and -TWF on the off. You cannot strike the head with a called shot. In action. Striking an opponent in a way to disable their limbs requires knowledge of where to strike and the tactual knowledge and skill to pull it of. Due to the fact you are no longer aiming for their body, instead your aiming for something that is in constant motion hitting the area is harder to do. Shields also protect much of the arm the welds it. A faster more general version of hitting some ones leg is tripping them. But taking the time to aim your blow so that it effects how they can use their leg is not something the inexperienced can do easily. Because sunder, trip, stun, critical damage, sneak attacks, coup degrace and disarm are already a form of a "called shot" the above is based off the idea of hitting them in a way to disable the targeted limb. Examples of it in use. fighter 10, with a total attack bonus of 16. (bab 10, 18str, twohanded weapon) Attacks a something with AC 16, touch 14, flat 12. His bonus +16, vs DC 28. He needs a roll of 12 to hit with a called shot. Cleric 5, with a total attack of 6. Healing ranks 8. (bab 4, str 14, one handed weapon) His bonus vs the same things +10 vs dc 28. He needs a 18. (possible a critical roll with his weapon) Rogue 15, total attack 14, 6 ranks in healing. (bab 11, 14 str, using a one handed dagger with weapon focus and improved crit) vs Commener with stuff, 20, touch 15, flat 17. (mwk chain shirt +4, buckler +1, 14 dex +2, dodge +1, ring of protection +2 +2.) Bonus: +21 (attack 14 + healing 3 + DM assigned rogue bonus 2 + DM assigned im-crit bonus 2) DC 37. He needs a 16. I dunno how useful this sytem whould be... But knowing where to stab whould play a part. So to does the fact the limb is never standing still and it is a much smaller target.
AlphaLoup 08-25-06, 08:41 PM	I am surprised at how many people are hung up on the "rolling" of a role playing game. I remember a scene in Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves where Will Scarlet is about to throw a dagger at Robin. Robin shoots an arrow into his hand forcing him to drop the dagger. It was an amazing scene and I don't see why my players should not be able to be this heroic as well. As for the feats, although I am not opposed to using a ranged disarm feat for this (although I do not have access to such a feat, nor would I buy a book for it) I find it unrealistic that a player would need it. I can't imagine the players of a d20 modern game needing to take a "Bullseye" feat to hit the centre of a dartboard. The fact is, the Bullseye is just harder to hit and the only thing that increases it is skill and practice, which to me would be the base attack bonus. I don't see why if you hit aimed for a hand you couldn't increase the AC for it. To what that AC is, I'm not sure what the best method would be, but I am sure there are formulas that would work. Just because it hits, does not mean that it has to do enough damage to cripple, disarm or blind the creature... it could just result in normal damage. As for the monsters being able to use the same rule... as DM's we have control over the monsters. If my players aren't abusing it, I wouldn't let the monsters either. As for True Strike, I see no real difference between this and a feat, with the exception that most feats don't have a daily limit to usage. Now remember, this all comes from a DM who has little interest in rules and rolling dice. I have, on occasion, DM'd an entire game, combats and all, without ever looking at the dice I roll (for my players benefit) behind my screen. I want my players to be the heroes, have fun, and be challenged. I guess my only point is to not get so hung up on the rules, and if your player wants to try it, and it seems like something that could be attempted without special training, let them at least try.
Kojin_Delacour 08-25-06, 08:45 PM	geez i think my head hurts after reading all the ideas on a called shot. As a DM whenever a PC states that they wish to make a call shot I simply tell them a -4 to attack roll depending on the body part they are trying to hit. If they miss on that roll then sorry no dice for you, you just plain miss all together. If you hit then there is no extra damage just a plain hit. Granted if you hit the eye of an opponent then you may blind them. I also have a rule that if you point blank shoot someone in the head then they die. I'm sorry but 9 out of 10 times if you get shot in the head you'd die. Also goes with my called shots. I know its no help but I couldn't resist getting in on this post.
WizO_Cat 08-25-06, 11:03 PM	As I have mentioned previously on the boards, I'm really not the biggest fan of Called Shots. Basically it boils down to the fact that it is a rule that characters would not like to have used on themselves. For example, I'm sure that the players are going to be psyched when you as DM say, "Hey, not bad rule, I'll allow it." However, the problem is that I'm sure that their attitudes will change when you follow up the previous sentence by saying, "Wow, I'm going to feel bad having the monsters use Called Shots on the characters, but if you really want them as rules, so be it." Now as a group there's no one way that all groups must play. If Called Shots work in your group and everybody is having fun, so be it. However, this is one of those rules that in mostcases attrition will catch up with the players, and their 15th level wizard will eventually get taken out by a 1st level kobold sorceror with a bow.
AlphaLoup 08-26-06, 12:32 AM	As I have mentioned previously on the boards, I'm really not the biggest fan of Called Shots. Basically it boils down to the fact that it is a rule that characters would not like to have used on themselves. For example, I'm sure that the players are going to be psyched when you as DM say, "Hey, not bad rule, I'll allow it." However, the problem is that I'm sure that their attitudes will change when you follow up the previous sentence by saying, "Wow, I'm going to feel bad having the monsters use Called Shots on the characters, but if you really want them as rules, so be it." My only problem with this, is that the logic used here could easily be translated to anything else in the game... like character deaths for example. PC's kill many monsters and rarely suffer the same fate. Not because monsters can't kill them using the same rules, but because we scale the encounters accordingly to give the PC's a fighting chance. I know I am using an extreme here, but can you see my point? Now as a group there's no one way that all groups must play. If Called Shots work in your group and everybody is having fun, so be it. However, this is one of those rules that in mostcases attrition will catch up with the players, and their 15th level wizard will eventually get taken out by a 1st level kobold sorceror with a bow. Perhaps I think of called shots more along the lines of second edition where they could only hamper the enemy but never kill them. When you guys here "called shot" do you think of it as an instant death rule?
WizO_Cat 08-26-06, 12:58 AM	My only problem with this, is that the logic used here could easily be translated to anything else in the game... like character deaths for example. PC's kill many monsters and rarely suffer the same fate. Not because monsters can't kill them using the same rules, but because we scale the encounters accordingly to give the PC's a fighting chance. I know I am using an extreme here, but can you see my point? Yes, that is correct. However, as noted, the this is that the game has already "balanced" itself by having the CR concept in order to give players a fighting chance. Adding inst-kill or inst-maim via Called Shots is just going to allow the players more of chance of being the victim of the mechanic by attrition. The game already gives mechanics like the 0 to -10 hit point range to resuscitate character while monster are dead after 0 hit points. Perhaps I think of called shots more along the lines of second edition where they could only hamper the enemy but never kill them. When you guys here "called shot" do you think of it as an instant death rule? Well, really it could be maiming characters as well. Put another way, is it that much better that your 15th level wizard got blinded by a 1st level sorceror kobold with a bow?
Krusk 08-26-06, 01:23 AM	When I dmed one game allowing called shot rules, the players loved it. They even fought a recuring npc bounty hunter who used the ability to cripple party members, shooting in the leg ect. It makes everything more exciting knowing that at anytime while your in melee if you don't take down those archers over there there is a good chance they will put out the wizards eye. On the same note it made being an archer really worth playing, whenever you see the BBEG you know you can have a serious impact on the battle instead of just doing damage. If you go for sniping the villian/spellcasters in vital spots that can turn the tide of a hard battle. i havent had a shot to dm since that one, but i plan to introduce it in the next game i run as well.
GameMonkey 08-26-06, 01:32 AM	I got this Critical Hits & Fumbles Table from http://www.dndadventure.com/ and I just tweak it for called shots. Somewhere I read that a called shot could range from -2 to -10, depending on the size of the body part. My group agreed that the -10 was for hands and feet. Depending on the outcome of the rolls, I would check the above-mentioned table and decide what exactly happens. But that's what my group does.
AlphaLoup 08-26-06, 01:53 AM	Yes, that is correct. However, as noted, the this is that the game has already "balanced" itself by having the CR concept in order to give players a fighting chance. Adding inst-kill or inst-maim via Called Shots is just going to allow the players more of chance of being the victim of the mechanic by attrition. The game already gives mechanics like the 0 to -10 hit point range to resuscitate character while monster are dead after 0 hit points. So it is fair to say that although a rule has not yet been created to balance the concept of called shot, one could be? Well, really it could be maiming characters as well. Put another way, is it that much better that your 15th level wizard got blinded by a 1st level sorceror kobold with a bow? hahaha, well I should hope that my 15th level wizard, even if blinded, should safely be able to escape the clutches of a kobold. If not, he isn't a very smart wizard is he? :) But I really think that we are getting a little hung up on the worst case scenarios, rather than acknowledging that a balanced system could be created to allow this rule. It is fair to say that a 4th level kobold sorcerer should stand no chance against a 15th level wizard, but he can also cause blindness. So to me, yes there is a clear advantage to being maimed as opposed to being dead. We can go on and on with these examples, a 1st level orc could kill a 15th level wizard if he had the right weapon, won initiative, scored a critical hit, and the wizard rolled the lowest possible for all hit points along the way. Not very likely... but still very possible. So if we were to have a called shot rule, why could we not make it as difficult to occur as the above events? Am I still far off base here?
WizO_Cat 08-26-06, 03:16 PM	Is it off-base? No, if a gaming group really wants the rule and all are happy with it, then go with it. There isn't any police force out there making people play the game in one style. However, though maiming is less lethal than killing, it is still going to hurt the players much more than the players being able to take advantage of it. The thing is that the 1st level kobold sorceror versus the 15th level wizard is realistic: all the kobold sorceror needs is the spell True Strike and a bow and he's off to the races. Maybe the 15th level wizard might be able to get away from the kobold sorceror if only binded, but I'm thinking that the players are going to get upset that they're having to retreat from sharpshooting CR 2 encounters as 15th level characters after a while. Also, as you illustrated, the concept of called shots are captured with the following scenario: a 1st level orc could kill a 15th level wizard if he had the right weapon, won initiative, scored a critical hit, and the wizard rolled the lowest possible for all hit points along the way. That's how D&D captures the concept of Called Shots. It's assumed that the characters are trying to hit specific areas on monsters whenever they swing. It's not like they're swinging like they're trying to hit the broad side of a barn.
Lokathor 08-26-06, 04:00 PM	Do you have any house rules for called shots? "For every -1 to attack you get +1 to damage."
AlphaLoup 08-26-06, 04:25 PM	Is it off-base? No, if a gaming group really wants the rule and all are happy with it, then go with it. There isn't any police force out there making people play the game in one style. That's good! Now I can stop working on my fake passport to leave the country! :P However, though maiming is less lethal than killing, it is still going to hurt the players much more than the players being able to take advantage of it. Only if you have a vengeful DM. The thing is that the 1st level kobold sorceror versus the 15th level wizard is realistic: all the kobold sorceror needs is the spell True Strike and a bow and he's off to the races. Maybe the 15th level wizard might be able to get away from the kobold sorceror if only binded, but I'm thinking that the players are going to get upset that they're having to retreat from sharpshooting CR 2 encounters as 15th level characters after a while. I'm not really sure I like this example to be honest. Several reasons why: 1. I truely believe that even a blind 15th level wizard should still be able to kill a 1st level kobold. 2. Even if the kobold goes first and casts true strike, then the wizard should be able to kill him before he ever gets to shoot that bow. 3. One shot to they eye won't blind a character, only hamper his eyesight. So really the kobold would need 4 rounds. 4. Why in the world would a DM ever set his 15th level wizard against a 1st level kobold? hahaha 5. If you did have called shots in your game, would you put a 2nd level PC against a 15th level wizard and expect him to win? With that said, I understand the point you are trying to make, but what if I said that using a called shot to the eye increased your targets AC by +20? Would that make it more fair? That's how D&D captures the concept of Called Shots. It's assumed that the characters are trying to hit specific areas on monsters whenever they swing. It's not like they're swinging like they're trying to hit the broad side of a barn. I only slightly disagree with this. Mostly what I picture called shots being used for is to hit a specific spot on the body and not limited to vital spots. In my post far above I used a scene from Robin Hood. Shooting the hand is not a vital spot, nor is it likely that it did a lot of damage. So I tend to think that the using the normal rules leans more to hitting those parts that will do the most damage, which are rarely the areas in which you would use a called shot on. What I do like about your sentance above is that you are clearly picturing something more than numbers on the dice. What surprised me most about is reluctance, (from the majority of these posts), to use called shots in a game where we use our imagination so freely. We can picture a wizard creating fire from his finger tips, but we can't picture an archer aiming for an eye? Question for everyone out there, if I was a player in your game and I said I would like to shoot the evil guy in the eye, what would you tell me?
keropie 08-26-06, 07:04 PM	Two things: A: -1 to hit for +1 to damage is called 'Power Attack,' requires a feat, and is limited by BaB. I don't think we'd really call that a house rule, unless you mean that you somehow modify the above (it's no longer necessary to have the feat, whatever). B: An arrow to the eye will indeed blind that eye 99+% of the time. People simply don't take 36" of wood behind a broadhead to the eye without losing at least the use of that eye. And over all, as WizO has pointed out (shocking that they may have some idea what's going on here), any thing like this simply makes baddies scarier. A lot scarier. Why? Who cares if the kobold is blinded, or the ogre mage, or even the dragon, really. He's probably dead at the end of the encounter, and if not, you're probably not going to see him again. Ever. If the PCs, on the other hand, are blinded, even in one eye, that might make a difference in how the rest of the game goes. And while it would be cool (sorta), I don't know that most PCs would like that. So I'll have to add my (irrelevent) support to WizO's position (and others): if you and your players want to do it, go nuts. But DnD doesn't need it as a 'real' rule. Leave it as a house rule, find your way of doing it, and make everyone you play with happy ^^
dragonheart 08-26-06, 07:47 PM	trying to do called shots fairly is incredibly difficult for all the reasons described, one moderately simple way to do it is stop and think about what it is your really doing. any called shot is going to do the equivalent of a critical hit or worse so instead of upping the AC/adding minuses to the to hit etc simply take the shot - if you roll a natural 20 you hit automatically and threaten a critical, so you roll for the crit and if you actually manage to roll a second in a row natural 20 you have your called shot - 25 times out of every 10,000 rolls. still too common? roll % dice to see if you actually hit the spot your aiming for and not some other critical spot nearby (I once saw an archer just miss a finger sized stick at 100 yards with their first shot and then break it on the second - but did they actually hit it at the point they aimes to? or did they hit it high or low? no idea but you get the idea) (if the point of aim was an eyeslit in a helmet and he hit low it might have been the throat - still a critical but possibly not as deadly) now its 25 hits out of each million rolls. can it be done? yes but you don't really try unless its a no choice scenario and then you pray mightily (I say yes because I actually did it -once - 5 20s,1s,100s or 01s in a row - that character is now becoming a god after killing a god with that series of rolls (hitting the called shot and critical failures on saves and magic resistance by the deity hit) basically if you get that kind of luck the rewards should also be worth it to you as well.
AlphaLoup 08-26-06, 07:49 PM	B: An arrow to the eye will indeed blind that eye 99+% of the time. People simply don't take 36" of wood behind a broadhead to the eye without losing at least the use of that eye. My only point here was that while destroying one eye, the character would not be blinded. I have a friend with only one eye and they do not require a seeing eye dog to get by. And over all, as WizO has pointed out (shocking that they may have some idea what's going on here), any thing like this simply makes baddies scarier. Is there anything that a PC can do that a opponent can not? I believe the answer is no here, but please correct me if I am wrong. As WizO has pointed out above the game rules have been scaled to protect PC's from facing opponents that do the same leathel damage that they do. Why could we not scale a called shot house rule to match this? So I'll have to add my (irrelevent) support to WizO's position (and others): if you and your players want to do it, go nuts. But DnD doesn't need it as a 'real' rule. Leave it as a house rule, find your way of doing it, and make everyone you play with happy ^^ Don't get me wrong, I am not campaigning here to get the players handbook revised. I'm not implying that WizO has little intelligence or imagination. In fact I rather appreciate WizO's input. Nor have I used a called shot in my game for more years than I can remember. I am just bouncing around ideas and trying to get people to think outside of the rule book to see if there is a way this could work. Keropie, if you were my DM how would you respond to my request of, "I would like to shoot the enemy in the eye with my arrow."
Lokathor 08-26-06, 07:55 PM	A: -1 to hit for +1 to damage is called 'Power Attack,' requires a feat, and is limited by BaB. I don't think we'd really call that a house rule, unless you mean that you somehow modify the above (it's no longer necessary to have the feat, whatever). Oh have a sense of humor. Really though, Called Shots screw the players the same way that anything that introduces the potential for more randomness ends up screwing the players. And If you do care to know, in my game, among other rules changes the rule has become "All creatures with a base attack bonus of +1 or more automatically gain the Power Attack feat. It can be used even without Str 13."
AlphaLoup 08-26-06, 07:57 PM	any called shot is going to do the equivalent of a critical hit or worse so instead of upping the AC/adding minuses to the to hit etc simply take the shot - if you roll a natural 20 you hit automatically and threaten a critical, so you roll for the crit and if you actually manage to roll a second in a row natural 20 you have your called shot - 25 times out of every 10,000 rolls. Interesting idea. Currently today I add a little extra flair to my descriptions when they score a critical hit... wouldn't be too far of a stretch to add a side effect if they went for a target area. Thanks for the input!
Mikal 08-26-06, 08:14 PM	Only if you have a vengeful DM. Incorrect. It's actually the law of averages. On average a lot more dice are rolled against PC's then BY PC's. As such, a mechanic which makes combat deadlier due to pure dice rolling will work against the PC's in the long run. Especially when you face those Arcane Archers or Artifcers. I'm not really sure I like this example to be honest. Several reasons why: 1. I truely believe that even a blind 15th level wizard should still be able to kill a 1st level kobold. Ok. How? He can't see so he can't cast spells that requires targets. Whats he do? 2. Even if the kobold goes first and casts true strike, then the wizard should be able to kill him before he ever gets to shoot that bow. Unless the kobold does so in the surprise round, or from ambush and THEN attacks in the surprise round. 3. One shot to they eye won't blind a character, only hamper his eyesight. So really the kobold would need 4 rounds. Except that it would take maybe two, and thats only if the kobold hits one eye. He COULD fire from the side and take out bow eyes by shooting across the face. He IS true striked. 4. Why in the world would a DM ever set his 15th level wizard against a 1st level kobold? hahaha Why in the world would a DM allow something as bad as called shot rules in a game that already assumes you're attacking vitals, and goes against the very essence of the combat mechanics in the first place? oh. "hahaha" 5. If you did have called shots in your game, would you put a 2nd level PC against a 15th level wizard and expect him to win? In 3rd edition DnD, yes, I think I'd have a chance. With that said, I understand the point you are trying to make, but what if I said that using a called shot to the eye increased your targets AC by +20? Would that make it more fair? No, because it isn't a matter of fairness, per se. It's a matter of the fact that such an ability goes against the entire spirit and mechanical heart of the d20 combat system, an archaic sacred cow that needs to be put down. I only slightly disagree with this. Mostly what I picture called shots being used for is to hit a specific spot on the body and not limited to vital spots. In my post far above I used a scene from Robin Hood. Why not just make it a ranged disarm, and make it a feat? That's more fair and balanced then a called shot mechanic out of the blue anyone could do. Shooting the hand is not a vital spot, nor is it likely that it did a lot of damage. Wrong, wrong wrong. Things a hand is needed for: Holding a weapon. Holding an item. Casting spells. Holding a shield. Grappling. Unarmed Strikes. Trip attacks. Two called shots to the hand and most humanoid characters are completely negated. Unintended consequences So I tend to think that the using the normal rules leans more to hitting those parts that will do the most damage, which are rarely the areas in which you would use a called shot on. What I do like about your sentance above is that you are clearly picturing something more than numbers on the dice. Then you have a limited viewpoint. Combat does much more then that, with the appropiate feats, classes, weapon abilities, and mindset. What surprised me most about is reluctance, (from the majority of these posts), to use called shots in a game where we use our imagination so freely. We can picture a wizard creating fire from his finger tips, but we can't picture an archer aiming for an eye? No.. it's not about imagination. If you had truly been paying attention, it's the ability to break the game wide open to cheesy tactics that require little forethought to use. Question for everyone out there, if I was a player in your game and I said I would like to shoot the evil guy in the eye, what would you tell me? I'd say "Nice flavor text. now make your attack roll."
AlphaLoup 08-26-06, 08:27 PM	I'm not going to bother getting into an arguement about the other points, I only wanted to challenge ideas. I'd say "Nice flavor text. now make your attack roll." And if I hit what would you tell me?
Mikal 08-26-06, 08:29 PM	I'm not going to bother getting into an arguement about the other points, I only wanted to challenge ideas. And if I hit what would you tell me? "As your arrow flies true, your opponent, on guard for such an attack, is able to move out of the way of your blow. While you did not succeed in blinding him, a large furrow is now spread across his forehead. Roll damage."
AlphaLoup 08-26-06, 08:34 PM	"As your arrow flies true, your opponent, on guard for such an attack, is able to move out of the way of your blow. While you did not succeed in blinding him, a large furrow is now spread across his forehead. Roll damage." Wonderful! I just attempted a called shot without damaging or breaking the rules. Now is it to much of a stretch, that in a battle where you know the PC's are going to win, to blind an enemy solely at your discretion?
Mikal 08-26-06, 08:36 PM	Wonderful! I just attempted a called shot without damaging or breaking the rules. Now is it to much of a stretch, that in a battle where you know the PC's are going to win, to blind an enemy solely at your discretion? Yes. Because my example had no in game mechanical effects. Yours does. As such, my example does not have unforseen consequences that can be used to unbalance the game or go against the spirit of the combat system. Yours does. In other words, I took your attempt to try and break the rules/spirit of the game and converted it to meaningless (mechanics wise) flavor text.
AlphaLoup 08-26-06, 09:30 PM	Yes. Because my example had no in game mechanical effects. Yours does. As such, my example does not have unforseen consequences that can be used to unbalance the game or go against the spirit of the combat system. Yours does. In other words, I took your attempt to try and break the rules/spirit of the game and converted it to meaningless (mechanics wise) flavor text. Actually I have had little discussion on the actuals of what a rule is. I rarely worry about the rules in my game, if you recall I said I have DM'd games without ever looking at the result on the die. So perhaps in that fact you are right, I am trying to break the rules. But I just wanted to bounce around some ideas and get some creative thinking going. So who else would use called shot results if it was only at the DM's descrection?
P_Zombie 08-26-06, 09:51 PM	Called shots just means more chances of PCs going down to lucky shots. Combat in D&D assumes that you're trying to damage vital parts of an opponent's anatomy (unless you're trying to deal non lethal, and that is why there is a penalty to do so). As for increasing AC to deal more damage or injure specific body parts... that's the idea behind critical hits. You more than succeed in your attempt to damage a foe's vital parts, thus you do moare damge. People are free to house rule Called Shots in their campaigns, but I think that its silly, and I would have to have my PC, or to tell a PC that a low CR opponent just Called Shot an arrow through an eye. In any campaign that had Called Shots, it would make sense if lower CR opponents called all their shots, hoping for the lucky kill blow. I personally dont think that it's much fun for some kobold to take our your 10th lvl fighter, or to even reverse the situation and have the big bad boss taken out by one lucky shot by the party's rogue or bard in the first round.
wrecan 08-26-06, 11:10 PM	That's the key. When the PC says he's going after a vital, I can only wonder when the heck he was trying to do in all those combats in which he didn't tel the DM he was going after a vital area. So now you're trying to hurt the guy? :confused: I view called shots in D&D the same way I view critical fumble rules. Extraneous fluff that only works if the DM is already ignoring the dice and just decides to narrate a battle over what he considers cool. There are plenty of RPGs in which you are telling a story, rather than playing a game. D&D isn't designed that way. D&D is deisgned to be a game first and a story second.
Mikal 08-27-06, 12:15 AM	Actually I have had little discussion on the actuals of what a rule is. I rarely worry about the rules in my game, if you recall I said I have DM'd games without ever looking at the result on the die. So perhaps in that fact you are right, I am trying to break the rules. But I just wanted to bounce around some ideas and get some creative thinking going. Well proposing a rule change invaribly brings rule discussion into it. If you ignore the rules then why even post it for thought and talk down those who DO use the rules as the basis for why they don't like it? After all, if you want to actually debate the merits of a rule, one has to look at its context with the others. Otherwise it's not much of a debate.
keropie 08-27-06, 11:32 AM	If you wanted to make a called shot at the eyes, I'd say 'Sure, roll your attack.' If it was a critical hit, I'd probably let you hit an eye or the head, but (as mentioned above) have no mechanical advantage other than the damage. If it turned out to be a shot that killed it, sure, I'll have the arrow fly right through the eye and into the brain, and that'll be one seriously dead kobold (or what ever). But outside of crits, sunder, trip, etc., I wouldn't allow mechanical advantage to called shots (at least, I can't think of any time in which I'd need to).
Horatio Hornblower 08-27-06, 01:11 PM	When you guys here "called shot" do you think of it as an instant death rule? Because that's what the players have in mind when they say "I want to aim for the head." If the players wants special attacks for their characters then they should select the appropriate feats. They could also use disarm, sunder or trip. I remember a scene in Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves where Will Scarlet is about to throw a dagger at Robin. Robin shoots an arrow into his hand forcing him to drop the dagger. It was an amazing scene and I don't see why my players should not be able to be this heroic as well. I'm pretty sure Robin Hood would be high level. Even with rules to do it your PCs would have to be good enough to make the roll. If there is a ranged disarm feat then that's what they should have. If not, you could create one or house rule that the disarm attack can be used with range weapons. Just don't make it easy.
Lokathor 08-27-06, 02:20 PM	If there is a ranged disarm feat then that's what they should have. If not, you could create one or house rule that the disarm attack can be used with range weapons. Just don't make it easy. There is a ranged disarm feat in Complete Warrior. So you can take that and say "called shot to the hand" and I'll just say "roll a disarm check".
someonelse812 08-27-06, 06:40 PM	The Star Wars RPG by wizards has a book called the Heros Guide that has a really detailed account of what the AC is for called shot anything and what the effect is. I carried it over to Dnd really easy. The only change was from blaster to bow. On the same page it also has rules for having crits hit said body part like a called shot and deal damage onto of a cool effect. so you crit with your greataxe dealing damage. roll on chart, it hits leg, they suffer X penalty. They also have diffrent charts based on bludgeoning slashing and piercing. I cant find where it says that, what page is it on?
someonelse812 08-27-06, 06:56 PM	called shot to a large body part (knees, groin, kidney, etc) is -4 to attack and it doesnt have any game effect unless you deal 20 points of damage. 20 or more damage leaves then staggered. a called shot to a small body part like eye or hand would be -10, and if you deal damage you disable it. then there are some feats I use to improve this, these are actually still in the working stage so if anyone has any suggestions please share. Called Shot Prerequisites: Dex13 Benefit: you declare that you’re aiming for his knee, you take a –2 to your attack and gain +2 damage. If you use this feat with a sneak attack and your sneak attack damage equals or exceeds 10 the target is staggered for one round. Normal: A called shot takes a –4 penalty and you must deal 20 points of damage for them to be staggered. Special: A fighter or ranger may select this as a bonus feat. Improved Called Shot Prerequisites: Dex15, Called Shot Benefit: you declare that you’re aiming for his knee; you take a –1 to your attack and gain +2 damage. If your damage equals or exceeds 10 the target is staggered for one round. If you use this feat with a sneak attack add +1 damage to each d6 and if your sneak attack damage equals or exceeds 10 the target is staggered for 1d3 rounds. Normal: A called shot takes a –4 penalty and you must deal 20 points of damage for them to be staggered. Special: A fighter or Ranger may select this as a bonus feat.
Wopple 08-30-06, 08:39 PM	The hp system is unrealistic because D&D is unrealistic. People who were in wars or fighting all the time had SHORT life spans. The truth is, a random arrow or the sword of a small girl who has never trained CAN and DID kill thousands who were better equipped. A well placed trap by a bunch of level zeros, against a real world version of a red dragon, could be very effective and kill it instantly. A drunk at a bar could get mad at someone else, draw a sword, and accidentally slit your throat. Life is cruel, random, and unfair. Humans are very frail, and mythical races don't exist. So, in D&D, so you can keep a character more than 6 days, they make it diffrent. Because of this, they all but eliminate the "oooppps too bad you died!" scenario. While still possible, it's not really part of the game. So sure, in real life yes, you could constantly target my arm and then it could be lobbed off. Any character in D&D in real life would be dead or severly maimed by the time they reached 50% hit points. But this is just not a fun game to play, so again, it has been changed. If you hit a guy in the arm, it just does arrow damage to him. If you hit him in the nuts, just longsword damage (although that one may have been a critical!). Like the game says, you are always trying to maxamise damage by hitting their weakest point. But as far as other stuff goes, knocking the apple off of someone's head, shooting their belt off, etc, it should just be given a very high AC based on the situation. But location based damage just makes no sense in D&D.
Horatio Hornblower 08-31-06, 12:16 AM	There is a ranged disarm feat in Complete Warrior. So you can take that and say "called shot to the hand" and I'll just say "roll a disarm check". There you go. Problem solved.
The Soul Collector 08-31-06, 12:49 AM	I thought Called Shot was a second edition rule?
Cifer 08-31-06, 10:32 AM	Called Shot Prerequisites: Dex13 Benefit: you declare that you’re aiming for his knee, you take a –2 to your attack and gain +2 damage. If you use this feat with a sneak attack and your sneak attack damage equals or exceeds 10 the target is staggered for one round. Normal: A called shot takes a –4 penalty and you must deal 20 points of damage for them to be staggered. Special: A fighter or ranger may select this as a bonus feat. Improved Called Shot Prerequisites: Dex15, Called Shot Benefit: you declare that you’re aiming for his knee; you take a –1 to your attack and gain +2 damage. If your damage equals or exceeds 10 the target is staggered for one round. If you use this feat with a sneak attack add +1 damage to each d6 and if your sneak attack damage equals or exceeds 10 the target is staggered for 1d3 rounds. Normal: A called shot takes a –4 penalty and you must deal 20 points of damage for them to be staggered. Special: A fighter or Ranger may select this as a bonus feat. First thing: Usually feats that affect sneak attacks sacrifice damage D6 in order to get other effects (like hamstring, etc.). Second problem: 10 damage is nothing in the higher levels while staggering someone effectively halves their actions per round (it may even do more than that in case the enemy wants to full-attack). called shot to a large body part (knees, groin, kidney, etc) is -4 to attack and it doesnt have any game effect unless you deal 20 points of damage. 20 or more damage leaves then staggered. a called shot to a small body part like eye or hand would be -10, and if you deal damage you disable it. So I'm a mean rogue with a good initiative. I'm using a shortbow and my enemy is flatfooted while I get in two sneak attacks in one round. 20 points of damage won't be a problem - and suddenly, the fight is over, because my enemy can't use his hands anymore although he may be the great dark knight with several hundred HP. Even in case I only hit once, he gets a huge malus if he hasn't got two-weapon fighting since he can't use his main hand and has to rely on his off-hand. Effectively, I thus can disable one enemy or seriously cripple two in a single round (and a third one if I get a surprise round). Sounds like too much for me.
someonelse812 08-31-06, 01:55 PM	you have a very good point, but I still believe in the idea. maybe I should up the damage nessesary? say 30-40 dmg to stagger? or maybe the target could take a Fort save against the damage to avoid staggering. and cut the sneak attack damage? how much? maybe just drop that +1, they still need the sneak attack.
The man they call Boxhead 08-31-06, 02:58 PM	I find that the current combat rules will cover most non-damaging called shots throught the use of trip, disarm and sunder. I have considered adding a called shot along the lines of: -4 to hit, +2 damage. The equivilant of fighting offensively (based on fighting defensively). Power Attack would still be a better option, but now rogues have another option when fighting zombies (or similar). It's not a huge bonus, but it probably shouldn't be. Maybe even a Desperate shot for a -6/+4, but I'd have to see how it worked out first.