In HM, you simply apply the appropriate penalty and roll your attack as usual. You give up the ability to auto-hit on a natural 20 but gain the ability to crit on a 19 (assuming you rolled high enough to hit). In addition to the improved crit chance, you can potentially disable the targeted body part and don't have to roll hit location on a crit so you can be more likely to land a fatal crit.
I've considered using the same system in D&D4e (which I run weekly in addition to my fortnightly HM game) but I'm afraid it won't work since every little +1 to-hit is so precious in D&D4e.
I've heard very good things about A&8s so I expect it probably does have an excellent called shot system. As a random aside: A&8s is being used as the foundation for HackMaster 5 so it's going full circle since A&8s was adapted from HM4.
> crit on a 19 (assuming you rolled high enough to hit). In addition to the
> improved crit chance, you can potentially disable the targeted body part
> and don't have to roll hit location on a crit so you can be more likely to
> land a fatal crit.
This is a meaningless 'cost' unless you're already at the point where you need the auto-hit-on-20 to hit something - which shouldn't be happening in 4E.
> You give up the ability to auto-hit on a natural 20 but gain the ability to
> crit on a 19 (assuming you rolled high enough to hit). In addition to the
> improved crit chance, you can potentially disable the targeted body part
> and don't have to roll hit location on a crit so you can be more likely to
> land a fatal crit.
This is a meaningless 'cost' unless you're already at the point where you need the auto-hit-on-20 to hit something - which shouldn't be happening in 4E.
Not so meaningless when you're taking a -6 penalty for a called shot to the head... ESPECIALLY in D&D4e. That -6 hurts a lot less in HackMaster but can still be significant.
> You give up the ability to auto-hit on a natural 20 but gain the ability to
> crit on a 19 (assuming you rolled high enough to hit). In addition to the
> improved crit chance, you can potentially disable the targeted body part
> and don't have to roll hit location on a crit so you can be more likely to
> land a fatal crit.
This is a meaningless 'cost' unless you're already at the point where you need the auto-hit-on-20 to hit something - which shouldn't be happening in 4E.
What kitsunegami said. What this means is that you can't called-shot something unless it's already pretty easy to hit: you lose your autohit option, greatly reducing your chance of success for harder targets.
I'd make called shots prohibitively difficult by default, but allow feats to reduce the penalties to manageable levels. Really the damage roll / critical hit mechanic is meant to convey the chances of hitting a softer part of the enemy, and it's assumed that characters are always going for their enemies' weak spots; called shots throw that mechanic off and should only be an option when fighting much weaker enemies, or when there's been a decent investment into making them worthwile.
Something like:
* A called shot is a melee or ranged basic attack with a -10 penalty to the attack roll. Before making a called shot you must spend two minor actions to aim and wait for an opening. (optional: as in SAGA edition star wars, these minor actions can be spread out across two consecutive turns)
* When calling the shot you can choose to either add 1/2 your critical bonus dice to your damage roll (not a critical hit for any other intents and purposes, and the target must be a "delicate" area) or to add a limited status effect related to the organ until the start of the target's next turn. For any status effect that goes in "hierarchies" (eg. slowed/immobilised), automatically choose the lowest status in the hierarchy.
* By choosing to make a called shot, you sacrifice some of your chances at a critical hit. If you roll a natural 20 you do not automatically hit. If you do hit, you deal maximised damage dice for your attack roll, but do not add critical dice as normal (use the called shot rules for adding critical dice instead)
Feat: "Penalising aim" (heroic)
If you are making a called shot to cause a status effect, reduce the attack penalty by 2 (feat bonus). Increase this bonus to 3 at paragon levels and 4 at epic.
Feat: "Punishing aim" (paragon)
If you are making a called shot to cause extra damage, reduce the attack penalty by 3 (feat bonus). Increase this bonus to 4 at epic levels.
Feat: "Masterful aim" (epic)
You may apply both extra damage and a status effect while making a called shot. To reduce the penalties to attack you must have both the punishing and penalising aim feats; having only one does not affect the penalty for a Masterful called shot.
That's more or less how I'd run it, though it's not at all playtested or balanced.
You're trying to hit someplace vulnerable, right? Do to more damage? Hit him in the eye or groin? You're already trying to do that.
Several hours later, we figured out that it couldn't be done in 4E. But I tell that story every time this comes up because it hilarious that the first thing anyone wanted to do in our 4E efforts was completely uncovered by the rules, and there's not even a word of guidance about it in the DMG. Somewhere in the core books there should be something explaining why players can't make called shots like that unless a power specifically lets them, just to cut off the questions. Even page 42 doesn't really cover it.
They used to have rules for that in 3e - a system which deliberately got rid of Called Shots as well.
It was targeting wielded/worn objects, iirc.
Ah, shooting smaller targets aren't covered in 4e?
Not if the target's moving or being carried by something else.
There are rules in the 4E DMG for targeting objects, but those rules are written from the point of view that targeting objects is always going to be boring and should be glossed over if at all possible (that's actually said in more words), so they don't take into account that the object might be moving or actually important to an interesting encounter.
I don't think it would work too well with 4e, but I'd be willing to test it out. I'm just imagining Brute Strike, called shot to the head. 3[W]x3 damage? YIKES!
Maybe just the -4 for a called shot with some kind of perk for making the target.Flying Buffalo's "Desepradoes" had a hit location chart that allowed damage modifers depending on where you hit, and targetting a specific hit location, while I can't recall how Desepradoes did it (they used a d6 and d100 system), for D&D we made all called shots at -4. I thought it would be balance tipping, especially with a "3x" damage for a good head shot, but my players insisted and that -4 made a world of difference.
I don't think it would work too well with 4e, but I'd be willing to test it out. I'm just imagining Brute Strike, called shot to the head. 3[W]x3 damage? YIKES!
In 2E, as a house rule (I believe) we used to let players make called shots at a limb or specific target on the opponent at a -4 penalty, then doubled that to -8 for a head-shot or to hit something small (like an amulet). The -8 was a called crit, and if you hit that, it was automatically critical. These attacks could also sometimes bypass armor -- if the target wasn't wearing a helmet, for examples.
They're conceptually pointless anyways. PCs are always trying to hit somewhere vulnerable. That's what a critical hit is. That's what Sneak Attack is. That's what many powers such as the Fighter's Steel Serpent Strike or the Ranger's Hunter's Bear Trap or the Rogue's Blinding Barrage are.
Called Shots rules are like Critical Fumble rules. If you look on a DM's house rules list and see one, you can bet the game's quality will be lacking...
http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/calledshots.html
Again though, in 3e they had rules for targeting objects.
I don't see why we can't just adapt them.
If I try to hit a Enemy X, and he has an AC of 20, I'm trying to hit him - somewhere on him.
If there's a smaller item on him (I don't know the size modifiers for AC in 4e, if they even exist, call it -4) then just have it be an AC of 24. I'm trying to hit that little thingy.
Any sort of 'for damage' thing though is bad. Players love it, but then hate it when the DM just has all the enemies do the same. They're going to die anyways, after all, the party presumably wins. Rather than hurt the players mildly, why not have them either not hurt as much or totally pwn them? All modifiers that are based on probability do this.
As Crimson points out, there's a ton more rolls the PCs make compared to a single monster, so any negative affects are entirely negligible for the enemies.
This is why critical fumbles are bad for players (I believe this was covered in the 3.x DMG as well). I've also seen some stupid houserules where rolling a 20 twice or three times will instantly kill something. The odds are the same for the PCs or for the monsters, but a dead monster is a hundred times less important than an instantly killed PC.
Called Shots for any sort of mechanical advantage is a bad idea. Targeting items and such can be adjusted, just add or subtract a size modifier.
Called Shots rules are like Critical Fumble rules. If you look on a DM's house rules list and see one, you can bet the game's quality will be lacking...
The denizines of this message board.... astonish me.
My players would be astonished to find themselves stuck inside the limitations of rulebooks.
For called shots, I have been using a -4 to hit. Fortunately, I've not had the request come up yet in a game situation under 4e. Fortunate indeed because this conversation has revealed that matters are somewhat more complex than I'd realized.
A lot of great suggestions have been made so far. Based on these ideas, I've put together my own proposal.
[INDENT]New Actions in Combat
CALLED SHOT: STANDARD ACTION
* Able to Attack: You can make a called shot to a specific location of any target against which you can make an attack using a suitable attack power.
* Suitable Attack Powers: The called shot can be combined with “one creature” melee attack powers, or with “one creature” ranged attack powers containing the “martial”, “weapon”, “poison”, “force”, “necrotic” or “lightening” keywords. Called shots cannot be made with powers not fitting this description.
* Attack Penalty: The attack roll suffers a minimum -4 penalty. If the target area is smaller than 10% of the total target area, increase penalty to -6. Increase the penalty to -8 for a target area smaller than 5% of the target area and -10 for anything smaller than 1%.
* Hit: Damage and effects follow first from the chosen power. Damage is general. Effects concentrate on the targeted area. Additional effect from called shot: Targeted area may be temporarily disabled, items may be dropped, or other effects may follow at discretion of the Dungeon Master. Non-critical hits are never debilitating.
* Critical Hit: Natural 19 or 20 scores a critical hit, so long as the number will hit when combined with the attack penalty. At the discretion of the Dungeon Master, critical hits on called shots may be debilitating.
* Optional Rule: Use in combination with the Critical Hit Table and set the hit location to the area targeted by the critical hit. Determine potentially debilitating effect in accordance with the table.
[/INDENT]
The denizines of this message board.... astonish me.
Yes, I know our wisdom can be just overwhelming at first, but you'll get used to it eventually. :D
Also, your version of called shots is just as terrible as any other, mostly for being so ambiguous that it doesn't actually do anything. Your attack penalty, for example, is based on size percentage? Good luck getting people to always agree on all of that. Furthermore, your effect is basically, "the DM tells you what happens." Yeah, no, that's not a rule.
It all boils down to, "apply some completely arbitrary penalties and then make something up if they hit." That's actually even worse than most of the called shot "rules" I've ever seen...
EDIT 2: Also, the powers you designate as suitable to be used for called shots are completely arbitrary too. Why can't a spell with the "Fire" or "Cold" keywords be used? If I'm magically launching a shard of ice at your neck or throwing a ball of fire at your face, I should think that could qualify...
Any sort of 'for damage' thing though is bad. Players love it, but then hate it when the DM just has all the enemies do the same. They're going to die anyways, after all, the party presumably wins. Rather than hurt the players mildly, why not have them either not hurt as much or totally pwn them? All modifiers that are based on probability do this.
Critical Fumble and Critical Hit tables should not damage or harm the players beyond what they might expect as the consequence of typical interaction with the enemy ("instant death" rolls should never feature -- though "instant bloodied" rolls might). The point of such tables is to introduce unexpected problems and randomly occuring tactical considerations that influence and flavor decision-making over the course of an encounter.
Yes. A bad roll might make continuance of life more difficult under new circumstances but ultimately player choice must still determine final outcome. I don't believe in "save or die".
Called Shots for any sort of mechanical advantage is a bad idea. Targeting items and such can be adjusted, just add or subtract a size modifier.
Called shots are neither a good idea nor a bad idea. Called shots are just one of an infinite number of things a player may want to do at some time in this game (and one of the more frequently-encountered requests).
The only decision for a DM is whether or not to restrict players to activities explicitely proscribed in the rule books. If I, as a DM, come down on the side of an expancive, inclusive, player-choice-supporting style of play, I simply must come up with a fair means of adjudicating such actions. Players are either empowered to do as they like -- or they are limited by what the game makers were sufficiently precient to allow. It's one or the other.
Called shots are neither a good idea nor a bad idea.
You're right. However, Called Shot house rules are almost universally a bad idea.
Called shots are just one of an infinite number of things a player may want to do at some time in this game (and one of the more frequently-encountered requests).
And they can. The game assume characters are always looking to hit advantageous or vulnerable area, so it is built to allow called shot. They're already incorporated into the mechanics via critical hits, sneak attack, power attack, specific powers, and who knows what else. There is no need for additional (terrible) house ruling to allow called shots when they already exist in the game.
You're right. However, Called Shot house rules are almost universally a bad idea.
And they can. The game assume characters are always looking to hit advantageous or vulnerable area, so it is built to allow called shot. They're already incorporated into the mechanics via critical hits, sneak attack, power attack, specific powers, and who knows what else. There is no need for additional (terrible) house ruling to allow called shots when they already exist in the game.
So, then, stop posting in a thread that is predominately about figuring out a way to do called shots? You don't have to play in these games or use such house rules.
Why can't a spell with the "Fire" or "Cold" keywords be used? If I'm magically launching a shard of ice at your neck or throwing a ball of fire at your face, I should think that could qualify...[/size]
The initial suggested choices were made upon an examination of how magical effects of various types tend to behave under the 4e rule system.
We can all agree, I am certain, that in so far as a called shot is possible, an area attack (blast or burst) lacks the kind of precision necessary. Beyond that, however, some spell types tend to attack opponents more generally and others can be directed at only one specific target; Psychic powers, for example, are directed at the mind -- not at the left hand.
You are in principled disagreement with the entire notion of permitting player's to subtarget their shots. Therefore, you have no disagreement with me. One cannot argue an issue without accepting common premises and you do not share mine. There is no need to continue the jihad for you can play the game as you like it. No one may stop you.
My interest is in flexibility. My need is to design a mechanism for adjudicating certain choices I wish to open to my players (for I wish to open all conceivable choices to them -- anything they can think of I want them free to do).
The game assume characters are always looking to hit advantageous or vulnerable area, so it is built to allow called shot.
I disagree. The game does not currently allow for called shots in so far as it does not allow for tactical decision making by the player on that level (on the other hand, it does allow for called shots, because determination like these are left to the judgement of the Dungeon Master). Let me give you an example.
I recently had my players face off against an undead bull that was missing it's back leg. I wanted my players to be able to decide on specific tactics to defeat the bull, one of which would have been to target the one remaining rear leg.
The game enables me to model the missing leg of the bull only with a reduction in its overall hit points. It does not allow me to model its specific vulnerability to a tactical decision my players might make in terms of how they approach the battle.
Now, if you are fine with that, that's your choice. But I am not comfortable saying to one of my players, "You are already doing that", when he says, "Hey I've got a brilliant idea! Let's all try to hit that remaining back leg!"
I want to be able to reward his creativity but provide him with a set of rules to help me adjudicate his success and help him decide if the change in tactics is likely to be of benefit.
Your attack penalty, for example, is based on size percentage? Good luck getting people to always agree on all of that.
Agreement? Since when is a D&D game a democratic assembly? The DM makes these determinations.
Admittedly, such means of rating relative size are otherwise alien to 4th edition so i share your discomfort. On the other hand, your post is noticeably lacking in alternatives.
Not that I expect them. You don't share my premises. As I said. But I will keep thinking about the matter. Perhaps I will find a better means of determination.
Furthermore, your effect is basically, "the DM tells you what happens." Yeah, no, that's not a rule.
Happy board gaming!
I enjoy role-playing games.
So, then, stop posting in a thread that is predominately about figuring out a way to do called shots? You don't have to play in these games or use such house rules.
He's a Jihadi. He can't help himself.
Happy board gaming!
I enjoy role-playing games.
And I enjoy not be railroaded, and at least knowing what my character is capable of/is intending to do!
See being snide isn't an argument at all!
And I enjoy not be railroaded, and at least knowing what my character is capable of/is intending to do!
In role-playing, you are capable of anything you can imagine. It is up to the DM to facilitate your choice. It is a poor Dungeon Master who will not permit his player to alter the conditions of the game by virtue of his choices.
When you demand that actions be limited to those proscribed by rules, what you truly want to know are your limitations, not your capabilities. Board games are systems of limitation. You can do only what is explicitely permitted. That is how they work and they could not work otherwise. You are most comfrotable within that context. clearly.
Dungeons & Dragons, on the other hand, requires a Dungeon Master because its rule system could never hope to encompass the spectrum of options actually available to a player at any given time. Indeed, the spectrum of options available within the game world is broader than those available in our own.
When you demand that actions be limited to those proscribed by rules, what you truly want to know are your limitations, not your capabilities. Board games are systems of limitation. You can do only what is explicitely permitted. That is how they work and they could not work otherwise. You are most comfrotable within that context. clearly.
Knowing your limitations is knowing your capabilities. If you know what you cannot do, you know what you can do. Board games are more "systems of capabilities" than "systems of limitations". In Board games you know what moves you are capable of and no other, i.e. I can move the amount shown on the dice. In RPGs you know what you cannot do, i.e. a fighter cannot cast fireball.
I don't see how knowing what an the expected results of an action is problem. Your "rule" would be better if it wasn't in print. If a PC is doing something that isn't explained in the rules, some hand waving by the DM is expected, your "rule" boils down to "Give the PC a penalty and the monster a penalty too!" It's a very bad rule, and claiming that having a clear rule is problem is really terrible logic.
Dungeons & Dragons, on the other hand, requires a Dungeon Master because its rule system could never hope to encompass the spectrum of options actually available to a player at any given time. Indeed, the spectrum of options available within the game world is broader than those available in our own.
And the DM does this for things that aren't covered in the rules. Not to be mean but let me re-write the rules for a basic attack using your logic.
Attack: (determined by the DM, this may or may not reflect your attack type, the enemies defense or any other factor not mentioned here)
Hit: (determined by the DM, this may or may not reflect the weapon you use)
See the problem? I have no idea what I can or cannot do, nor do I know how I do it, or what i'm doing.
The DM is not the rules, the DM is the moderator of the rules.
In other systems (In Nomine, nearly anything published by White Wolf, etc.), you can get away with leaving more to the DM. In D&D... not so much. As such, in D&D, anything that needs to have "ask your DM" written into it likely shouldn't be a rule; it should be "that grey area that has no rules written, and thus creates no expectations for the players in print."
Since I prefer to have players (including myself, when I'm playing rather than GMing) read house rule documents the same way they read the rulebooks, I tend to follow that same logic with house rules, and want any GM I play with to do the same.
He's a Jihadi. He can't help himself.
. . . WOW . . . Just, wow . . . I'm done here . . .
claiming that having a clear rule is problem is really terrible logic.
Claiming that that is what I am claiming is really terrible reading comprehension.
[INDENT]
CALLED SHOT: STANDARD ACTION
- Suitable Attack Powers: The called shot can be combined with all melee attack powers that may target only “one creature” and harm no others. The called shot can also be combined with ranged attack powers that may target only “one creature” and harm no others, provided those powers attack vs. Armor Class or Reflex. The called shot cannot be combined with any power that does not fit this description; neither may it be combined with any power that contains the “Charm”, “Conjuration”, “Fear”, “Poison”, “Polymorph”, “Psychic”, “Teleportation” or “Zone” keywords.
- Able to Attack: You can make a called shot to a specific location of any target against which you can make an attack using a suitable attack power. You can also make a called shot to an item attached to such a target.
- Attack Penalty: The attack roll suffers a minimum -4 penalty. Increase the penalty to -6 if the target area is smaller than one tenth of the total target area (head-size or smaller on a typical humanoid). For a target area smaller than half that size (the neck, the eyes, the nose, etc. on a typical humanoid), increase the penalty to -10.
- Damage and Effects: Damage and effects follow first from the chosen power. Damage is general. Effects concentrate on the targeted area. Additional effect from called shot: Targeted area may be temporarily disabled, items may be dropped, or other effects may follow at discretion of the Dungeon Master. Non-critical hits are never debilitating.
- Critical Hit: Natural 19 or 20 scores a critical hit, so long as the number will hit when combined with the attack penalty. At the discretion of the Dungeon Master, critical hits on called shots may be debilitating.
- Optional Rule: Use in combination with a Critical Hit Table and set the hit location to the area targeted by the critical hit. Determine potentially debilitating effect in accordance with the table.
[/INDENT]
The biggest change from version one is the filtering system for suitable and unsuitable attack powers. Clearly, a great many spells and prayers are inappropriate to called shot application. The challenge is to filter those out systematically so that players know exactly what is and is not allowed.
My first proposal in this regard limited allowable magical powers to those containing specified key words. That system was simply too arbitrary and left out many powers that a player might reasonably expect to be able to use.
Examining the spell powers more thoroughly, I determined that those spells that rely on targeted projectiles almost invariably attack vs. the Reflex defence, with some attacking Armor Class. By limiting called shots to powers of this description, in combination the the "one creature" target requirements, only a small number of relatively easy-to-ajudicate magical powers qualify. I eliminate most of the remaining potentially problematic powers by cutting out all those containing certain specified key words.
This should make adjudication of damage and effects for the remaining powers relatively problem-free, with still some play-room for the DM to use his imagination.
The other change I made was to drop the reference to percentages of scale for determining the appropriate attack penalty. I now use a fractional expression to convey essentially the same thing and I specifically reference a commonly targeted body segment for relative scale (the head). I also simplified the size penalty system, eliminating one entire category. Now, anything smaller than "half a head" is penalized at -10.
This is the system I plan to use (unless I see a superior proposal). I post it for others to consider and to modify.
The only gap in the system that could be filled with something similar to a called shot mechanic is the lack of rules for attacking held and wielded objects. Which I proposed on the previous page.
The effects are too powerful (when they hit, it's like using two powers at once), but the penalties are also too large (I'd not take that large a penalty in a game where people are assumed to hit half the time).
Though it is perhaps the only one of your points that truly concerns me, your critique here leaves me confused.
I don't follow how it is like two powers in one (except that my wording previously used the awkward phrase "combine"). And as for the penalty being too large -- that's the bleedin point!
My freind, I don't know if you've ever been a Dungeon Master (I imagine you have and yet, for some reason, I can't imagine you have) but half the point of a rule like this is to produce the following exchange:
[INDENT]Player: I want to do something completely oddball that isn't covered by any rule and will cause you a big headache to figure out.
DM: Sure! Anything you like. Here's how it's going to work. First, you take this massive penalty and then you get this really low chance of it working as you want it to.
Player: Then I'll just swing my sword.[/INDENT]
That's half the reason for establishing a consistent rule.
The other part of the reason: It actually provides the option for the very few times when it is desperately needed or when the benefits will somehow manage to outweigh the costs.
If anything, I worry the penalty is insufficiently steep. But your reaction gives me hope!
Still too complicated
Working on it. Also getting the syntax more inline with 4e conventions. Most recent edits:
[INDENT]
- Melee or Ranged Attack: The called shot consists of a melee or ranged attack against a specified area of a larger target, using a suitable attack power.
- Suitable Attack Powers: A called shot can be made with any melee or ranged attack power, vs. Armor Class or Reflex, that may target only “one creature” and that can harm no others. A called shot cannot be made with any power that does not fit this description; neither may it be made with any power that contains the “Charm”, “Conjuration”, “Fear”, “Poison”, “Polymorph”, “Psychic”, “Teleportation” or “Zone” keywords.
That simplifies the filter somewhat.
...too reliant on DM adjudication.
This can never be eliminated. All that can be done is to set up general guidelines for effects. For most of us old-timers, that's called Dungeons & Dragons. A lot of you aren't comfortable in that kind of environment. That's fine. Go live your life as you enjoy it and leave the rest of us to enjoy our own.
That said, specificity is to be desired. That is actually one of the benefits of a critical hit table. It takes DM fiat out of the "debilitating effect" adjudication.
On the other hand, though it's clear what will happen to Achilies when you strike him in his heel, less clear is what will happen when you drive an arrow through his hand -- or slice open his back-pack, or shoot an arrow through the cover of his spell-book. These are all very dramatic actions that might occur in combat if we let our players perform in an open-ended world where everything is permitted, unless it is forbidden. None of this is possible if we allow only what is expressly made avaialble via some power in the player's possession.
Adjudicating the consequences of those actions is always going to depend on the Dungeon Master, who will ideally act within established recomended guidlines.
My guess is that about 60% of everything that happens in any of my games is stuff not expressly covered by any rule. Dungeon Masters have to come up with methods of adjudication all the time for unexpected player choices. Why do you think the DM's guide contains reference to the +2 bonus and -2 penalty as "The DM's Best Friend"?
Additionally, the rule will have unpredictable effects on game balance
Unpredictable effects! Oh mon dieu! How can we go on???
My only concern with respect to balance is insuring that the "called shot" is of benefit only in very limited circumstances. Well... that and I wanted to make certain that all classes had access to some powers that could be used as called shots (though not every character is going to have such powers -- that is true -- and it's perfectly fine so far as I am concerned).
(it offers new options for some powers but not other powers, when these powers were previously more or less balanced).
What would you think of my game world I wonder? I run a low magic campaign where enemies run away in fear half the time just when a first level magic user shouts "hokus pokus". I guess my magic users are now unbalanced?
Ask me if I care.
Further, as mentioned before, there's already a system for attacking weak points and exposed area - it's the basic assumption of the combat system that that's exactly what's happening.
Yes. Indeed. As has been mentioned before. Ad nauseum. Expect any future commentary of this nature to be ignored.
The only gap in the system that could be filled with something similar to a called shot mechanic is the lack of rules for attacking held and wielded objects. Which I proposed on the previous page.
Well now, I guess you will just have to wait for Wizards of the Coast to publish a "disarm" power before you can let you players try to do it. Ain't consistency a b*tch.
As for the rest of your post... it's very obvious that you and I have incredibly different preferred styles of game, and that I would avoid yours like the plague. If I'm going to try to keep my players from doing something, I'm going to be honest with them and just say, "It won't work," rather than jerking them around with a huge penalty, and if I'm a player OR a DM, I'm going to want to know things will be fair (I actually find this more important as a DM - I know I can't be totally impartial so, when the chips are down, I'd much rather call a rule that works the same way for everyone and is written down than make a ruling on the spot) by having a set mechanic that doesn't include a statement along the lines of "And the DM will decide what happens."
On to more specific things...
By "combine two powers," I meant that the character's getting two effects out of a single action and expendable resource (if they use an expendable resource, which is another problem here - they throw the risk at a daily or at an at-will, the reward's the same in spite of the stakes for them changing). This is both odd and bad.
Complication: It has too many steps. Check power to make sure it fits into the filter. Figure out penalty based on size of the targeted area. Argue over size of targets that seem debatable. DM figures out effect on the fly (there's NO MECHANIC AT ALL for the actual effects of these things. It's just "DM chooses, you get to live with it." Will you even be telling players what effect to expect before they commit themselves to the action?). If there's a critical hit, modify effect to account for that (again, will the players know the critical effect as well as the normal effect before committing themselves? In this situation, the chance of a critical hit as compared to a normal hit is a lot higher, between doubling the chance of critical and reducing the chance of hit).
Frankly, for the game you want to run - especially since you seem to have almost no regard whatsoever for balance - Third Edition would be a far superior choice. Among other things, 3e's deeper black-boxing would help to hide from players the blatant unfairness that's going to crop up a lot under your philosophies.
EDIT: I still think the best way to handle called shots in 4e, against body parts (rather than items), is to simply refluff powers on the fly, as needed. A character who wants to called-shot a leg should use a power with a Slow effect or other thematically-appropriate ability. Powers define the mechanical effects a character or monster is capable of; description in play defines the ways those effects are achieved. What is needed to have "called shots" in 4e isn't a house rule; it's dynamic thinking in terms of flavor.
I am impressed, two pages of posts and not a one person who seems to comprehend what called shots used to be.
I'm afraid, my friend, that while I welcome your contribution to the discussion of mechanics (and sincerely so), we are in complete agreement with regard to the nature of the "called shot" and it's purpose. You might want to re-read the posted material.
I have read through your mechanics. They are fine.
I merely prefer to get the language of the House Rule in a condition that fits as perfectly as possible within the context of 4e. But there is everything good about your flexible approach to player actions and nothing broken about your system.
I wish to express, in a single rule, the same capabilities that you cover in seven separate variants. There's nothing wrong with what you have done. Nothing. It is just my preference for elegance and concise expression that leads me to work to my own ends.
Now there is one essential difference between your notions and mine: You appear to limit the powers that may be used as "Called Shots" to Basic Attacks and you also imply that only weapons may be used (no magic missiles, etc.). That greatly simplifies things, redoubtably. I've considered it myself. For the moment though, I believe it is possible to offer players a broader spectrum of attack power choices. I am slowly defining that spectrum.
The rule I aim to develop will be useful for the first five of your variants, plus disarm -- and a multitude of applications unconsidered.
As for the rest of your combat actions, 4e's system of powers and standard actions already have most of this covered, and most of these are probably best handled as powers rather than as standard combat actions.
[INDENT]Parry = Total Defense; And some available immediate interupt powers.
Expert Disarm = A power you should invent if it does not yet exist
Duck and Cover = Total Defense; And an immediate interupt power you should invent if it doesn't exist.
Pinning = A variant of Called Shot; And a power you should invent if it does not yet exist
Trip = A power you should invent if it does not yet exist
Shield Punch, Shield Rush = Tide of Iron; Several other powers; And a power you should invent if it does not yet exist
Double arrow shot = A large number of powers do this; And you can invent another
Foot shot = Standard called shot; And a power you should invent if it does not yet exist
Warning shot = Variant of called shot; And a power you should invent if it does not yet exist[/INDENT]
As for "Sap", 4e under rules as written does not require this rule. See "Knocking Creatures Unconscious" in the PHB. However, some of us are unsatisfied with the RAW system. Take a look at our evolving mechanism for "Non-Lethal Attacks".
In general, most "fancy" combat maneuvers should be rendered as powers under 4e. An action should be made a standard action under "Actions in Combat" only where it has the broadest conceivable applicability. There will always be disagreement over whether a new action has been properly categorized (some will argue that the called shot itself should be a feat - and perhaps they are right).
When introducing a new action into the game, try first to render it as a Power. If it seems too essential to basic combat for that, try making it a feat. If even as such it would be too limiting, only then introduce it as a standard combat action.
I see in the thread you referenced that you object to rendering these combat options of yours as powers because you feel they ought to be available to all combatants. Perhaps you should consider making a set of what are essentially zero-level powers that everyone gets. You can even classify them as dailies, encounters and at-will as appropriate. This grants the flexability you want and also stays true to 4e mechanics.
...not a one person who seems to comprehend what called shots used to be...
Actually. I do have to say that your post did bring up some very valuable points and made me think about what a called shot has to accomplish. Making it work within 4e is the challenge though.
Particularly your notion of the "weak point" on a monster. 4e has no allowance for this. It generally models the idea by use of a weakened defence stat (Will, Reflex, Fortitude) but all monsters have one of these that is lesser than the others. It's all rather vanilla.
Weak points, if rarely used, could add some truly interesting flavour to a monster. I think 4e needs a facility for this. But that requires the introduction of a new monster characteristic (though rarely used).
Personally? I'm in favor of it.
The solution, I think, is to write up some called-shot powers.
I intend to start with one per tier per each official class. The first tier will contain an at-will called shot (that increases in effectiveness at higher levels), second tier will contain an encounter called shot, and third tier contain a daily called shot. The effect of each power may then be outlined clearly in its description.
Probably also required are a set of body-portion-specific conditions that called-shots can impose. These also must be written generically to cover the widest possible spectrum of monster body types.
This was my first attempt at that task:
[INDENT]Partially Paralyzed, Arm/Tentacle
- You cannot attack with this arm.
- You take a -3 penalty to Reflex defense, +1 for each remaining fully functional arm.
- If you are climbing, you fall prone.
- Any items/weapons/creatures grasped or grabbed by your arm are released.
Partially Paralyzed, Head
- If you have no fully functional eyes on another body portion, you are blinded.
- If you have no fully functional ears on another body portion, you are deafened.
- You are dazed.
- You take a -5 penalty to your will defense, +2 for each remaining fully functional head.
- Any items/weapons/creatures grasped or grabbed in your mouth are released.
Partially Paralyzed, Leg/Wing/Tail-Fin (Propulsive)
- Your speed is reduced by half.
- You take a -5 penalty to Reflex defense, +1 for each remaining fully functional leg.
- If you are running, you fall prone.
- Any items/weapons/creatures grasped or grabbed by your leg are released.
Partially Paralyzed, Trunk/Prehensile Tail (Non-Propulsive)
- Unless you are flying, you are immobilized.
- You take a -3 penalty to Fortitude defense, +1 for each size category you are greater than medium.
[/INDENT]
Arm: Body portion used primarily for grasping
Head: Body portion containing primary sensory organ (sight and/or sound).
Leg: Body portion used primarily for mobility
Trunk: Any body portion(s) that do not fit any of the above categories, or fit more than one category.
A fully-functional "called shot" under 4e really requires a fuly-functional called shot system. There's no way to do it definitively without introducing a host of new features. My aim is to keep those new features to a bare minimum while still alowing for the color that called shots provide the game.
Still. It is important to remember that living by rules is always constricting. If a player says, "I try to step on the Tiefling's tail!", the player ought to be able to try and no rule system is ever going to cover everything our players consider doing.
But called shots are a sufficiently common request that a system for governing them is probably warrented.