Pointing to the Head (3.5 Edition) - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Pointing to the Head (3.5 Edition)

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
bilkhir
Jun 19, 2008 23:25:41 Hi

Iam having a problem with my DM,I dont realy like the rule that he applies when I say: "I aim to the giant head"

He says: roll 20 and beat the AC, after that roll d6 and the number is the body part where you hit (leaving 6 for the head). And I say "where in the rules said you should make the roll like that! all I have been reading is about incresing the DC or AC of the monster, wt*".

And then he says : "You are still young, and in the old school we did things like this; and if you keep discussing about it you will mysteriously lose EXP"... theres when simple atack.

Thanks for reading the post =D.
#2
sagelyone
Jun 19, 2008 23:54:58 Looks to me like he's using an old crit rule. Either instead of or in addition to the extra damage of a crit, roll a d6 and see what you get. Usually was 1-2 was legs, 3 was off hand, 4 was main hand, 5 was torso and 6 was head. Depending on what you rolled, you got an extra effect added on to the crit (blind, slowed, penalty on attack, cant use shield, etc)

Called shots however are just what you described, a bit harder to do and thus penalty to the attack roll.
#3
etarnon
Jun 19, 2008 23:57:14 Aiming is not a part of 3.5.

His ruling is fair, it's his game. You can always bail.
#4
pigknight
Jun 20, 2008 1:11:45 Don't eva use called shots. It's all fine and dandy until BOOM HEADSHOT! your 20 druid just got insta-killed by a lvl 1 kobold's headshot with a twig.
#5
Novacat
Jun 20, 2008 2:59:32 Agreed. Called shots are nothing but trouble, add nothing to the realism of the game, and generally result in extra frustration. Also, any DM that pulls the "This is how we did it in the 'old school', so this is how we're doing it now," isn't fit to DM in my book (trust me, I've had to deal with it). I recommend you bail, and perhaps start your own game. Show the other players what a reasonable DM is like, and I'm sure you'll all have more fun. Maybe, your current DM will see the error of his ways.
#6
tequila_sunrise
Jun 20, 2008 5:47:09 I'd really like to help you, but I can't make sense of your post. "Pointing to the head" would be a called shot, which doesn't exist in the RAW (rules as written). The rule that you're complaining about sounds like a house rule crit rule, or maybe just an addition to standard attacks.

We'll be able to help you much better after you clarify.

TS
#7
cartigan
Jun 20, 2008 7:19:08
Hi

Iam having a problem with my DM,I dont realy like the rule that he applies when I say: "I aim to the giant head"

He says: roll 20 and beat the AC, after that roll d6 and the number is the body part where you hit (leaving 6 for the head). And I say "where in the f*** rules said you should make the roll like that! all I have been reading is about incresing the DC or AC of the monster, wt*".

And then he says : "You are still young, and in the old school we did things like this; and if you keep discussing about it I you will mysteriously lose EXP"... theres when simple atack.

Thanks for reading the post =D.

Considering 3.5 doesn't even have called shots, as stated, you should stop whining.

Though if you "mysteriously" lose exp, I vote for hammergun.
#8
bilkhir
Jun 20, 2008 9:33:16
Don't eva use called shots. It's all fine and dandy until BOOM HEADSHOT! your 20 druid just got insta-killed by a lvl 1 kobold's headshot with a twig.

That was...really clarifying, make me see the whole picture.

Thx for all the post. I will talk whit my DM about the topic =D, and sry for the bad writing, I don't really speak/write realy well english xP.
#9
kursk
Jun 21, 2008 10:45:44
Hi

Iam having a problem with my DM,I dont realy like the rule that he applies when I say: "I aim to the giant head"

So, you want to use called shots but don't want to use a called shot system? Try another type of hobby.
#10
pigknight
Jun 21, 2008 11:25:39
That was...really clarifying, make me see the whole picture.

Thx for all the post. I will talk whit my DM about the topic =D, and sry for the bad writing, I don't really speak/write realy well english xP.

BTW your writing is better than mine and I ONLY speak/write english.
#11
ecalsneerg
Jun 22, 2008 16:42:39 Breaking a called shots system in 3 easy steps:

1. Multiclass to Sorcerer and learn true Strike
2. Cast it and aim for the head
3. rinse and repeat
#12
doomsought
Jun 22, 2008 16:55:31 Hah, but not if you give the victim a fort save, DC base Damage.
The fix is quick, and makes allot of sense once you think of it.
So you win the fort save, normal damage, unless torso shot which is alway double damage.
Head shot makes to fort or strait to -1 HP
ect.
#13
pigknight
Jun 22, 2008 23:10:22 Fort vs Damage is really, really bad. Damage is significantly higher than the Fort save. A Fighter can easily make an attack that does more damage than a Fort save can get.
#14
glak2
Jun 23, 2008 12:10:28 the only real problem is that your DM said EXP instead of XP
#15
zanraptora
Jun 23, 2008 21:09:30 Simply put.... Called shots should never have been taken out.
People who whined about them never understood them in the first place.
Called shots reduce the target's combat effectiveness (Lowered attack, movement, skills)
Called shots NEVER gave insta-kills in 3.0, and I allow them in my "3.14" campaign.
I always used the "penalty for smaller target" and, if they "miss", they still can hit if it rolled above AC
#16
Crimson_Concerto
Jun 23, 2008 23:43:02
... my "3.14" campaign ...

. . . OMG, you played edition PI?
That's awesome!

Otherwise, though, I disagree with everything you said. If there was no penalty for missing a called shot, there was never a reason not to make them. Besides, 3.5 already has called shot rules: Critical Hits, Power Attack, and Precision Damage (Sneak Attack, for example). It's always assumed your characters are aiming for vital spots. There's no reason to create a complicated mechanic over it when it's already represented well enough by the rules.
#17
aaror
Jun 27, 2008 8:21:52 I too am confused by the op's post.
So I will answer the question I think I can answer, and if this is not the right question, please ignore it.
Question rephrased, "When I use flavor text while attacking, my DM assumes I want to make a called shot, and starts into the rules of such."
Solution, ask (out of game) the DM if you can somehow signify which parts of your action are just flavor text. Perhaps you can use your fingers to make quotes while you say "I aim for the head of the giant," or just state your action, and use the flavor text after you get the results (what DM will try to use rules if you miss and say "My sword swishes as I trip over an unlucky slug, squashing it.")
#18
squirrelsrsneaky
Jun 28, 2008 9:52:53 I personally love the idea of Called Shots, and I think they add not only realism but cinematics to what could otherwise be a very bland fight. I mean, in between all of the:

"Your sword swings heavily and falls into the fleshy underbelly of the bear."

and:

"You miss, glancing off of the tough hide of the boar.",

there's always room for:

"The scorpion strikes out for you, its large, venomous tail whipping wildly through the air." (Scorpion's Attack).

"You jump backwards, as if expecting that exact situation." (Readied Action - Reflex Save).

"You manage to stab into the chitinous tip of the tail, piercing not only the encased insides, but into the very ground itself." (Player's Attack - Called Shot).

"You struggle to hold the tail in place as the scorpion attempts to pull its tail, and your sword, back towards him." (Strength Check).

As you can see, its not exactly a free called shot. There's at least 4 different places where it can go wrong, such as the scorpion choosing to attack someone else (wasting your readied action), you could fail the reflex save and get hit anyways, you could miss the tail when it connects with the ground, or the scorpion could just knock your tush aside because you're a spellcaster, with a strength of 8. Not to mention, our DM tosses in bonuses for the size of the object (I'm not sure exactly what the rules are, but something like +1 to the creature's AC if where you want to hit is considered size small (assuming you're a size medium character).) Also, if the scorpion's 14 feet tall, and you're 5'8", there could be obvious ranger issues there.

Basically, I'm just saying that we use called shots, though we rarely use them, only for the sake of "coolness", and not for the sake of killing things quickly. Even when we use them though, we have to earn them. I find that it makes everything a bit more realistic, if slightly drawn out, which honestly just adds to the anticipation. Not to mention, it lets us play a bit smarter in certain situations, instead of just strategy. I mean, how often do you have to knock out a vampire to stake them? Why not grapple, pin, and called shot to the heart?

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 bilkhir Jun 19, 2008 23:25:41	Hi Iam having a problem with my DM,I dont realy like the rule that he applies when I say: "I aim to the giant head" He says: roll 20 and beat the AC, after that roll d6 and the number is the body part where you hit (leaving 6 for the head). And I say "where in the rules said you should make the roll like that! all I have been reading is about incresing the DC or AC of the monster, wt*". And then he says : "You are still young, and in the old school we did things like this; and if you keep discussing about it you will mysteriously lose EXP"... theres when simple atack. Thanks for reading the post =D.
#2 sagelyone Jun 19, 2008 23:54:58	Looks to me like he's using an old crit rule. Either instead of or in addition to the extra damage of a crit, roll a d6 and see what you get. Usually was 1-2 was legs, 3 was off hand, 4 was main hand, 5 was torso and 6 was head. Depending on what you rolled, you got an extra effect added on to the crit (blind, slowed, penalty on attack, cant use shield, etc) Called shots however are just what you described, a bit harder to do and thus penalty to the attack roll.
#3 etarnon Jun 19, 2008 23:57:14	Aiming is not a part of 3.5. His ruling is fair, it's his game. You can always bail.
#4 pigknight Jun 20, 2008 1:11:45	Don't eva use called shots. It's all fine and dandy until BOOM HEADSHOT! your 20 druid just got insta-killed by a lvl 1 kobold's headshot with a twig.
#5 Novacat Jun 20, 2008 2:59:32	Agreed. Called shots are nothing but trouble, add nothing to the realism of the game, and generally result in extra frustration. Also, any DM that pulls the "This is how we did it in the 'old school', so this is how we're doing it now," isn't fit to DM in my book (trust me, I've had to deal with it). I recommend you bail, and perhaps start your own game. Show the other players what a reasonable DM is like, and I'm sure you'll all have more fun. Maybe, your current DM will see the error of his ways.
#6 tequila_sunrise Jun 20, 2008 5:47:09	I'd really like to help you, but I can't make sense of your post. "Pointing to the head" would be a called shot, which doesn't exist in the RAW (rules as written). The rule that you're complaining about sounds like a house rule crit rule, or maybe just an addition to standard attacks. We'll be able to help you much better after you clarify. TS
#7 cartigan Jun 20, 2008 7:19:08	Hi Iam having a problem with my DM,I dont realy like the rule that he applies when I say: "I aim to the giant head" He says: roll 20 and beat the AC, after that roll d6 and the number is the body part where you hit (leaving 6 for the head). And I say "where in the f*** rules said you should make the roll like that! all I have been reading is about incresing the DC or AC of the monster, wt*". And then he says : "You are still young, and in the old school we did things like this; and if you keep discussing about it I you will mysteriously lose EXP"... theres when simple atack. Thanks for reading the post =D. Considering 3.5 doesn't even have called shots, as stated, you should stop whining. Though if you "mysteriously" lose exp, I vote for hammergun.
#8 bilkhir Jun 20, 2008 9:33:16	Don't eva use called shots. It's all fine and dandy until BOOM HEADSHOT! your 20 druid just got insta-killed by a lvl 1 kobold's headshot with a twig. That was...really clarifying, make me see the whole picture. Thx for all the post. I will talk whit my DM about the topic =D, and sry for the bad writing, I don't really speak/write realy well english xP.
#9 kursk Jun 21, 2008 10:45:44	Hi Iam having a problem with my DM,I dont realy like the rule that he applies when I say: "I aim to the giant head" So, you want to use called shots but don't want to use a called shot system? Try another type of hobby.
#10 pigknight Jun 21, 2008 11:25:39	That was...really clarifying, make me see the whole picture. Thx for all the post. I will talk whit my DM about the topic =D, and sry for the bad writing, I don't really speak/write realy well english xP. BTW your writing is better than mine and I ONLY speak/write english.
#11 ecalsneerg Jun 22, 2008 16:42:39	Breaking a called shots system in 3 easy steps: 1. Multiclass to Sorcerer and learn true Strike 2. Cast it and aim for the head 3. rinse and repeat
#12 doomsought Jun 22, 2008 16:55:31	Hah, but not if you give the victim a fort save, DC base Damage. The fix is quick, and makes allot of sense once you think of it. So you win the fort save, normal damage, unless torso shot which is alway double damage. Head shot makes to fort or strait to -1 HP ect.
#13 pigknight Jun 22, 2008 23:10:22	Fort vs Damage is really, really bad. Damage is significantly higher than the Fort save. A Fighter can easily make an attack that does more damage than a Fort save can get.
#14 glak2 Jun 23, 2008 12:10:28	the only real problem is that your DM said EXP instead of XP
#15 zanraptora Jun 23, 2008 21:09:30	Simply put.... Called shots should never have been taken out. People who whined about them never understood them in the first place. Called shots reduce the target's combat effectiveness (Lowered attack, movement, skills) Called shots NEVER gave insta-kills in 3.0, and I allow them in my "3.14" campaign. I always used the "penalty for smaller target" and, if they "miss", they still can hit if it rolled above AC
#16 Crimson_Concerto Jun 23, 2008 23:43:02	... my "3.14" campaign ... . . . OMG, you played edition PI? That's awesome! Otherwise, though, I disagree with everything you said. If there was no penalty for missing a called shot, there was never a reason not to make them. Besides, 3.5 already has called shot rules: Critical Hits, Power Attack, and Precision Damage (Sneak Attack, for example). It's always assumed your characters are aiming for vital spots. There's no reason to create a complicated mechanic over it when it's already represented well enough by the rules.
#17 aaror Jun 27, 2008 8:21:52	I too am confused by the op's post. So I will answer the question I think I can answer, and if this is not the right question, please ignore it. Question rephrased, "When I use flavor text while attacking, my DM assumes I want to make a called shot, and starts into the rules of such." Solution, ask (out of game) the DM if you can somehow signify which parts of your action are just flavor text. Perhaps you can use your fingers to make quotes while you say "I aim for the head of the giant," or just state your action, and use the flavor text after you get the results (what DM will try to use rules if you miss and say "My sword swishes as I trip over an unlucky slug, squashing it.")
#18 squirrelsrsneaky Jun 28, 2008 9:52:53	I personally love the idea of Called Shots, and I think they add not only realism but cinematics to what could otherwise be a very bland fight. I mean, in between all of the: "Your sword swings heavily and falls into the fleshy underbelly of the bear." and: "You miss, glancing off of the tough hide of the boar.", there's always room for: "The scorpion strikes out for you, its large, venomous tail whipping wildly through the air." (Scorpion's Attack). "You jump backwards, as if expecting that exact situation." (Readied Action - Reflex Save). "You manage to stab into the chitinous tip of the tail, piercing not only the encased insides, but into the very ground itself." (Player's Attack - Called Shot). "You struggle to hold the tail in place as the scorpion attempts to pull its tail, and your sword, back towards him." (Strength Check). As you can see, its not exactly a free called shot. There's at least 4 different places where it can go wrong, such as the scorpion choosing to attack someone else (wasting your readied action), you could fail the reflex save and get hit anyways, you could miss the tail when it connects with the ground, or the scorpion could just knock your tush aside because you're a spellcaster, with a strength of 8. Not to mention, our DM tosses in bonuses for the size of the object (I'm not sure exactly what the rules are, but something like +1 to the creature's AC if where you want to hit is considered size small (assuming you're a size medium character).) Also, if the scorpion's 14 feet tall, and you're 5'8", there could be obvious ranger issues there. Basically, I'm just saying that we use called shots, though we rarely use them, only for the sake of "coolness", and not for the sake of killing things quickly. Even when we use them though, we have to earn them. I find that it makes everything a bit more realistic, if slightly drawn out, which honestly just adds to the anticipation. Not to mention, it lets us play a bit smarter in certain situations, instead of just strategy. I mean, how often do you have to knock out a vampire to stake them? Why not grapple, pin, and called shot to the heart?