Merging Called Shots into Critical Hits

[Exen Trik]

Critical Shots!
This is just a random idea I had today, so forgive me if it's not too polished just yet.

I've always liked the idea of called shots, but every version I've seen was either too unwieldy, unbalanced, or just didn't fit right. The thought I had was to make called shots a variation of the critical hit mechanic, so that when a critical threat is achieved you can opt to exchange increased damage for a special effect. The reasoning is that a critical threat is an opening that can be used to hit them for worse, or place the blow for a specific effect

The selection of effects would vary on the type of weapon used and how much damage it deals on a critical hit. For example, a critical hit from a sword can either deal x2 damage, or x1 and an effect of disabling one arm. Likely this would involve a Fortitude saving throw, modified by strength modifier and weapon bonus.

Weapons of different damage types would have different possible effects, so daggers and rapiers can blind, but hammers are more likely to knock someone out. Stronger effects can be possible with higher multipliers, as long as x1 damage is left over. Cutting up someones body but dealing no normal damage is rather silly, after all.

I'm not sure how it should work after that, though. What options should be available for free or with feats, just how to handle DCs, what is the mechanics for higher multipliers, what exact effects to allow, etc.

Thoughts?

 

[Nyeshet]

An interesting idea. How about this idea:

You roll a critical hit on your attack. It is time to roll to confirm the critical. You now have the option of making a called shot. Some type of size modifier of the size of the target is added to the necessary AC for confirming the critical. If you succeed in this the target suffers the effects of the called shot. Else, they suffer normal damage. You can forgo making a called shot, which will leave the target number for confirming the critical unchanged.

Example:

Arm, Leg, Trunk (lung, etc): +4 to confirm critical roll
Hand, Foot, Neck, Head: +8 to confirm critical roll
Eye, Ear, Finger, coup d'gras: +12 to confirm critical roll

So you roll a 19 while using a longsword, for a total of 27 against your foe (whom you needed 24 to hit). You now may roll to confirm your critical. You only need to make 24 (a roll of 16+) to do this. As an option, you can increase the difficulty of this attempt for different (additional?) effect. Due to only being able to roll as high as 20, in this example the best you could hope for is to make a called shot to an arm, leg, or the trunk (lung or other internal organs). If you succeed you handicap the foe and perhaps also deal normal critical damage.

Another example:

You roll a natural 20 (for a total of 36) against a foe you only needed to roll 10 to hit. Now, to confirm your critical, you need to make at least a 26 (a roll of 10). You could choose to aim for 30 (a roll of 14) if you wish to make the critical a called shot to the arm, leg, trunk, etc, or you could make it harder yet by aiming for a 34 (a roll of 18) to make a called shot to the hand, foot, neck, head, etc. If you fail you deal normal damage. If you succeed you deal additional (different?) damage.

A final example:

Against an overwhelmingly easy foe you only need to roll a 2 to succeed in the strike. You roll an 18 with a longsword and due to Improved Critical you have make a critical hit. Now it is time to roll a confirmation. You could go for something almost certain - such as a wound to the arm, leg, trunk (internal organs), but you want to make an example, so you you choose an hit to the eye - almost certainly lethal, or at least permanently blinding (in that eye). However, that requires adding +12 to the target number (of 2, for a required roll of 14 to confirm). This is almost ridiculously easy, but note that it would not have been available for either of the former examples, as a natural 20 on the confirmation would not have been able to reach the target number had +12 been added to it.

I'm not too sure about +4, +8, and +12. Perhaps +5, +10, and +15 would be a better option? Or maybe the +4, +8, +12 option will work?

As for the additional / different damage, it depends on how potent the called shot results would be. If a +4 type called shot merely hampers movement (ie: shot to the leg), then doing normal critical damage in addition to the movement hampering is not too much. If it causes dex damage then it should replace the normal critical damage (so that only normal damage and the called shot damage occurs), rather than stack with critical damage.

I see a +4 called shot as being inconvenient: hampering movement, giving a penalty to attacks or skill uses, and so forth. This is the one most likely to be most often used, so it shouldn't be too powerful. Reducing movement to half speed, say, or perhaps inflicting a -2 to attacks and skill checks using that limb, or maybe a -1 dodge penalty to AC - these are what I expect of a +4 called shot modifier. Maybe the penalty only lasts 24 hours, maybe it lasts 1d4 days, but it does not last over long.

A +8 called shot I can see actually removing the hand or foot - or damaging them so severely as to result in a severe penalty modifier for attacks, skill checks, etc using that limb. Unlike a +4 called shot modifier, I see the damage from this as potentially permanent rather than temporary / inconvenient. Magic might be required to heal the injury / remove the penalty. Or perhaps the penalty can be reduced to no worse than a permanent version of a +4 called shot modifier by using an attachment (peg leg, hook hand, etc). Significant ability damage (2d3) or minor ability drain (1d3) to a physical ability score sounds like a good measure of how debilitating these injuries are. If it is only ability damage, the hand is so bruised it takes days to fully heal. Or perhaps it is so broken that it cannot heal - or has been completely lopped off (thus drain instead to reflect this).

A +12 called shot modifier will rarely be used, as it means that the confirmation is normally a roll of 8 or less. Most foes the PCs go against will require more than an 8 to hit, so foes this can be used against are minor at best, inconsequential at worse. Thus, its affect should be equivalent to a coup d'gras - a permanent , debilitating penalty that requires magic for healing and restoration. Blindness, deafness, muteness (a hit to the throat), lameness (a hit to a tendon or knee joint, perhaps), inability to use an arm henceforth, ability drain of any type (including mental - reflecting a hit to the head), is the hallmark of this type of shot - presuming the PC doesn't use it for an immediate coup d'gras, slaying the foe outright.


Note that these modifiers might be used for other purposes as well: +12 to a shot to hit a rope at a distance, perhaps.

The system above was just now made on the spur of the moment, so it likely needs a bit of refinement. There are likely several issues I have not considered. I am presuming, for instance, that a typical CR encounter for a group of PCs will require the PCs rolling - at the minimum - at least a 10 or 11 to make a hit, with 14-15 probably being the more commonly needed roll against a CR appropriate encounter. Thus even if a critical hit is made, adding +4 to it will be potentially risky, and adding +8 will make it unlikely to succeed. Adding +12 should put it beyond the reach of a natural 20 for CR appropriate encounters. Only when the encounter is sub-appropriate CR should adding +12 the the roll to confirm be possible - and even then it should be several levels below the typical CR before it becomes practical to add +12 with any high hope of actual success.

If I am wrong on this then the roll to confirm modifiers need to be raised as necessary (perhaps to the priorly suggested +5, +10, +15?).

 

[Ravilah]

Wow! I REALLY like this idea. I'm going to play test it.

R

 

[Pyrex]

Hmm, that gives me an idea...

What if we seperate the Critical Threat roll from the Confirmation Roll?

i.e.

1) Buy a Critical Hit deck from Paizo.
2) Each time a player rolls a threat, draw a card from the deck.
2.1) This variant probably requires swapping high-multiple crits out for high-threat crits. i.e., a Scythe changes to 18/x2
3) At any time when you've hit an opponent, (up to and including immediately after you've drawn a card) you declare a critical hit / called shot and lay down a card, then make your confirmation roll.

Using this variant you should probably also rule that rolling a threat against a target that is immune to Critical Hits does not generate a draw.

Thoughts?

 

[Kerrick]

This is a really interesting idea. I'm not too keen on the idea of using Critical Hits cards - not because I don't like them, but simply because I'd have to buy them to use this system. Go with something a bit more generic, and then add in the option to use those (like a variant system).

Nyeshet: You've got a decent framework there, but you should also take into account the weapon's crit range. What do weapons with, say, a x3 or x4 crit do, vs. a x2 crit? Most bludgeoning weapons and blades are only x2, most axes are x3, and scythes and picks are x4. I could easily see a x3 weapon (greataxe, e.g.) deal x2 and an effect (lopping off someone's head). I think what you need is a table with effects depending how much the PC exceeds the target AC (the "DC", in this case).

For example: 1-4 over the number required is a minor effect - movement reduction, -2 to attack rolls, etc.; 5-8 over would be a moderate effect - one of the above plus 1 point of ability damage; 9-14 over would be a serious effect - one of the above and 1d4 points of ability damage, OR 1-2 points of ability drain (simulating massive damage to the limb); 15-19 would be a major effect - 1d6+1 points of ability damage, OR 1d4 points of drain from removal of the limb or massive trauma; and 20+ would be instant death.

Something else I thought of - with this system, you could deal crits to undead and constructs, but they would be extra damage only - since they're not inconvenienced by damage to limbs and are immune to ability damage/drain, there could be no called shots, so the crit multiplier would be reduced by 1x. A crit is nothing more than getting in a particularly good hit anyway, so it would give the PCs a slight edge against these creatures.

 

[Exen Trik]

Lots of great ideas here I'm glad you all like the concept.

I would want this to be as simple as possible, so I worked on a simple multiplier/type cost mechanic. Just a rough draft, let me know if you like how this works:


Before you confirm a critical, you can choose to reduce your multiplier by x1, x2, or x3, to a minimum of x1. You can choose from a list of effects according to the damage type of the weapon, or attempt to cause an effect of a different damage type at a -4 penalty on the confirmation roll.

And an example effect:

SLASHING

Arm Strike: Attacks any one of the targets arms (or other limbs of similar function) in order to render it ineffective
x1 Disable: Target cannot use limb for 1 round
x2 Wound: Target cannot use limb until healed
x3 Sever: Target loses limb, can only be recovered by use of Regenerate, Wish or Miracle


I also wanted to have a way for greater critical effects to be possible with lower multiplier weapons such as swords, but I'm not sure how to balance it. It's about the same as increasing critical multipliers, but that doesn't come up in the core rules. I imagine you could have a feat that would increase the multiplier of a damage type, perhaps at a penalty to the confirmation roll. Or perhaps just increase the effect if you roll a natural 20 to confirm?

 

[Vrecknidj]

Cool ideas so far. One issue strikes me as a bit strange though.

Suppose someone uses a d8 weapon with a x2 modifier. Suppose that, after modifiers and good dice, the damage dealt on the critical is 50.

Suppose someone else uses a d12 weapon with a x3 modifier. Suppose that, after modifiers and bad dice, the damage dealt on the critical is 40.

Why should the x3 weapon, in these cases, have had an option for a more dangerous result?

In other words, maybe the called shot effect should depend upon the damage that would have been dealt by the critical, and not by the multiplier.

Just a thought.

Dave

 

[Kerrick]

I also wanted to have a way for greater critical effects to be possible with lower multiplier weapons such as swords, but I'm not sure how to balance it. It's about the same as increasing critical multipliers, but that doesn't come up in the core rules. I imagine you could have a feat that would increase the multiplier of a damage type, perhaps at a penalty to the confirmation roll. Or perhaps just increase the effect if you roll a natural 20 to confirm?

I think for that, you'd be better off going with a range system like Pyrex and I are suggesting - the magnitude of the crit (i.e., how "well" you hit) determines the magnitude of the damage inflicted. Higher-crit weapons can add a bonus to the roll, say, +2 for x2, +4 for x3, +6 for x4, etc. - this would take into account Weaponmasters and other classes and abilities that increase crit multiplier.

Why should the x3 weapon, in these cases, have had an option for a more dangerous result?

In other words, maybe the called shot effect should depend upon the damage that would have been dealt by the critical, and not by the multiplier.

It's a compelling argument, to be sure, but I'm not sure I could see a way to model that in combat without bogging things down even more. Maybe +1 to the confirmation roll per 10 points of damage, and then add on the other modifier like I suggested above? In this case they'd be equal - the longsword is +7, and the greataxe is also +7 - but it simulates the greater chance of a maiming hit from a lower-crit weapon.

 

[Vrecknidj]

Maybe +1 to the confirmation roll per 10 points of damage, and then add on the other modifier like I suggested above? In this case they'd be equal - the longsword is +7, and the greataxe is also +7 - but it simulates the greater chance of a maiming hit from a lower-crit weapon.

Something along these lines seems advantageous. It is a bit tricky. Not only should a higher-multiplier have some advantageous effect, but it seems that a broader threat range should count for something too.

Still, I like the overall idea and look forward to the finished product.

Dave

 

[Klaus]

Special Combat Option:

Called Shot:
As a full-round action, make a single attack against an opponent. It must be a melee attack, or a ranged attack up to a distance of 30 ft. You may reduce your attack bonus by a number no greater than your base attack bonus. You add half this humber to the threat range of your weapon. If you score a critical threat, you add half of the number to your roll to confirm the critical.

If you roll a natural 20, you automatically confirm the critical hit, but you roll a confirmation roll anyway. If this confirmation roll is equal or greater than the target's AC, it is affected as though you surpassed its Massive Damage Threshold, regardless of the actual damage dealt by the critical hit.