Should you be able to cut a beholder's eyestalks off?

[Cleon]

So, should that be possible, in D&D Next, or in Pathfinder, or other RPGs? Maybe not just eyestalks, but how about knee-capping a giant so he can't move as fast, or chopping off the snake tail of a chimera? How should it work, mechanically?

In older editions of D&D you already could hit a Beholder's eyestalks - in the OD&D and Master's version of the monster an attacker would announce whether they were aiming for the body, central eye, or an eyestalk, and roll to hit against that body part's AC. If they aimed at an eyestalk the attack would be against a random stalk - you couldn't pick an eyestalk with a particular power.

Each body part had separate hit points, and if you brought an eye down to 0 hp the beholder lost the use of its power, and it'd die if you brought the body down to 0 hp.

In AD&D (both 1st and 2nd edition), the beholder had similar attack locations, but the attacker would roll d% to randomly determine which body part was being struck at, and the attack table included the ten smaller eyes as well as the body, central eyes, and eyestalks.

 

[RangerWickett]

The method I had in mind would have to baked into the system from the get-go, sort of like how Bounded Accuracy is a key component of NEXT.

Basically, most attacks would rarely deal more than 10 damage. And most Medium or Small creatures would have a wound threshold of 10 damage. (Larger creatures have a higher threshold.) If any attack deals 10 or more damage, the victim makes a save, and on a failure he suffers some debilitation to a random body location in addition to losing hit points. (In this system, HP represent your overall stamina, including the ability to keep fighting on despite injuries.)

I'd probably allow a character to take a -2 penalty to an attack roll to target a specific location. If he beats the wound threshold by dealing enough damage, the wound occurs in the targeted spot.

For this to make sense, though, HP would need to sit in the right range. Normal D&D-style HP scaling is too extreme, because at low level people would just die before they got any wounds, and at high level you'd look like the Black Knight from Monty Python.

 

[GSHamster]

If you can make a called shot to cut off a beholder's eyestalk, why can't you make a called shot to cut off someone's head? Or hand, etc.

That's the problem with this, and I don't see any way to reconcile the two scenarios.

 

[GX.Sigma]

If you can make a called shot to cut off a beholder's eyestalk, why can't you make a called shot to cut off someone's head? Or hand, etc.

That's the problem with this, and I don't see any way to reconcile the two scenarios.

I pretty much subscribe to the same philosophy: your character is always trying to hit a vital area, so it doesn't really make sense to have called shots in the game mechanics.

On the other hand, for a monster like the Hydra, it's a legitimate in-character choice. Do you cut off the heads to slow it down, or attack the body to kill it faster? In situations like that (and with the beholder), I think it makes sense to be able to call your shots.

The question is, is the battle so chaotic that you don't have the luxury of choice? In old D&D, there was the idea that you can't choose which enemy you attack, because you're fighting all of them at once, and you can't control which one lets their guard down at the right moment for you to strike. So I think it depends on the system. For AD&D, random hit locations make sense. For D&D Next, I think the player having the option makes sense.

 

[Li Shenron]

On the other hand, for a monster like the Hydra, it's a legitimate in-character choice. Do you cut off the heads to slow it down, or attack the body to kill it faster? In situations like that (and with the beholder), I think it makes sense to be able to call your shots.

This!

I think it might be easier to have ad-hoc rules for some monsters which traditionally have "weak spots", such as the Hydra and the Beholder. For those, it makes sense that the PC can choose between different tactics: just beat the monster down, or e.g. try to get a tactical advantage by shutting off one of the monster's weapon. It depends on the monster, so it's easier to have this explicitly written in the monster's description, and it can be restricted to a small percentage of creatures anyway.

Separately, there can always be a rules module for called shots. My personal opinion is that it's best if such system doesn't go too far... trying to maim an opponent's vision or movement capacity is OK, allowing to cut someone's head off is NOT OK, it's too extreme and brings lots of problem (essentially, it's like trying to add a "save-or-die" option to regular combat). I'm not saying it's impossible, just that it's probably too much for most gaming groups. It might be actually quite appropriate for some fantasy settings such as Rokugan, where combat is not supposed to be much based on attrition but rather solved with one deadly strike.

And remember that called shots rules normally work for monsters attacking the PC also!

 

[N'raac]

I seem to dimly recall 1e had called shot rules - you took a -4 penalty to target a specific area, but it had no extra effect. It was a "skilled play" reward as some monsters could be targeted at spots that had a worse AC (often more than 4 points worse), such as the Bulette's back when its fin was raised. Some groups extrapolated from that to have called shot effects (I think knocking a potion or scroll out of someone's hands may have even been in the rules).

Of course, we also had Wizards asserting they could target an opponent's eyes with Magic Missile, and Clerics who insisted they could Create Water inside an enemy's lungs...

 

[fjw70]

If a player wanted to make call shot to cut off a body part I would ask them if they really wanted those rules in the game since monsters would now be able to do that same thing.

 

[Kinak]

A general called shot rule could be framed pretty harmlessly as "Declare your shot, the enemy can choose to either accept the special effect or take normal HP damage." That means it's not very useful unless you're trying to make a point and means that normal attacks are just called shots on the vitals.

But then you can add special areas to certain enemies, effectively saying they can't block the attack with HP. Beholders' eyes, hydras' heads, and so forth can fall into that category.

Instead of that, though, I'd just give it out as a bonus for precision damage. If you're making a sneak attack or critical hit, let them take out an eye instead of their damage. Throw in Vital Strike if you're in Pathfinder and you have a buffet of ways to disable them while also giving your martial characters a chance to shine.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Speaking of Pathfinder, it has numerous effect-on-a-crit feats that do something similar. Note that you have to have the feat to get the effect, and I'm not sure if anyone who isn't a fighter can take them.

Some of the feats (such as Blinding Critical) are very similar to the OP's request. Of course, some aren't. I don't think there's a Slowing Critical.

 

[Kinak]

Speaking of Pathfinder, it has numerous effect-on-a-crit feats that do something similar. Note that you have to have the feat to get the effect, and I'm not sure if anyone who isn't a fighter can take them.

I think they just require prerequisite feats and enough BAB. Definitely easiest for fighters, though.

There's another track that grants combat maneuvers on criticals as well.

Some of the feats (such as Blinding Critical) are very similar to the OP's request. Of course, some aren't. I don't think there's a Slowing Critical.

The closest for that is Staggering Critical, I think. You get the action denial, but not the movement rate reduction or -1 modifiers.

Cheers!
Kinak