Called Shot Question

[howandwhy99]

I know that D&D 3E does not have a "Called Shot" option in the normal rules, but I have had players who wanted to try it anyways. Normally I have just said that the option wasn't available and that their characters were trying to hit vital areas each and every attack. Moreover, sneak attacks allowed you to do this while the opponent was off-guard.

Well, a couple of years back I ran "Of Sound Mind" which includes a neat gargantuan dragon statue with plate-sized gems in its eyes. The players were happy to have 2 pcs climb up the statue to retrieve the eyes while the others were on guard with bows below. It was fun and everyone was smiling even with the foreknowledge of what would happen next. They pry one eye out and "RRRUMMMBLE" the stone golem starts to move with the PCs on it.

My question is: the archers immediately declared called shots on the other eye gem. I didn't let them do it at the time, but it still felt wrong somehow. As the "one vital spot" animating a stone colossus they likely could not defeat and at best run away from, it made a whole lot of sense in character. But called shots on the eye had no corollary in the rules.

So, should I have allowed bowshots on the eye? Say with a -4 penalty for eye size (and another -4 for gargantuan size already added to AC)?? Perhaps the creature wasn't built to be defeated under the normal ruleset? (not by conventional means anyways). I guess I'm just wondering what other more experienced 3E DM's might have done.

 

[Li Shenron]

Called shot is a complicated issue IMHO. Among other things it generally hurts PC more than monsters (who are there to be killed one way or the other), so you better warn your players before introducing a called-shot variant. IIRC there is a variant already in the DMG which can be used.

I think your case was rather special, and instead of introducing a whole new variant, you could have ruled something ad-hoc, such as striking the eye like it was a separate creature of appropriate size, same Dex and natural armor (eventually)... but how many hp? What if the golem decided to cover the eyes with an arm? And what if the eye was missed, but barely, wouldn't that mean the archer would have hit some other area of the golem anyway?

I really don't know what would have been best, but definitely I have yet to see a general variant which would work well enough.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I generally don't use Called Shot rules for the reasons you already mentioned. Every attack is an attempt to strike a vital spot.

In the case you mentioned, though...did the module outline some kind of special effect of destroying the eye?

In any case, I agree that it makes sense in character. I'd have allowed them to call the eye shot in that one case, using the system Li Shenron mentions. I'd have treated the eye as a separate creature for purposes of AC, giving it the golem's hardness, natural armor, and dex, while assigning it its own size bonus and hp.

But the next time the PCs fought an ogre and wanted to hit it in the eye as well, I'd reiterate my general rule regarding called shots.

 

[Bastoche]

The golem probably high AC. It reflected how difficult it was to shot it in the eye. Piercing thourgh the skin might have been as difficult as aiming the eye. IMO, that's how the rule is to be interperted in that situation.

 

[Jdvn1]

Hm, I think I might've used a Sunder attempt or something as the basis for the rule.

 

[domino]

I'd have sworn that I saw a table of penalties for called shots in one of the 3.0 books. It had penalties for -2 for an arm, to -8 for an eye, etc. with penalties for what those would do, like blinding, or rendering unable to use somatic spells.

 

[howandwhy99]

[ SPOILERS ]

Spoiler

Yes, the module did have a special effect if you destroyed the eye. The golem was powered by its eyes and animated when either was tampered with. I forgot mentioning each had a permanent flare spell cast on them so they let off light. IIRC, the PCs could bypass the statue and reach a hidden tunnel behind if they used mirror to triangulate the light from each eye into the other. (effectively overpowering each I guess) However, my players went straight for the $money$.

The stone golem did have a very high AC, but it also had DR or hardness. The players did not really know the system too well, but they instinctively picked up on the fact their arrows would not puncture the stone. I like the sunder idea. Can that be done ranged without a feat? The eye would have been out of reach otherwise. But I would have given the gem a lower hardness rating.

 

[Jdvn1]

... a Sunder attempt ...

No, not technically allowed without a feat (I think Ranged Sunder is in CW or something), but since it was a special situation I would've given it to them. It's basically just attacking an object, so I'm not sure if it's exactly the same as a Sunder anyway, but that's the framework I'd use.

 

[billd91]

I think you might have been helped in determining how to handle this situation (and others like it) by checking out the Smashing an Object rules on page 165 of the 3.5 PHB.
Give the target an appropriate size so that it's AC gets the right modifier and then assign it a Dex equal to the carrying creature's Dex and there you go, the AC the PCs need to hit the object they want to smash up.

 

[Shin Okada]

Jdvn1 is right. By the RAW, sunder is made only via melee attack with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon unless you have Ranged Sunder feat.