This.
Called shots of the body part variety only seem to work, in my opinion, if the system is built around body parts.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Called Shots! Poll & Discussion
- Thread starter Traveon Wyvernspur
- Start date
This.
Called shots of the body part variety only seem to work, in my opinion, if the system is built around body parts.
Vyvyan Basterd
Adventurer
This. I voted "Other."
Traveon Wyvernspur
First Post
I'm finding the variety of answers and the way the poll is shaping up to be very interesting. It seems it's just a personal preference for most people to do it one way or the other with called shots. The gaming community is very dynamic with all the differing opinions on the subject and what people consider to be called shot and whether they should be allowed in a particular system. Keep the topic going lets see who else wants to pipe in with their opinions.
(Psi)SeveredHead
Adventurer
I think even giant protozoans could be called shot, to the nucleus or contractile vacuole, for instance 
I say no. My first experience with called shot rules in 2e was in a high-power 2e campaign. I was a 13th-level ranger and the weakest character in the group. Our DM wasn't very experienced; he would use monsters like a horde of ogres. I would called shot twice each round, blinding an ogre, but the DM gave them no penalties for having no functioning eyes. Why introduce a house rule if you won't use it? Apparently he thought it was too easy (it was!). He also considered called shots to the head a violation of the paladin code, which I thought was more than a little odd.
I think Pathfinder has a neat way around. Some of the fighter feats blind/nauseate/whatever enemies on a critical hit. You can't really plan around that.
I like an idea I saw further up this thread where effects like blindness don't last that long, so it'd only be a temporary advantage to the attacker. There are a few 4e powers that do exactly this, like the rogue's blinding barrage.
I say no. My first experience with called shot rules in 2e was in a high-power 2e campaign. I was a 13th-level ranger and the weakest character in the group. Our DM wasn't very experienced; he would use monsters like a horde of ogres. I would called shot twice each round, blinding an ogre, but the DM gave them no penalties for having no functioning eyes. Why introduce a house rule if you won't use it? Apparently he thought it was too easy (it was!). He also considered called shots to the head a violation of the paladin code, which I thought was more than a little odd.
I think Pathfinder has a neat way around. Some of the fighter feats blind/nauseate/whatever enemies on a critical hit. You can't really plan around that.
I like an idea I saw further up this thread where effects like blindness don't last that long, so it'd only be a temporary advantage to the attacker. There are a few 4e powers that do exactly this, like the rogue's blinding barrage.
Last edited:
1Mac
First Post
Not only that, but they also had a "Dramatic Critical" rule, that lets you increase your threat range arbitrarily, at the cost of also increasing your error range. So you had more of a say in whether you pulled off a called shot than just hoping for a threat.
I like called shots as a means of replacing damage with another effect, not for just inflicting more damage. We already have critical hits for that sort of thing.
Love that rule too. They also have a fairly good mass combat system, the best (simplest) rules for naval combat I've ever seen, and a host of other clever rules. For a cash-in port of the 7th Sea RPG to d20, it's an amazing product.The book also has a rule I have become fond of for replacing Massive Damage - when the save for Massive Damage is failed the character can instead roll on a table to determine what kind of permanent injury takes place. Loss of limbs, missing sensory organs, horrible scarring, ruined lungs.... Great for steampunk!
While I like the idea of called shots, I have never really played with an implimentation that was worth the effort. Either it was too good or not worth the bother.
Called shots can make for really swingy fights and encourage min-maxers to optimise in the direction of called shots. Both can make it harder on the DM. Now that was back in the eighties, so more modern systems may have better implementations.
Called shots can make for really swingy fights and encourage min-maxers to optimise in the direction of called shots. Both can make it harder on the DM. Now that was back in the eighties, so more modern systems may have better implementations.
As mentioned, hp system and also magic don't go well with called shots. Especially True Strike makes things a bit complicated.
So I have created a house rule which I've found to be rather brilliant:
Called Shot is a fullround action which provokes AoO. It has either -4 (limbs), -8 (head) or -12 (eye) penalty to the attack roll.
If you score a critical hit, the hit can have some special effect (determined on case-to-case basis). Otherwise there's no additional effect.
This is of course a bit contradictory when you compare it to something like severing hydra's head, but it works. It works because it's not worth it => it will not slow down the game because it's not overly used at any level BUT you can still use it if you really REALLY want to.
In my game it was only once used because one of the PCs was completely desperate. It supported the gameplay IMO.
So I have created a house rule which I've found to be rather brilliant:
Called Shot is a fullround action which provokes AoO. It has either -4 (limbs), -8 (head) or -12 (eye) penalty to the attack roll.
If you score a critical hit, the hit can have some special effect (determined on case-to-case basis). Otherwise there's no additional effect.
This is of course a bit contradictory when you compare it to something like severing hydra's head, but it works. It works because it's not worth it => it will not slow down the game because it's not overly used at any level BUT you can still use it if you really REALLY want to.
In my game it was only once used because one of the PCs was completely desperate. It supported the gameplay IMO.
Wednesday Boy
The Nerd WhoFell to Earth
I think my opinion primarily has to do with whether the called shot enhances the story, makes combat more interesting, or just makes combat easier.
I would be turned off by a called shot that disarms a foe and makes combat with the weaponless foe very easy. But on the other hand I would enjoying a situation where a foe is disarmed of their signature weapon and flees the scene. Then you have interesting, additional tension between the PCs and the enemy that wouldn't have happened without the disarming.
I would be turned off by a called shot that disarms a foe and makes combat with the weaponless foe very easy. But on the other hand I would enjoying a situation where a foe is disarmed of their signature weapon and flees the scene. Then you have interesting, additional tension between the PCs and the enemy that wouldn't have happened without the disarming.
Olgar Shiverstone
Legend
Ayup.
Sean B. Reynolds used to have a great rant online about why called shots don't work in D&D. Anyone still have a link?
