Called shots

[Tarangil]

To this date (since my 3e material is limited) I've always handled called shots similar to the 2e style mixed with a bit of homebrew. Essentially non leathal shots (arms legs and such) the attack is at -4 while certain more fatal areas (neck, heart, head...groin) were treated at -8 to hit.

Striking the arms and legs usually imposed a -2 penalty, while the sensitive areas were treated on an individual basis depending on the roll to hit.

What I'm wondering though: Has 3.5 edition fleshed out the details when someone is doing a called shot? Espcially those that were for the neck or heart?

 

[Thanee]

3.0 and 3.5 specifically have no called shots.

There are some 3rd party publications, however, which have rules on them.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Infiniti2000]

What I'm wondering though: Has 3.5 edition fleshed out the details when someone is doing a called shot? Espcially those that were for the neck or heart?

No, and for good reason. I refer you to Sean K. Reynold's rant on called shots. You will not come up with a good ruleset for called shots in the d20 system.

 

[Thanee]

You will not come up with a good ruleset for called shots in the d20 system.

In D&D maybe... in d20 this is most definitely false.

I would even say, that it's possible to make a good ruleset for D&D (I even have some ideas for such a system, I just don't bother writing them down)... but not one with killing shots.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Infiniti2000]

In D&D maybe... in d20 this is most definitely false.

I would even say, that it's possible to make a good ruleset for D&D (I even have some ideas for such a system, I just don't bother writing them down)... but not one with killing shots.

Bye
Thanee

It's not false. You'd have to come up with one and post it and have me agree. But, I'll warn you. I'll be entirely obstinate and unreasonable about it and I'll never agree that it's a good system unless you pay me off.

I notice though that you stipulate no killing shots. You have an immediate glaring inconsistency when you say this.

 

[Thanee]

An inconsistency with what?

Bye
Thanee

 

[Tarangil]

What I've implemented for my d20 and called shots isn't too nasty
essentially any "critical" called shot (neck for instance) is
at -8 to hit. On a successful hit is only max damage. If the hit
scores in the critical threat range, no reroll is needed as with a usual
critical.

It seems to work well at lower levels, but I never tested it out with
higher level characters to see how it functions then.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Present the whole system and I'll tell you.

 

[Kaledor]

Not to disagree with SKR, but doesn't D&D have a NEED for called shots?

Take the Vampire.
There are only a few ways to kill one, and of those ways one is a wooden stake through the heart.

How do you arbitrate a shot to the heart without a called shot rule?

(Our group house ruled that it is a Dimin. Target (so +8 AC) but that it kept all of the creatures normal AC. So if the vamp had an AC of 21, its heart had an AC of 29.)

 

[Infiniti2000]

It seems to work well at lower levels, but I never tested it out with
higher level characters to see how it functions then.

It doesn't work in the d20 system because when a character always needs a natural 20 to hit, he will always use a called shot. In such cases, hitting the opponent in the eye is just as difficult as hitting him anywhere on the body. In fact, whenever you need an attack roll of 13 or higher (using your -8 modifier), you're artificially making called shots more attractive and usable. It's bogus and can't work, regardless of the effects you give the called shots though admittedly only applying minor penalties and such can be stomached a lot more than instagib rules. Can you reply to the points in SKR's rant?