Something interesting that happened in a game last night...

If you want to work with hit locations, use another system. It's not worth adapting the D&D hit point/damage system to this; furthermore, remotely realistic modeling would rob D&D of its feel. If you really dealt with how people get physically damaged, other obvious problems would arise like: why can people's hit points double when they progress from 1st to 2nd level?

If you want to model damage properly, use Runequest or Harn or something.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Kahuna Burger said:
You allow power attack with a bow? Cool!

http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/combatfeats.htm#called_shot

And you changed the feat to have a dex prereq instead of str to make it usable by a finesse fighter, who are the ones who would most want to do called shots? even better! I wanna play in your game!

Piffle.

Oh, you just use the standard rules, but claim it in any way emulates what most people would want to do with called shots (ranged or finnessed attacks) when it really doesn't? Man, never mind...

Piffle<sup>2</sup>
 

Every single time a fighter swings, he's actively trying to hit his opponent for the best affect. There's simply no room for called shots when the implication is that each roll already is a called shot.

The negation of any specific mechanical advantage to called shots comes with the implied called blocks. "I hit your head." "Ok, I block my head." The AC and HP of the wizard simply means "I block my head poorly, and may very well die."

If a player wants to roleplay it out, describing his hits, that's fine- as long as his roleplay does not extend beyond the mechanics (ie- "I swing a mighty blow, nearly severing his neck... for 8 damage out of his current 51 HP").
 


Just to echo previous posts:
1) All attacks are called atacks, trip grapple and sunder are examples of caleld attacks not to body parts.
2) Power attack = more damage for less to hit, teach him how to use that.
3) Taking a minus to double crit range is broken, -4 for a crit range increase is far more powerful than power attacking for 4points. exspecially at higher levels
4) a good way to do hit locations for flavour is revers the ac you hit and look it up on the old warhammer bodypart table, it also gives some great decriptions of the damage you take when that part is splatted.

Chat a good way to handle it might be to let him make "called shots" and just dont modify anything. If he makes a "shot" to the head and does hp damage just make a comment like "You blow opens a long cut across the temple.. soon his hair is matted with blood but the enemy otherwise seems to have regained his composure", ifthe creature dies.. happily let him lop the head off. He gets to be happy, and you dont need convoluted or broken rules additions
 

clark411 said:
Every single time a fighter swings, he's actively trying to hit his opponent for the best affect. There's simply no room for called shots when the implication is that each roll already is a called shot.

That were true if I bought into that assumption. I don't. That isn't a sane way to fight. The 'best shots' are going to be the best guarded as well. And there are no provisions in the rules for making "easy shots", so...
 
Last edited:

Third Alternatives

I have to disagree with Sean K. Reynolds (and everyone here, apparently). I think his arguement sets up straw men, and knocks them down...

In the FIRST place, the options he lists are NOT the only ones.

In the SECOND place, D&D has had called shots since 1e! (Characters sans helmets were hit in the AC 10 head 1 on D6; Bulettes shot under the raised fin had a lower AC at that point, unarmored heads were AC 10, Beholder's eyes could be cut off/shot out, etc.)

When I want to make a called shot, it isn't to do extra damage, it is to achieve some other SPECIAL EFFECT! For example, in one game, after being transported, the entire party was stunned. Mine recovered before anyone else, and found the defenseless party being charged by some orcs and a cyclops creature... Since no one else was even aware of the danger (let alone able to react to it), I asked the GM his rules for called shots, and tried to shoot out the giant cyclopskin's single eye... I figured a blind one might be easier to handle.

Now suppose that the critter's eye was no easier to hit (blowing away one of Sean's arguements), and the hit did no extra damage (blowing away the other). Suppose that all it did was normal damage, gave a -2 Circumstance Modifier to the To-Hit roll, and (if it hit the eye) also invoked the blindness penalty (or, in the case of a Beholder, caused that eye to cease functioning).

If True Strike bothers you, then make it unusable for this purpose. Seems simple enough.

1e only had a few called strikes; the head, bulette's under-fin, and beholders' eyes are all I can remember. Personally, I LIKE the idea of being able to wait until a heavily-armored creature opens its gullet, and firing an arrow down its throat, ignoring its Natural Armor and any Armmor/Barding being worn... Seems to me that the AC line on the stat block allows for this, and it makes a better game!

Are you a Fighter without magic, up against a Beholder? Take cover, and shoot out its eyes!

Are you a Halfling, hunting a Bulette? Better climb a tree! Otherwise, you won't be high enough to shoot it under the fin!

Are you a Dwarven Giant-Killer, trying to take on a giant at low levels? Blind him, then take out his limbs.

What needs to be done? Two things:

1) Determine the general To-Hit penalty for Called Shots. -2 Circumstance Penalty seems good, but maybe too low. -4 seems alright (as someone suggested, above). Another option might be to make it the only attack in a round, as you take time to line up the shot.

2) Determine the effects of each called shot. What can be affected, and what results are achieved with a hit.

Mongoose has already done this (although I don't like it, as you have to be level X to perform such feats). The 3e Rogue also has a 10th-level-plus ability that does STR damage to limbs.

There is certainly room for this, even in the abstract 3.x combat system. I was very miffed to find that I could not blind the one-eyed cyclopskin!
 

Tsyr said:
That were true if I bought into that assumption. I don't. That isn't a sane way to fight. The 'best shots' are going to be the best guarded as well. And there are no provisions in the rules for making "easy shots", so...

If we are to not assume that a fighter is doing his best to hit his opponent every time he swings, then what are we to assume? Is the fighter just going through the motions? I really can't see the logic in taking this stance.

Combat mechanics in DND, and the implication that the attack is variable while the AC is static, means that a defender is only so good at defending the weaknesses in his armor without feats like Combat Expertise or Dodge, and actions like Defensive Fighting. The attacker however, may or may not be able to constantly overcome the abilities of the defender.

Hence, the attacking fighter is always trying to hit as accurately as possible to get into the nooks and spots where it will hurt his opponent. The armor may impact the difficulty of it, and specific actions may make this more challenging, but they don't negate the actions entirely. The fact that an armored person may defend his poorly armored spots does not mean his attacker is not trying for them.
 

clark411 said:
If we are to not assume that a fighter is doing his best to hit his opponent every time he swings, then what are we to assume? Is the fighter just going through the motions? I really can't see the logic in taking this stance.

That the fighter is being sane, and realizes that some areas are so damn hard to hit that its not worth it most of the time?

As someone who has done alot of sword combat, in the SCA and elsewhere, there are just certain areas that are almost worthless to try to hit they are so well defended. So you hit where you can. This works fine in point-based fighting where you are just trying to make contact. Less so in the real world.
 

clark411 said:
If we are to not assume that a fighter is doing his best to hit his opponent every time he swings, then what are we to assume? Is the fighter just going through the motions? I really can't see the logic in taking this stance.

The Fighter is trying to hit his opponent as accurately as he can, while simultaneously avoiding being hit, himself. Therefore, he is doing as much dancing & dodging as he is maneuvering for position and swinging to hit! He may want to hack you in the throat, but if he gets a decent shot at smashing your kneecap, instead, he'll take it, because he has a better shot at that, without dropping his defenses, than he has at loppin' off yer head!

Hence, not every shot is his "best" shot. It is merely the best he has, under the current circumstances.
 

Remove ads

Top