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

[clark411]

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.

While I'm rather hard pressed to argue against your experiences in the SCA, as I don't believe they adhere to the d20 system, I'll at least attempt to express my understanding of DND's combat mechanics in a way that can be transposed onto ... "real world" sword fighting.

That said... By definition, a spot that is easily defended is not the "best spot" to aim for. Of course it sounds illogical to go for the soft spot under the shield. That however, doesn't negate the intention to still find spots that can be hit, does it? Really, when you're fighting in your SCA sword combat, do you just flail or do you, even subconsciously, pick out spots where you'll hit your opponent? If you do, you're calling shots. Oh, his head looks vulnerable... swing. Oh, he favors his right leg... swing. His shield is high, time to hit his foot.

As your body moves your weapon to hit the next spot, you are doing so with the intent to find a weakness in your opponent's technique, be it a pattern, or simply a point of opportunity, no? You then decide, in some form, to go for that spot. In some way, you make the decision, you call the shot. Your training or experience allows for you to possibly win.

Turn that into DND, and it's what combat is, not simply (to a merry tune sung by 7 Dwarves) "Sword up, Sword Down... Sword up, Sword up, Sword Down... this is how we slash all day.. Sword Up, Sword Down..." even if DnD's attack rolls make it seem to be.

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.

Again, I think this is coming down to semantics. A "Best" shot is simply the best you can do. Who, beside a raging barbarian, would say that the best shot is one where you're impaled in the process?

The mechanics easily support that so long as you aren't getting AOOs or lowering your AC for Attack Bonus, you aren't being reckless. That is non-issue, even if the tangential manner of discussions such as these may push them to the forefront. I wouldn't argue otherwise, my stance does not require me to.

The issue is that a fighter is swinging to hit things actively in combat, something that will overcome AC and actually do something (HP damage). I can easily just stand there and "threaten" an opponent by standing next to him while armed, I don't even need to roll an attack to mechanically be bashing at his shield or trying to just hit him without hurting him or penetrating his armor (ie doing anything that would make me win).

Anything, however, that will actually make the opponent drop and bleed to death from -1 to -10, is going to be a shot that was caused by getting through the armor.. be it puncturing it with a REALLY nice slash from an Axe, or finding that final weak spot that did the job. Attack rolls are attempts to do that, whether you "hit" or "miss" is simply a matter of how good your attempt turned out to be.

 

[green slime]

And none of these so called "fighter vs brute" scenarios explain just what the fighter is expected to do to try and save the party when faced with an almost hopeless situation explained above.

The obvious choice is to try and blind the cyclops with a single arrow shot, so it can't squish your friends quite so easily.

Is the shot easier than just shooting at the cyclops? Of course not.
Does the fighter have any realistic chance to kill the cyclops out right? Probably not.
Is it beyond the realm of anything you might expect to read about in a novel? Of course not. This is the kind of thing heroism is about!

In general, I agree that called shots are bad things: they tend to get abused by players seeking advantages. Munchkins abuse rules. Always.

That said, in the above scenario, I see nothing wrong with the DM assigning a particular AC to hit the eye of the cyclops. Hit=blind. The problem only arrives when players want to abuse the system, and end up trying to sunder peoples heads and eyes all the time.

Another alternative to the DM setting an AC would be to say if the player confirms a critical, then he forgoes the extra damage, but blinds the cyclops.

 

[Tsyr]

That said... By definition, a spot that is easily defended is not the "best spot" to aim for. Of course it sounds illogical to go for the soft spot under the shield. That however, doesn't negate the intention to still find spots that can be hit, does it? Really, when you're fighting in your SCA sword combat, do you just flail or do you, even subconsciously, pick out spots where you'll hit your opponent? If you do, you're calling shots. Oh, his head looks vulnerable... swing. Oh, he favors his right leg... swing. His shield is high, time to hit his foot.

As your body moves your weapon to hit the next spot, you are doing so with the intent to find a weakness in your opponent's technique, be it a pattern, or simply a point of opportunity, no? You then decide, in some form, to go for that spot. In some way, you make the decision, you call the shot. Your training or experience allows for you to possibly win.

This is not the same as a called shot. This is just what you do when you fight... Choose blows you think have the best shot of landing, not nessessarily DOING anything.

That is about as far from the concept of a called shot as you can get.

Called shots are choosing a blow that has less of a chance of landing, but is will have more effect... IE, going for his heart, despite him putting up tremendous defense whenever you approach his chest, even though you could have just attacked his leg.

 

[Steverooo]

The issue is that a fighter is swinging to hit things...

Exactly my point...

In combat, normally a Fighter will be taking some calculated risk (See: Fighting Defensively and Total Defense), trying to hit THINGS, while in a Called Shot, he is trying to hit ONLY ONE THING. It is as different as shotgunning vs. BB-gunning.

In normal combat, you don't care what you hit, so long as you do damage. With a called shot, you want to hit (say) the Cyclopskin's eye, avoiding all other targets. They are, indeed, totally different.

Besides, the point of Called Shots (as I use the term) isn't so much to do damage, but to blind, cripple, or otherwise do something that can't be done by normal, plain-old damage. See the above post. Called shots should do no extra HPs of damage, just special effects.

 

[clark411]

This is not the same as a called shot. This is just what you do when you fight... Choose blows you think have the best shot of landing, not nessessarily DOING anything.

Besides, the point of Called Shots (as I use the term) isn't so much to do damage, but to blind, cripple, or otherwise do something that can't be done by normal, plain-old damage. See the above post. Called shots should do no extra HPs of damage, just special effects.

First off, in regards to the first quote, let me get this straight. You believe that a fighter, doing 21 points of damage with a greatsword, isn't necessarily doing anything because it wasn't what you consider a Called Shot? Bwah?

Now, in regards to both posts, this almost seems more like an argument against the HP system where you can smack someone for "Big" and have no effect beyond HP dropping than the inclusion of a Called Shot system. Seriously, we can interpret any shot as having the same effect as a Called Shot, even if not intended. Intention seems to be the issue really. The Intention I posit, is that a fighter is always trying to really hurt someone nastily- each attack with a Good BAB is going for the proverbial Cyclopean Eye. The Intention Tsyr posits, is that, at a penalty, a fighter should be able to hurt someone nastily with greater affect than simple HP drop. I just can't how to make an appropriate balancing act that would allow a fighter to deal 110 damage to a 100 hp classed Minotaur (or 20 damage to a 10 hp Orc) just for a harder shot that impales the thing's heart. Alternatively, Steverooo (not using direct address simply to keep things straight) believes there is no intent to go for the extra nasties as there is no special effect resulting from damage in a HP system.

While I *can* see the absurdity of reaching out and touching someone for 24 damage to no effect beyond lowering HP, or hitting someone in the arm with a spear and that person not suffering an attack penalty for the gaping wound present in his bicep, I can't a) see how to balance the alternatives if we follow a HP damaging system (ala Tsyr's heart impale example) or b) justify normal damage as not degrading opponents if there was no intention on the part of the attacker to do so (ala Steverooo's model).

 

[Steverooo]

And none of these so called "fighter vs brute" scenarios explain just what the fighter is expected to do to try and save the party when faced with an almost hopeless situation explained above.

Well, in case anyone cares...

I looked for a cliff to try to lead the thing over (I had a whole one rank of Tumble to try and avoid it with, but high DEX), but there was none. No place to hide, within reach, so I shot, anyway.

The GM was using Mongoose's Called Shots rules, so said I had to be 10th level+ to hit an eye... I was 7th, so one arrow hit for damage,and the other just bounced off. The critters charged, but didn't get to us.

Round two, two more PCs becamed undazed (stunned, whatever), I told'em arrows didn't seem to do much. They readied weapons, while I tossed a pair of the old (more effective) Tanglefoot Bags. I got the Cyc with one, another missed. On his turn, the Cyc rolled EXACTLY what he needed to break free, but was slowed... His movement brought him to within a few feet, but he couldn't attack!

Then melee began, in round three, as another PC "woke up". Thanks to the Fighter getting a critical, the Paladin's Smite, and later sneak attacks, we managed to kill it before it got a swing at me... which was a good thing, because with its BAB and STR Bonus, it would have hit me on a roll of zero or higher!

We later found that killing Boarclops was considered honorable, among the locals! If the rest of the party hadn't been around, I would have run!

 

[Tsyr]

First off, in regards to the first quote, let me get this straight. You believe that a fighter, doing 21 points of damage with a greatsword, isn't necessarily doing anything because it wasn't what you consider a Called Shot? Bwah?

Or, you could not read my post literaly...

Ok, to put this another way:

Do you think that a slash on the leg (21 hit points for a level 10 fighter with a decent con isn't horrible) that the other fighter made because it was the only thing open is the same as being blinded because the fighter took a risk and slashed across the eyes, even though he had less chance of making it?

That's what I mean by "doing something". Something other than just random wacking.

 

[tesuji]

Called shots (as in take a to-hit penalty and gain extra damage) is IMo represented by power attack. i would use a house rule for it to allow it to be done with ranged attacls too.

Called shots (as in the ability to inflict some effect other than hit points) is represented by several feats that, right now, are limited to sneak attackers, such as hamstring, to impose some additional effect at the lost of damage. I like the notion of these being loss of damage instead of loss of to hit.

If i were inclined to add more of these, they would be feats and be along the lines of hamstring, with a reduction in hit point damage gaining you additional effects (half movement, fatigue due to blood loss or debilitating wound, and maybe even some form of temporary blindness as well as others.)

While i think that the argument that DnD is too abstract for these may have merit in some games, the addition of feats like hamstring by WOTC itself shows me that it should be appropriate for some and that wotc does at least put some effort towards reaching those games.

 

[Steverooo]

This guy is either just looking for an arguement, skimming, Trolling, or incapable of comprehending the written word...

I said:

Called shots should do no extra HPs of damage, just special effects.

He replied:

While I *can* see the absurdity of reaching out and touching someone for 24 damage to no effect beyond lowering HP, or hitting someone in the arm with a spear and that person not suffering an attack penalty for the gaping wound present in his bicep, I can't a) see how to balance the alternatives if we follow a HP damaging system (ala Tsyr's heart impale example) or b) justify normal damage as not degrading opponents if there was no intention on the part of the attacker to do so (ala Steverooo's model).

Okay, I'm done.

 

[S'mon]

I think any good DM should let the PC _try_ to do anything they can think of. Generally speaking, it's assumed that the PCs are trying to _kill their opponent as efficiently as possible_. If they're trying to do something other than that -foolishly concentrating on opponent's head while ignoring other areas, or aiming an arrow at his eye - a good DM should adjudicate it reasonably.

Eg called shot to head: -10 to-hit (& roll 1-10 always misses), +5 damage on a hit.

Called arrow to eye: full round action, -20 to-hit ranged touch attack (& roll 1-10 always misses), +10 damage & blinds on a hit.