Damage Reduction and Weak Spots

I think everyone knows the stories of Smaug or Achilles; they had a tough hide (or invincible, at least against human attacks), but they also had a weak spot. Maybe every creature has one.
So I thought of implementing a simple rule in my games, and now I share it: an attacker can choose to (try to) hit an enemy's weak spot, thus bypassing its Damage Reduction. The attacker rolls, and subtracts an amount equal to the target's DR; if it hits, no DR is applied.
To determine if a target has a weak spot or not, the GM calls for a Perception or appropriate Knowledge check. GM's judgement; maybe he chooses that a particular creature (or kind of creatures, subtype, type or whatever) has no weak spot at all or that some unique creatures have weak spots that can be knowk only through dedicated research, not just on the fly during a fight.

Seems reasonable. The more DR someone has, the harder it is to hit their weak spot - makes sense, something with DR 15 is more heavily armored than something with DR 5.

They also must take a penalty to attack.

They also must take a penalty to attack.

The attacker rolls, and subtracts an amount equal to the target's DR; if it hits, no DR is applied.

Alright, maybe I worded poorly: the attacker rolls her attack roll, to which she subtracts an amount equal to the target's DR. If the attack still hits, no DR is applied to damage.

Black_Lantern wrote:

They also must take a penalty to attack.

Astral Wanderer wrote:

The attacker rolls, and subtracts an amount equal to the target's DR; if it hits, no DR is applied.

Alright, maybe I worded poorly: the attacker rolls her attack roll, to which she subtracts an amount equal to the target's DR. If the attack still hits, no DR is applied to damage.

So it's basically Impossible to get past dr 10?

20 is always auto-hit.
When your max damage is less than the target's DR, either you hope in a critical (provided you can overcome DR with it) or hope to hit in the weak spot.
This option is not for giving characters an advantage, only to offer another option; possibly a nice one, fluff-wise.

20 is always auto-hit.

When your max damage is less than the target's DR, either you hope in a critical (provided you can overcome DR with it) or hope to hit in the weak spot.
This option is not for giving characters an advantage, only to offer another option; possibly a nice one, fluff-wise.

I'm sorry no one is going to use the ability. So there is no purpose to it.

It's odd how your "no one" and "no purpose" differ from what I can observe in reality.

It's odd how your "no one" and "no purpose" differ from what I can observe in reality.

I'm not making fun of you I'm speaking the truth. There is no time that people would use that ability because it would effectively lower dpr.

As for you trying to flame me I'll say this. Some people will do things even if there is no purpose. Other times there is a purpose to something but no one will do it.

I like the idea of the rule, however it would be quite situational. I particularly like the idea of using True Strike with with this rule.

My DM did something like this when we were facing a bad guy who had turned himself into a golem, he had a few magical "seams" essentially. We had to take -10 to hit it but it made killing him a reality since the two most consistent sources of damage (the casters) couldn't do diddly but buff the melee folks. Worked out great in the end.

Astral Wanderer wrote:

It's odd how your "no one" and "no purpose" differ from what I can observe in reality.

I'm not making fun of you I'm speaking the truth. There is no time that people would use that ability because it would effectively lower dpr.

As for you trying to flame me I'll say this. Some people will do things even if there is no purpose. Other times there is a purpose to something but no one will do it.

I too am speaking the truth. No flame, as much as no "no purpose". As I said, it's an option, not an advantage (except the inherent advantage of having one more option). And, as an option, in my gaming groups I largely saw it to be perfectly functional till now. It's not used without purpose, since those who use it most are the characters that find in it a way to not being useless in certain fights. If you think there's more purpose in dealing 0 damage while hitting higher than needed, I can't avoid deeming it, at best, odd.

I like the idea of the rule, however it would be quite situational. I particularly like the idea of using True Strike with with this rule.

It is indeed situational. It's not for use as default, it's for use only when you verify (or know from the beginning, in some cases) that you can hit but can't seem to do any harm. Given, of course, that you have no better options to spend your actions on, such as buffing/debuffing, changing wielded weapons, or other things.

I actually really like this idea. It makes a lot of sense, especially when dealing with mechanical constructs and the like. Black_Lantern, do you seriously think no one would use this? Because my players certainly would. There is nothing more frustrating to a player than having them roll to hit, then roll for damage, and then having to tell them that because the creature has DR, it just ignores everything they did that round. It's downright humiliating. If my players were given this option I think they would almost always take the risk of a miss.

However, I think there are a few situations where I wouldn't allow it. Mainly, if as far as I can imagine, a monster has no 'weak spot'.
I mean, it would make sense for a zombie, I'd say you were aiming for the head, but a skeleton? Where's the weak spot? I think there should be a bit of DM discretion about exactly when it's possible.

However, I think there are a few situations where I wouldn't allow it. Mainly, if as far as I can imagine, a monster has no 'weak spot'.

I mean, it would make sense for a zombie, I'd say you were aiming for the head, but a skeleton? Where's the weak spot?

Neck or spine in general, but yes, as I said there must be GM judgement. For my part I think mostly of cases like that of the Nymph; she has no tough hide or anything like that, maybe it's more something like her skin heals back the instant it is wounded, weapons being partly repelled, or whatever, so I see it hard to think she has any weak/fragile spot at all.

Have you considered making precision damage ignore damage reduction? I haven't really thought into it much, but that seems like a logical step towards it.

For something like a zombie, I would make it something as simple as a called shot to the head to ignore damage reduction, or hitting a skeleton in the spine, for which you take an attack penalty, but which isn't really "precision". However, if I were going up against Achilles, and knew that he was invincible but for one spot, I would set up a flanking system and have somebody roguish damage him with a precision attack.

Oh my... Did rogues just become useful again?

For a nymph, I really don't understand why there would be dr. Shouldn't it just be a will save to hit her? Cuz, you know, she's magically sexy, and looking at you with those doe eyes, and you really, really don't want to hurt the pretty lady? I don't think that just because you are fey, you should get damage reduction. Totally gonna homerule some of this stuff out, after talking to my players about it.

In the end, I like the idea of the OP, and will probably end up borrowing his rule. Thanks, man.

Edit- After rereading this, I realize that it is a bit jumbled... The idea is, that rogues, through precision damage, can ignore most kinds of damage reduction. Possibly including, but not limited to, say, cutting the stitching of a flesh golem and causing it to lose limbs (using rogue sneak attack with a dagger, causing 1d4+3+4d6 "precision" or whatever), until it is nothing more than a magically animated torso with some arms/legs crawling around it. Maybe it tries to bite your kneecaps off or something, before you cut the head off (coup de gras on the non-moving golem) as well, and, cut off from the seat of power (where the brain normally is), it becomes nothing more than some parts from various corpses. Now, that is precision damage.

Astral Wanderer: is it okay with you if I adapt this idea for a variant rule system I'm currently designing off the base of d20? This would help smooth things over very nicely.

Have you considered making precision damage ignore damage reduction? I haven't really thought into it much, but that seems like a logical step towards it.

Well, of course anyone can see it fit to apply differencies, so I don't mean to tell you "no", but this is how I personally see and use it: precision damage hits places that, more or less, are weaker for everybody. This house rule, instead, hits in a particular spot that is significantly weaker for a given type of creature (or for a given individual). Now, the two things don't necessarily coincide. Let's say that Achilles' invincibility translates into a DR 20/-; his neck, for stronger that it is, is still a little weaker than, say, his torso, so the DR applies anyway if you hit his neck (with precision damage) and you have to deal a big amount to harm him anyway. The heel, on the other hand, has no DR at all, so, if you hit there you deal the normal harm plus any eventual precision damage.

For a nymph, I really don't understand why there would be dr. Shouldn't it just be a will save to hit her? Cuz, you know, she's magically sexy, and looking at you with those doe eyes, and you really, really don't want to hurt the pretty lady?

Maybe you're a Shoggoth and your idea of beauty is a little different.

Edit- After rereading this, I realize that it is a bit jumbled... The idea is, that rogues, through precision damage, can ignore most kinds of damage reduction. Possibly including, but not limited to, say, cutting the stitching of a flesh golem and causing it to lose limbs (using rogue sneak attack with a dagger, causing 1d4+3+4d6 "precision" or whatever), until it is nothing more than a magically animated torso with some arms/legs crawling around it. Maybe it tries to bite your kneecaps off or something, before you cut the head off (coup de gras on the non-moving golem) as well, and, cut off from the seat of power (where the brain normally is), it becomes nothing more than some parts from various corpses. Now, that is precision damage.

That's nothing different from what you can do with the normal rules. I mean, RAW nothing allows you to maim an opponent, be it a Flesh Golem or otherwise, but this is a game of imagination and interpretation, so such things are up to whomever is playing. This DR-bypassing rule doesn't change anything from that perspective; the key is having a house rule that lets you hit the stitching of the Golem to obtain that effect, otherwise you just hit the head or whatever other part that could be deemed an adequate weak spot but doesn't cause special effects outside the RAW.

Astral Wanderer: is it okay with you if I adapt this idea for a variant rule system I'm currently designing off the base of d20? This would help smooth things over very nicely.

No problem.

All of that is completely understandable. I may have been feeling a little bit out of it, due to the time zone differences I have been facing lately. It's really been affecting my sleep, and I tend to get weird...

I can see nymphs as being magic, plain and simple, but it just boggles my mind to think that even though it has a body, it doesn't take damage very easily. I'm kind of new to pathfinder though, so maybe in time I'll see where you're coming from and change my point of view. I kind of get the whole idea that cold iron is anti-magical, and useful against fey.

Precision damage not only ignoring damage reduction, but also doing extra damage seems a bit excessive, in retrospect. Maybe I'll rule it either/or in future scenarios, but it still feels like it will warrant discussion with my group.

Makes sense about the flesh golem bit. You don't have to be a rogue to be able to be "precise", per se (how exactly do you spell that?), you just have to have a dexterity score. But I don't think that it would make sense for the rogue and the fighter to both be slashing the stitching on our flesh golem, and making it fall to pieces, when that seems more rogue-ish to do. I wouldn't want to take away called shots from fighters though... Hmm...