Thanks Sean. I actually noted your concerns in a post up-thread. From what I can tell, the folks here interested in the discussion understand the risks, but still want to work out the best possible called shot solution for PRPG (barring the solution being "don't do it").
I never realized what I would get started...even attracting the venerable Reynolds. Personally, I loved called shots in the past and while they can do bad things if enough penalties are included I think they can be fun. You guys are all awesome - the amount of time and effort is incredible...I am going to review everything and make a determination.
Thanks to all!
A Man in Black - you do come off a little unnecessarily aggressive or condescending, despite the logic of your points - a phrase like "it just plainly doesn't work" is nonsense. It's D&D. If Malachi has been using it in his games with players that enjoy it and it's fine for them, then it's fine for them. You need to evaluate your maturity in not getting stuck hyperfocusing on rules and apprecaite that everyone's got their own subculture of the game.
Ah yes, should be sickened rather than shaken, thanks. The torso progression, actually, should be sickened-->nauseated-->helpless I think to mirror the effects of taking a hard shot to the stomach or lungs. Good point on the arm/hand shot vs. torso. Increasing the penalty by 2 should work (by 4 for Improved)
So, taking these and comparing to the critical feats, the first thing I'd probably change is the saving throw. Basing it off of 10+BAB will give the same general effect of "when I can hit harder these are harder to resist" without being as swingy as when based on damage. Considering the Staggering Critical/Stunning Critical chain, it looks like a head shot should rather be dazed-->staggered-->stunned.
Note that unaware is indeed a defined game term, specifically, "Unaware combatants are flat-footed because they have not acted yet, so they lose any Dexterity bonus to AC." This typically applies during a surprise round, but I'm using it to mirror the effects of a combat sniper or surprise attack--the foe is not flat-footed in general, but is vs. the unknown attack. Being Blinded, Helpless, Paralyzed, etc. can all make a foe unable to offer a defense.
Any other thoughts so far? These still aren't "right" as I'd like to open the system to anyone regardless of feat selection, but at least it's a start!
And for those not sold on called shots, let me offer a challenge...how would Bard kill Smaug, David defeat Goliath, or Lugh overcome Balor? These are the types of battle scenes I want to see supported with some solid mechanics...
Called Shot
A called shot is a special full-round attack action that provokes attacks of opportunity, and must be announced before attempted. A DC 20 Concentration check is required (Ed: sorry, I'm still using v3.5 for now), and the DC increases by the amount of any damage taken during the round. Failing the Concentration check prevents you from making a successful called shot, but you may still take one normal attack.
If the Concentration check is a success, make an attack roll as normal (with a -10 penalty) to hit your target’s normal AC, or a minimum AC 18 (base 10, +8 for Fine size). Additional cumulative modifiers to the attack roll include the following: -5 if target is moving; -5 if target is in melee combat.
This one looks like a system that could be built to work with the combat maneuvers system. The AoO could be eliminated by feats and the CMB check replaces the attack and concentration rolls. I'd suggest taking the existing maneuvers as a template and working out some analogues for specific body shots. Then a series of Improve/Greater feats to give better chances and additional effects. Perhaps a merging of this system with my feats...
This route has the better potential to open up the system for all combatants over my feat approach.
Dazed is more painful than staggered, and the game term you want is flatfooted, not unaware.
Note that Deflect Arrows also says: "You must be aware of the attack and not flatfooted."
I ran a GURPS 3E (that eventually became 3E+CI+CII) campaign for almost a year. One of the things the players *loved* about the system was the detailed advanced combat system and especially the Hit Location charts. Anybody looking for inspiration on called shot effects should definitely check it out.
However, A Man In Black is correct. At the high power end of the game, combat would usually devolve into two combatants trying to stab each other in the eyes. The huge bonuses (through skill, advantage, maneuver, etc) offset any penalty for the called shot, AND/OR combatants had so many protections that only a true critical hit (no defense allowed) would strike, so you might as well call for the eyes.
It was the best way to reach the brain an get a x4 multiplier on your damage, in addition to all sorts of other "realistic" effects of getting stabbed in the brain. Any hit was almost certain to be a fatal blow.
In the beginning, it seemed cool. After awhile, the called shot system is what put me off of using GURPS for an epic fantasy game. Watching two guys alternating back and forth trying to get a critical hit to stab each other's eyes out is about as exciting as watching paint dry. And since both combatants had an equal chance of getting a no defense critical hit, it wasn't even exciting in a character optimization sense; it was the mathematical equivalent of flipping a coin and calling somebody dead; over the course of 100+ rolls of 3d6. <sigh>
Don't get me wrong, I still love GURPS. However, be aware that one of d20's amazingly cool strengths is abstraction of damage. It may not be apparent at first how much that abstraction gives in terms of storytelling. As soon as you strip it away for called shots, hit locations, and very specific damage effects, it changes the game and the story you are trying to tell, a heck of a lot.
A minor wound from goblin that could have been resolved by a Cure Light Wounds may instead turn into a wound that cripples a character. So a throw-away random encounter, turns into something that derails your entire session. Now the party doesn't want to investigate the Crypt of DOOM, they're wondering how to get the Dwarf back to town and how long it will be until he can walk on his own again.
Make sure it's the kind of change you want in your game.
Don't get me wrong, I still love GURPS. However, be aware that one of d20's amazingly cool strengths is abstraction of damage. It may not be apparent at first how much that abstraction gives in terms of storytelling. As soon as you strip it away for called shots, hit locations, and very specific damage effects, it changes the game and the story you are trying to tell, a heck of a lot.
With this in mind, consider whether you wouldn't rather just have rules that any attack that would kill someone can instead be a called shot of whatever arbitrary effect you choose, automatic success (because you've already rolled to-hit and rolled the damage and come up that you would otherwise kill the target). It doesn't imbalance combat one whit, and it allows many of the things you'll want to do in a story.
It didn't sink in when I read it the first time, but this is a very cool rule. If players use it, they can call out whatever gruesome effect they want and get to be the cool heroes/villains. And if the GM uses it, team monster can now easily take prisoners. Any TPKs can be converted to Total Party Capture (TPC); averting the derailment of an entire campaign.
Have you run a campaign with this rule in effect? If so, how did it work out in play?
For me, the abstraction of hit points is actually my least favorite aspect of the d20 mechanics, or of earlier iterations of D&D prior to d20. I can (and do) use narrative freedom to describe the lose of HP in a way that makes the story better, but the disconnect between losing HP and not having any effect whatsoever on the actual target is annoying. I like the death spiral in Savage Worlds, the fact that wounds detract directly from a character's ability to function and are equally difficult to recover. Yes, I know it changes D&D from the standard dungeon romp heroics to a more deadly game--I like dangerous combat, save-or-die spells, etc. that make each round of combat deadly, not just the last one after whittling down hundreds of HP. I want a goblin to be a potentially deadly adversary when disregarded and ignored. This all encourages, in my experience, players that think beyond combat solutions to every problem, and when combat is the best option it's a much more tactical experience.
Now, with that said I have also seen the silliness of "called shot to the eye" constantly and so incorporating a solution to the issue should be part of this discussion. Part of this problem, in my opinion, arises from the fact that called shots in most systems don't "cost" anything other than the penalties incurred. As I noted earlier, I've been considering an option where HP become measures of fatigue* and such a system could incorporate HP "costs" for various actions that are more stressful/strenuous than normal. In this way, a character has to weigh the cost of using a called shot versus the possible effects. With the fatigue system, it even supports the back-and-forth of general combat before someone moves in for the killing blow (or fails their attempt and creates an opening for their opponent). Outside having a general HP cost, called shots might have other negative impacts, such as opening the character up to other attacks (AC penalty). The specifics can be worked out, but I wanted to throw the concept out as a basic idea.
Thinking over the systems that have been proposed to date, I'm leaning toward having Called Shot as a Special Attack, but not as a combat maneuver. Combat Maneuvers are nice, but they heavily favor larger sizes over small, and this seems counter to the difficulty of hitting increasingly smaller targets. The "basic" Called Shot would cover lesser status effects with short durations and be a combat option open to anyone. Basic "costs" would be requiring a Full-Round Action, suffering a penalty to the attack based on size of the target, provoking an AoO, and imposing an AC penalty. An Improved Called Shot feat could remove the AoO and expand the list of possible effects and durations. Greater Called Shot would remove the AC penalty and increase the DC for saves. Other feats for specific types of called shots might give a bonus to attack rolls, decrease the action time, etc.
So, we need to balance the various conditions a called shot might impose with the basic option, then figure out what the expanded options look like (e.g. perhaps the kill shots and "your out" options like paralyzed aren't available without the Improved feat). The balance would come from controlling the duration of the effect, required shot location (i.e. the attack roll penalty). As an example, daze is a cantrip for many casters, so it seems like an ideal candidate for the basic list. It could require a head shot considering it robs the target of any actions, so that's a -8 (using the penalties from my earlier post). It lasts for 1 round (mirroring the cantrip) as a basic called shot.
Conditions to consider:
- Bleed
- Blind
- Confuse
- Daze
- Dazzle
- Dead
- Deafen
- Dying
- Nauseate
- Paralyze
- Prone
- Sicken
- Staggered
- Stunned
- Unconscious
* I don't want to muddy the waters with another subsystem, but for those interested...Characters receive HP as normal, plus an extra amount of HP equal to their Constitution score. With HP between max and Con score the character acts as normal. With HP below Con score but above 0, character is Fatigued. At 0 HP, character is Exhausted and any additional damage applies directly to Con. In this way, losing HP actually has an effect over time. Additional rules cover creatures with no Con/immunity to fatigue, use of Cure X Wounds spells, resting, etc.
For me, the abstraction of hit points is actually my least favorite aspect of the d20 mechanics, or of earlier iterations of D&D prior to d20.
I want a goblin to be a potentially deadly adversary when disregarded and ignored. This all encourages, in my experience, players that think beyond combat solutions to every problem, and when combat is the best option it's a much more tactical experience.
As an example, daze is a cantrip for many casters, so it seems like an ideal candidate for the basic list. It could require a head shot considering it robs the target of any actions, so that's a -8 (using the penalties from my earlier post). It lasts for 1 round (mirroring the cantrip) as a basic called shot.
Sounds like another enjoyable way to play the game. Don't let me put you off making a balanced and enjoyable called shot system.
I think it can be done. I was just sharing my experience that it changed the game for me in a way that I hadn't anticipated.I like that your system is taking game balance into consideration. To offer another data point, I'd consider the interactions between your system and a Rogue 20 who picked up Master Strike.
You don't want to sell effects similar to that capstone cheaply to other classes. And, earning that capstone shouldn't be a "Meh.. I got the called shot tree, so no biggie on Master Strike" experience either.
Fighters get their bonus combat feats. Would you consider a Rogue spending rogue talents (one or more) as a substitute for spending an actual feat, in order to acquire some of the called shot bonuses?
Had to drop off for a bit to do "real work" but I was able to do some forum searching in the interim. I didn't turn up my old post, but this thread that covers a lot of the debate on called shots (including SKR's well-developed thoughts on the topic).
So, rebuilding mine from an older post over on Mythweavers (this one needs some work, as it was my attempt before PF)...It does remind me of another thing I like about a called shot system--there's actually a reason to have the regenerate spell!
Called Shot [Combat]
You are skilled in making precise strikes with your favored weapon.
Prerequisites: Weapon Focus, BAB +5 or sneak attack +3d6
Benefit: As a full-round action, when attacking with a weapon in which you have Weapon Focus you may target a specific area of your opponents body. This attack suffers a penalty depending on the size variance between the foe and the targeted area. A successful attack deals damage as normal and may have an additional effect depending on the targeted area:Area Targeted (standard size variance): Effect/ Recovery
Head (three steps): Dazed for 1 round per 5 points of damage/1 point of magical curing
Eye or Ear (four steps): Blinded or Deafened in one organ (permanent)/Remove Blindness/Deafness
Torso (one step): Shaken for 1 round per 5 points of damage/1 point of magical curing
Arm (two steps): -2 penalty on all checks using affected arm/1 point of magical curing, Treat Injury DC 15, or after 24 hours pass
Hand (three steps): -6 penalty on all checks using affected hand; cannot hold an item/1 point of magical curing, Treat Injury DC 15, or after 24 hours pass
Leg (two steps): -5’ penalty to movement/1 point of magical curing, Treat Injury DC 15, or after 24 hours pass
Foot (three steps): Speed reduced by one-half; cannot charge or run/1 point of magical curing, Treat Injury DC 15, or after 24 hours pass...
I think some of the durations of the effects last too long. For instance, this can be obtained much sooner the blinding critical, but provides a more significant effect without the fortitude save. Given the low requirements i think the durations should be much shorter. I dont think it should outshine higher level abilities already existing in the game.
I think some of the durations of the effects last too long. For instance, this can be obtained much sooner the blinding critical, but provides a more significant effect without the fortitude save. Given the low requirements i think the durations should be much shorter. I dont think it should outshine higher level abilities already existing in the game.What if those high-level abilities suck? Nobody worries about overshadowing Greater Weapon Focus.
I am not certain that the critical feat tree sucks. The ability to blind an opponent is a HUGE boon, especially for a rogue. The bleed damage from bleeding crit also has a very big impact on fights (especially agasint monsters that arent going to or able to heal themselves). I guess its a matter of perspective but for me they represented finally a reason to play a high level fighter.
I am not certain that the critical feat tree sucks. The ability to blind an opponent is a HUGE boon, especially for a rogue. The bleed damage from bleeding crit also has a very big impact on fights (especially agasint monsters that arent going to or able to heal themselves). I guess its a matter of perspective but for me they represented finally a reason to play a high level fighter.Rogues don't benefit much from specializing in critting, and are generally sinking their feats into TWF.
More importantly, the crit feats kick in well after the spellcasters are casting save-or-lose spells (or just-plain-lose spells), in AOE form, from round 1 of every fight. Fear is a fourth level spell! Fishing for a (chance to hit/4)% chance to force a save-or-lose is not a great strategy at that level unless the spellcasters have politely not broken the CR system.
This called shot system puts melee on roughly the same footing, at least.
I was not excluding the called shot system, i think it has some merit though it doesnt have a place at my table along with a critical hit chart. I am just saying it may be better balanced by a shorter duration is all.
Besides the there are more points of comparison between martial classes and magic users then just their status effects (hit points, potential damage output, available skills and other class abilities). I am not saying they are equal i am just saying "mages can do it why cant we" isnt really a solid argument to me.
I enjoy GURPS for fantasy, but I prefer my fantasy to be grittier. One of the things that's a known issue with 'accumulating pile of hit points' systems is that the first N rounds of combat (where N is "hit points+healing divided by average weapon damage) is the deadly Cheese Grater Attack.
That said, my answer to the 'called attack' options was a structure change to who describes what.
1) If the player succeeds in an action, the game master describes.
2) If the player fails in an action, the player describes what went wrong.
When you define '2' as "having taken a hit in combat", the player gets to describe what's going on.
We also defined four house rules:
0) Everyone got hit points at the start of level 1 equal to half their Con, in addition to everything else. When dealing with healing, those hit points are always the first ones healed.
1) When you're at less than half of your hit points, you either lose your shield bonus or off hand use, or your speed is halved.
2) When you're at less than a quarter of your hit points, your speed is halved, and you either lose your shield/off hand use, or keep them, but make a Fort save each round; failing the save causes you to bleed by a point of damage.
3) When you're down to just your 'half of con' bonus hit points, you're attacking at -10, rolling all skills at -10, don't get to use your off hand, and are limited to a 5 foot step every other turn. You make the Fort save to avoid losing a hit point every turn.
Guys - I wrote to Monte Cook on this whole matter (no kidding) and he responded by essentially agreeing with SKR (see above). HOWEVER, he also showed a little bit more flexibility and said that he would allow it in rare and unusual circumstances.
I respect Monte A LOT and would say that if both he and SKR feel the game's mechanics have enough built into them already and that it could negatively affect the game, I would have to reconsider my focusing on this issue (I was the original poster of the post). I also think the fact that the critical feats have some of these effects built in adds that old-school flavor.
At the same time, I think it just goes to show how D&D is the best game in the world when you look at some of the creativity exhibited above - feat chains, special mechanics etc. - it's such an awesome game where the books provide the guidance and the DMs houserule their own flavor.
Guys - I wrote to Monte Cook on this whole matter (no kidding) and he responded by essentially agreeing with SKR (see above). HOWEVER, he also showed a little bit more flexibility and said that he would allow it in rare and unusual circumstances.
Monte did write some "called shot"-style feats in BOXM II (e.g. feats for making blinding attacks, or deafening attacks or what have you).
I suggest that you try another system, because all sorts of things just stop working in D&D if you tear out that part. This isn't meant to be snobbery, just that the game fundamentally stops working if you take out certain core parts of it. Even Vitality/Wounds didn't work too well in SW d20, and the whole game was built with that in mind.
You might want to try Mutants and Masterminds, True20, or (IIRC) Fantasycraft, all of which are D20 systems that handle wounds in different ways than HP.
I've played many other systems over the years, and do indeed enjoy them (I've noted Savage Worlds in previous posts, but also have played every version of D&D, as well as GURPs, T20, Mojo/Suzerain, SotC, VtM, etc.). I'm not looking for that play style, however, and disagree that Pathfinder cannot accommodate the changes I'm looking to implement. The strength of d20, after all, has proven to be its flexibility.
This is actually one of the things that seems very strange to me in seeing various responses to called shot mechanics being "unworkable" in Pathfinder. It seems very much like folks simply don't want to do the work to balance called shot options rather than some fundamental incompatibility. Consider again the concept of striking an opponent in the head in order to momentarily "knock him silly." This is a very reasonable result from a blow to the head and can be readily accommodated by a Called Shot that leaves the foe Dazed for 1 round. Is it fundamentally "broken" that someone could attempt such a tactic all day long? Apparently not, since any bard, sorcerer, or wizard could do so with a simple cantrip (and as a ranged "attack" with no roll other than a save!). Why then is it not possible for a trained combatant to whack a foe in the head and get anything more than HP damage?
Now, I understand that extrapolating from this into effects like blinding, nauseating, etc. are more problematic, but these are again options that spellcasters already have at their disposal from fairly early in the game so the effects themselves aren't "broken." Even major effects like instant death/paralysis are options as early as 6th level (Assassin death attack). These effects simply require work to balance the unlimited nature of called shots. As for these invalidating the "capstone" abilities of some classes, well, for me those capstones are (a) almost never going to come into play for the majority of games and (b) are not necessarily as powerful as they first appear. Master strike, as an example, is already largely outstripped by the assassin's death attack--consider that the assassin can use death attack on the same opponent all day until successful, at the same save DC as a rogue, while master strike is only good 1/day for any given target. And the Wiz 20, of course, just drops wail of the banshee or weird (assuming he even bothers with direct damage spells) on both of them and laughs at their silly antics.
{This is actually one of the things that seems very strange to me in seeing various responses to called shot mechanics being "unworkable" in Pathfinder.}
It's not unworkable, it's just complex, unnecessary, and slows down combat.
{Consider again the concept of striking an opponent in the head in order to momentarily "knock him silly."}
Let's call such an ability "Stunning Fist" or perhaps even "Stunning Critical."
{This is a very reasonable result from a blow to the head and can be readily accommodated by a Called Shot that leaves the foe Dazed for 1 round. Is it fundamentally "broken" that someone could attempt such a tactic all day long?}
Given suitable penalties for the attacker (such as a -10 penalty to attack) and a resistance roll for the defender (such as a Fort save), no.
{Apparently not, since any bard, sorcerer, or wizard could do so with a simple cantrip}
Daze becomes irrelevant once your target has 5 HD or more, and at that point continuously dazing someone is no longer the purview of a "simple cantrip"--you need daze monster, a 2nd-level spell, which is not an infinite resource.
{(and as a ranged "attack" with no roll other than a save!).}
Plus an attack of opportunity. And spell resistance. Assuming the target isn't immune to mind-affecting or compulsion effects.
{Why then is it not possible for a trained combatant to whack a foe in the head and get anything more than HP damage?}
See my above reference to Stunning Fist and Stunning Critical. Mind you, Stunning Fist is a limited resource (it has X uses/day), and Stunning Critical has a high barrier of entry (you must succeed at a critical to do it). You're suggesting an infinite-use, usable at all levels, daze attack that may invalidate the utility of two feats (one of which is a class feature).
And really, do you want combat to be a serious of hard-to-succeed rolls where the opponents are always trying to whack each other on the head? Isn't back-and-forth combat with no progress boring?
And have you considered the consequences for creatures with multiple heads? Or what the effect various kinds of helmets may have on this sort of attack? Or what sort of weapons are especially good or bad for head-bonks? Do I have a bonus when I use a warhammer, a penalty when I use a dagger or whip? Is a longsword good for this, or do I need to use the flat of the blade?
Decisions were made about the game to keep combat simple enough and fast enough that one full round of combat doesn't take an hour of real time. Sacrifices in realism were made to appease the gods of "OMG I haven't had a turn in 30 minutes." You are free to do things differently in your game, I suggest you take a look at the Champions game for an example of all the crazy realistic things you can do and how to slow down combat to an absolute crawl. If that's what you want, more power to you.
Yes, the more I think of it, the better it is to keep the abstract as Monte (and SKR) says. However, I will say that I continue to use hit location charts and roll randomly for the players (not all the time, but for flavor and on the final take-down attack generally) and when I roll that "1" for a head shot (using the AEG Toolbox chart) it gets the characters pumped. This may be the simplest and best way to get body shots in - just using them for flavor.
Maybe I would allow a character to aim at a special talisman dangling from the NPCs neck at a -8 or something where they can disarm it etc., but these body shots could really throw the game out of whack.
I still think Erian's system is creative and sounds like it could be fun, but my instinct says that it's better to keep a full-fledged called shot system out of it.