I imagine that the situation is the same everywhere. Each time you make an attack for a specific area on a target, you suffer a penalty. We set ours at -4 base and work from there, the minuses getting added as the area you are attacking gets smaller. And all this is completely at DM's disgression. But what about some feats to reduce this penalty? Maybe cut it in half? Or just reduce it by a set number? What I see is this. You would have to have proficency with the weapon, the feat would only apply to one type of weapon (i.e. longswords, bows, glaive) but could be taken multiple times (either for different weapons or to reduce the penalty more for the same weapon), and you would have to be at a certain BAB for it. Probably not a very high BAB so as some of the non-combat classes could take it, maybe +5 or so.
This whole thing also made me think of the possibility of a prestige class called Trick Star, but I decided that it just wouldn't have the right feeling to it.
We don't have a hard and fast rule for called shots and try to avoid them since the system doesn't really account for them very well. I do think in one situation, I allowed for someone who essentially wanted to hamstring a giant to attack at a -4 penalty (just as you did), and if they hit, they did half their rolled weapon damage as Dexterity damage instead of normal damage (to a minimum of 1) (the idea being, the joint damage making it harder for the giant to move).
Allowing feats to allow called shots--since they don't exist in core--would be a good idea, as would houserule feats to support the houserule you propose to allow called shots as normal.
If you write up these feats, since not everyone does use called shots or called shot houserules, you might want to establish what you think called shots actually accomplish. As mentioned, I like them doing a small amount of ability score damage, or perhaps inflicting conditions like slowed (for hurting someone's legs) or stunned (for a bash to the head), etc.
I don't personally want called shots to be more fatal (i.e., aiming at the head to cut it off)--that's just in my games to be a fluff description of a critical hit. And taking a penalty to do more damage is called Power Attack.
Good point. For our game, a called shot means little more than trying to hit an opponent in a specific area or in a certain way. If you want to blind your opponent by slashing the eyes, for example. Or one notable time when some one wanted to shot a bounce shot around a corner (a -20 for the shot). We don't really run with a set goal for a called shot. It is kind of up to the player. If you want to hit an arm, it is a negative 4 to hit. If you want to diable the arm, it is the -4 and you have to do a certain amount of damage to it (I usually determine this by a percentage of the opponent's total). I am wary of area specific damage, like head-shots doing extra damage, but if someone has something drawn up for that, I think it would add a fun new level to combat encounters. As to the drawing up a detailed list, I'm afraid I just don't have the time to give something like that the attention it deserves right now (I'm getting married in a week). So I also leave this open to anyone who might want to brew that up and post it.
http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/calledshots.html
This link leads to all the things that make me wary of area specific damage. Thank's Name Violation, coundn't have said it better myself.
Not really sneack attack, since with pathfinder only you can't apply effects related to body parts with them.
But I was just about to point to the critical feats too. They're the pathfinder called shots, add an effect to the damage if the attack roll is high enough.
They have the advantage over the called shot rules based on bonuses to AC or penalties to attack, that if you miss the eyes you can still hit the head. And the disadvantage of being feats instead of something everyone can use, and of being specific in their use (especially since lot of things are immune to criticals).
Adding a called shot rule in pathfinder would get you two mechanics for the same thing. It could replace the critical feats entirely, though.
I use a few houserules to make a system based on critical feats consistent. Armor add damage reduction that is ignored in case of critical hits, all critical hits can inflict random injuries and effects based on critical feats, these feats add a bonus on the confirmation roll in addition to letting you choose the effect, your weapon itself don't influence your chance to roll critical hits as much as your talent and training with the weapon, unanimated objects can be affected by critical hits.
If someone wants to make a called shot in my game, I have them do one of two things:
Power attack/deadly aim to aim for a more vital location to do more damage.
Or some manner of combat maneuver if the intent is impairment rather than damage.
http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/calledshots.html
I agree with Sean's argument, and yet ignore it completely at my table.
My group is mature and there's just too much fun to be had by letting players roleplay attacks like this.
That said, I do avoid codifying exactly how this stuff works. Leaving it as GM adjudication helps keep it from getting out of hand, and general improves the quality of called shot resolution.
So go forth, and ignore the wise words of SKR! GMs, allow called shots! Players, ask to perform them!
But... feats? I (personally) think that is not the ideal method.
if you allow called shots, there is no reason not to make every shot called shot brain, using their skull for full cover/concealment. if you hit the AC and miss due to cover you still get a head shot
Yeah, but he was saying his group does it for roleplaying purposes. Ya know, fun and all that. Doesn't sound like they're trying to "break" the game. As for the arguments for the critical feats doing the same thing as called shots would, I would say this is generally true. Most of this thread idea is from my 3rd Ed. group, not from my PF group, where those feats don't exist. And as I can't get them to switch over, they also won't allow PF materials to be used. As such, I figured I could sneak in something else to make up for this. Oh well, looks like we'll just have to continue doing Lincoln says and letting the DM do as he will.
One way that you could do it that would be balanced is to increase the target's AC when aiming for a specific part. This way it balances kind of like power attack when going for specific benefits.
On a related note, I had my party of PCs up against a 15th level fighter, and he made a blinding critical on two of them. Oddly consistent of him to only chop out their eyes...
I think the main problem with Sean's argument is that he assumes the PC can't use the armor to try and protect the exposed area. If I was wearing no armor on my legs and was wearing breastplate, you can bet I'd even take a hit to the chest rather than one to my leg, and I'd be sweeping my weapon about blocking strikes to them and skipping backwards.
The big issue I see with called shot rule design is that you just have to remain focused on the abstract qualities of the system. If you start going down the road towards simulated specificity then you can run into problems such as what SKR did in his analysis, or is some other manner where the level of detail bogs down the system and doesn't let the abstract strengths work for the participants.
Fortunately, there are plenty of abstract elements to the rules that can be used that don't bog down the game. There are a host of condition effects that can be applied, along with ability damage, and even reduction in movement (which so far has not been used in the rules) to give a bit more "grit" to the game.
What's unfortunate is that the condition effects are currently only accessible in high level feats and/or spells. You can't have a low level character be able to stun, blind, ability damage, etc. unless they are a spellcaster.
If I were to try and design rules for called shots I'd focus on ways that anyone, at any level, could induce these types of effects on an opponent. The best way is just to use the Combat Maneuver system. That way you can segregate hit point damage from ability and condition damage. Further, Combat Maneuvers are harder to do as they provoke and scale in such a way that they aren't nearly as easy to pull off.
Lastly, you can easily use the current format for Combat Maneuver feats as a model for adding in feats that would help with called shots. If you took the feat it would remove the provoke and give you +2. Then there could be a "Greater Called Shot" which would allow you to more efficiently perform them... say allow a Called Shot to be a swift action, thus allowing you to attack and apply a condition effect, etc.
Oooh, I like the Combat Maneuver idea. That makes a lot of sense and we have a lot of the mechanics already set up.
|
Oh, my players decided to go fancy with called shots once after complaining how simplistic the D&D combat is and you can't target a specific part of the body and HP are so abstract and oh and ah.
So I let them do called shots. The Duskblade wanted to savagely slash the eyes of the flesh golem in Skinsaw Murders.
3 dying party members later, everybody suddenly gave up arguing for realism in combat. :)
You might want to check out the new APG! It's a wonderful book, and contains among other things this:
Combat Maneuver - Dirty Trick: You can hinder a foe in melee as a standard action. This maneuver covers any sort of situational attack that imposes a penalty on a foe for a short time. Examples include kicking sand into an opponent's face to blind him for 1 round, pulling down an enemy's pants to halve his speed, or hitting a foe in a sensitive spot to make him sickened for a round. // If your attack is successful, the target takes a penalty. The penalty is limited to one of the following conditions: blinded, dazzled, deafened, entangled, shaken or sickened. This condition lasts for 1 round. For every 5 by which your attack exceeds your opponent's CMD, the penalty lasts another round.
There's also a bunch of feats that affect it and a few other rules and such. But that's the basics. If you want to do more advanced stuff, like longer-lasting effects or things like stun or panic, it's easy to just give a penalty to the CMB.
Essentially, they are called shots. It's a quick and easy solution without thirty tables and twelve pages of rules. I like it, like it really much.
You might want to check out the new APG! It's a wonderful book, and contains among other things this:
Combat Maneuver - Dirty Trick: You can hinder a foe in melee as a standard action. This maneuver covers any sort of situational attack that imposes a penalty on a foe for a short time. Examples include kicking sand into an opponent's face to blind him for 1 round, pulling down an enemy's pants to halve his speed, or hitting a foe in a sensitive spot to make him sickened for a round. // If your attack is successful, the target takes a penalty. The penalty is limited to one of the following conditions: blinded, dazzled, deafened, entangled, shaken or sickened. This condition lasts for 1 round. For every 5 by which your attack exceeds your opponent's CMD, the penalty lasts another round.
There's also a bunch of feats that affect it and a few other rules and such. But that's the basics. If you want to do more advanced stuff, like longer-lasting effects or things like stun or panic, it's easy to just give a penalty to the CMB.Essentially, they are called shots. It's a quick and easy solution without thirty tables and twelve pages of rules. I like it, like it really much.
I want that book a lot myself. And I am hoping to get it as a wedding gift, or I'll buy one later. But thanks. Dirty Trick, I'll remember that one.
I agree with Sean's argument, and yet ignore it completely at my table.My group is mature and there's just too much fun to be had by letting players roleplay attacks like this.
That said, I do avoid codifying exactly how this stuff works. Leaving it as GM adjudication helps keep it from getting out of hand, and general improves the quality of called shot resolution.
So go forth, and ignore the wise words of SKR! GMs, allow called shots! Players, ask to perform them!
But... feats? I (personally) think that is not the ideal method.
I'm with Lincoln here
I would encourage you to define a basic frame of what you'd allow called shots to do; not to give to the players - let them guess - but for you be consistent with yourself.
'findel
What's unfortunate is that the condition effects are currently only accessible in high level feats and/or spells. You can't have a low level character be able to stun, blind, ability damage, etc. unless they are a spellcaster.monks can stun and impede. Stunning fist, scorpion strike, ect
AND it only works at low levels! :D