PDA

View Full Version : 3.5 Quick and easy Dismemberment rules, will it work?



evisiron
2013-08-03, 07:25 PM
One thing my players have called for in the past is the ability to take off limbs and the like, the freedom to cut off a Beholders eye stalk or ground a dragon by taking off a wing. To that end I am considering the following.

First, adding the rules for dismemberment.
"A dismemberment attack can be made by anyone able to reach the limb or appendage they wish to sever. This provokes an attack of opportunity. The attack roll suffers a -4 to hit modifier. All damage is dealt as normal, and in addition if the blow hits and does damage equal to or greater than one quarter the targets current HP, the targeted limb is removed. This attack cannot be used to inflict death through removal of a body part, such as cutting off the head."

This would mean that as a fight progresses, it becomes easier to remove limbs. A boss fight against a dragon is unlikely to be cut short by the first attack removing a wing, but as the fight goes on it becomes more likely.

I would also add the following feat to the feat list:

Improved Dismember [General]
Prerequisites
Str 13, Power Attack.

Benefit
When you perform a Dismemberment attack, you do not provoke an attack of opportunity.

The penalty to hit with a Dismemberment attack is also reduced to -2.

Special
A fighter may select Improved Sunder as one of his fighter bonus feats.

I had considered restricting it to Weapons that deal Slashing damage, but for the moment may keep it available for all weapons and Touch or Ranged Touch damage dealing spells as limbs are bludgeoned into paste or scorched to ashes.

The result of removing a limb can be be decided by the individual DM for each situation, though most will be self evident. The idea of "bleeding out" may be left for less Heroic settings.

I have seen better and more in depth approaches to this problem, but my hope was to keep it as streamlined as possible. Any comments or criticism are welcome.

bookguy
2013-08-03, 10:13 PM
You didn't fully edit the quote, but on the whole I think that it is quite good.