[3.5] Called Shots -- Did I miss anything?

[Maginomicon]

In my main campaign setting (although not a part of my normal house rules), I allow called shots because they happen to make more sense in this particular setting.

First, some background. In this setting, I use the Bell Curve Rolls (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/bellCurveRolls.htm) and Variable Modifiers (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/variableModifiers.htm) variants from the SRD. The take-away you should have from this is that natural 20s become natural 18s, and that before a "beat the DC" roll you can "press your luck" and swap out your static modifier for a variable one.

Those variants are not what this thread is about. Please don't comment on the use of those variants. This thread is about Called Shots. Aside from the variants above, I tried to keep it as close to the original RAW for critical threats as possible.

What I've done is taken the "Damage to Specific Areas" variant rule in the DMG p27 and modified it so that it's more comprehensive of called shots.

The following was my result. What I want to know is:

Whether I've missed a critical function of called shots that's present in other systems that have called shots (besides hitting the nads).
How you feel the idea of called shots as-presented affects role/class balance. For example, I feel that as-presented it gives mundanes easy access to affect binary defenses (Fort/Will for the "tough through" saves).
Whether called shots as-presented breaks/overpowers any extant class features, feats, spells, etc.
General feedback on the original variant as it appeared in the DMG (please state so in your reply).
Online resources which dig into the called shots rules for various systems.
Links to or descriptions of homebrewed called shot systems (please be as descriptive as possible).


--------------

Called Shots

Sometimes, despite the abstract nature of combat, you’re going to want to apply damage to specific parts of the body, such as when a character’s hands are thrust into flames, when he steps on caltrops, or when he peeks through a hole in the wall and someone shoots an arrow into the hole from the other side. (This situation comes up most frequently with devious traps meant to chop at feet, smash fingers, or the like.)

When a specific body part takes lethal damage, you can apply a –2 circumstance penalty to any action that the character undertakes using that portion of his body. For example, if a character’s fingers get slashed, he makes attacks rolls with a weapon in that hand at –2 circumstance penalty and he takes a –2 circumstance penalty on skill checks involving the use of his hands. If a character steps on a caltrop, he takes a –2 penalty on skill checks involving the use of his feet (in addition to the effects described in the Player’s Handbook). Also, these penalties shouldn’t stack — two hand injuries should not impose a –4 penalty. Use “Table: Called Shots and Effects” for determining the penalties.

This penalty lasts until the character heals, either magically (including fast healing or regeneration) or by resting. For a minor wound, such as stepping on a caltrop, a DC 15 Heal check, 1 point of magical healing, or a day of rest removes the penalties. Otherwise, you must remove all lethal damage to heal all of your injuries. On your initiative, you can as a free action choose to “tough through” each of your injuries for the duration of your turn (one attempt per injured area per turn) by succeeding on a Fortitude or Will save (injured creature's choice of which Save; DC 10 + the damage dealt by the attack).

Called Shot Attacks

You can always give narrative for attacking a body part, but if you want those words to have a mechanical effect in-game, you must make a “called shot” attack.

Once per round on your initiative when you would make an non-touch attack roll against a creature that would deal lethal damage, you can choose to “call a shot” on a particular part of the creature instead of attempting to hit the center of mass. Calling a shot to a particular body part can only be done against targets that have such a body part and you must have line-of-effect to that body part. For example, while a humanoid almost always has arms, an ooze almost never does. Effects (such as spells) which specifically call out touching a specific part of the target’s body are not inherently called shots, and called shots cannot be used to augment such effects. For another example, you can’t make a called shot to someone’s legs when those legs are buried in quicksand.

To make a called shot, first you must specify before your attack roll that you’re making a called shot, what creature you’re calling the shot on, and what body part you’re trying to hit. The target has an “improved AC” value for this attack as appropriate to the body part you’re targeting (see “Table: Called Shots and Effects”). Then you must make an attack roll while pressing your luck. If the attack roll hits the original AC but misses the improved AC, it’s a regular hit instead of a called hit. If the attack roll hits this improved AC, you must roll again and press your luck. If the second roll misses the improved AC, it’s a regular hit. If the second roll hits the improved AC, it's a called hit and the associated effect begins immediately.

You can call a shot to the same kind of location as has already been injured, but a successful called shot to that location overlaps (does not stack) with the previous damage applied to that injury’s “tough through” saves (they still take both damage totals).

All coups de grâce can optionally include a called shot without making any rolls.

On the first roll of a called shot, if your roll is in your critical threat range, consult the flowchart below:


http://gyazo.com/a00f0149b66a21423a8adcb385b69dcb.png

Critical hits can increase the amount of damage applied to a called shot save through their critical multiplier, but otherwise have no effect on called shots.

Table: Called Shots and Effects

Use the table below as a guide to what rolls are modified by injuries to what body parts.

In the table, “severe” damage means damage that meets or exceeds the maximum value of its smallest hit die.

If a body part is larger than half of its size (such as a beholder’s central eye), the body part is too large for you to make a called shot against it.

The "improved AC" is based on how small the body part is compared to the creature as a whole:


AC +8 = Size -4 = Body part smaller than one sixteenth its size
AC +4 = Size -3 = Body part smaller than one eighth its size
AC +2 = Size -2 = Body part smaller than one quarter its size
AC +1 = Size -1 = Body part smaller than one half its size


{table=head]Location | Damage Affects:
Hand (usually AC +4) | Climb, Craft, Disable Device, Escape Artist, Forgery, Heal, Open Lock, Sleight of Hand, and Use Rope checks; attack rolls with that hand.
Arm (usually AC +2) | Climb and Swim checks; attack rolls with that hand; Strength checks.
Head (usually AC +4) | All attack rolls, saves, and checks.
One eye (usually AC +8) | Appraise, Craft, Decipher Script, Disable Device, Forgery, Open Lock, Psicraft, Search, Sense Motive, Spellcraft, and Spot checks; Survival checks (for tracking); initiative checks; Dexterity checks; ranged attack rolls; Reflex saving throws. Severe damage to all eyes causes a character to become blinded.
One ear (usually AC +8) | Listen checks; initiative checks. Severe damage to all ears causes a character to become deafened.
Foot/Leg/Wing/Tail (usually AC +2) | Balance, Climb, Jump, Move Silently, Ride, Swim, and Tumble checks; Reflex saving throws; Dexterity checks. |
[/table]

[danzibr]

Ooh I like your flow chart, and the idea. I've always liked called shots. I wonder modifications would be appropriate for 2d10.

Edit: Okay, to try to be constructive... is there any reason to not do a called shot? You call a shot, if you don't hit the higher AC you hit like normal. Then why not *always* make called shots? Or am I missing something?

Also, the severe damage seems kind of low. So a level 1 Wizard level 19 Warblade or something only gets 4 damage to a body part?

[Maginomicon]

...is there any reason to not do a called shot? You call a shot, if you don't hit the higher AC you hit like normal. Then why not *always* make called shots? Or am I missing something?No, that was intentional. There's never a reason not to attempt a called shot.

Also, the severe damage seems kind of low. So a level 1 Wizard level 19 Warblade or something only gets 4 damage to a body part?Yes. However, that's not that big a deal since you have to do called shots to every one of that area's type (twice for ears or eyes for example on a human).

[Omegas]

Its interesting if not a very long winded rule. Dont get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with being clear. It prevents future arguments. My problem is the head. The head is the most vital body part, and in real combat the easiest to hit. One arrow to the head is arguably enough to kill even in fantasy games. Even the feat Head Shot only daze the target. The Writes did everything they could to avoid specific damage to the head for that very reason.

I dont know if it will help but this is the method I use. Its simple easy to follow and my player seem to like it.

:smallbiggrin:Use the following method for ranged called shots in battle.:smallbiggrin:

Limbs AC = The targets full AC and reduce the size modifier by 2 size categories. Refer to page 134 PHB. This represents the size of the limb compared to the targets full size. Examples: a human would go from 0 to +2, a gnome would go from a +1 to a +4, and so on. This can be modified if the limbs are grossly over or under size compared to the body.

Arms equipped with any shield larger then a buckler have total cover and may not be targeted. If a PC is equipped with a tower shield then the leg behind the shield also has total cover. Armor is used only to determine a successful hit. Hitting an armored limb means striking an area of the limb that is susceptible to attack. All armor has chink points including full plate.

Limb HP = Divide the targets max HP by the total number of limbs -2 (minimum 2 limbs) this is the limbs HP (round up). Count only arms, legs, wings, and any limb that can perform an unarmed or natural strike,
not counting the head. Every point of damage done to a limb is applied to the targets current HP. Tracking limb HP is only to determine the
amount of damage the limb has sustained.

Disabled = at 1/2 limb HP. For all intensive purposes the limb can not preform it’s normal functions.

:smallannoyed: Arms = the hand is unable to grasp anything and can’t perform simple gestures or skills.
:smallannoyed: Legs = a bipedal target can’t stand while threatened. Quadruped or creatures with more legs may stand with 3 or more legs.
:smallannoyed: Wings = the target can not fly or even glide.
:smallannoyed: Tail = If the target depends on it’s tail to fly like most dragons do, then it can not fly but it may still glide.

Method:
The shooter must beat the limb’s AC as listed above. A limb can not be fully healed with any ammunition in it. Removing ammo takes a (DC=20) heal check or it deals 1d6 damage when it is removed. (similar to removing a quill or spike from creatures with such attacks)

The additional effects of damage to a specific area are listed in the DMG pg 27. The player or creature takes a negative 2 to all actions with a limb
that has ammunition lodge in it. Multiple penetrating ammo does not increase this effect. This method works for magical rays, but there are no lingering arrows, and the damage type is listed in the spell.

All head shots are glancing doing only standard damage. Head shots are a touchy subject. Players could argue a critical shot to the head is fatal. The truth is, head shots are a balance beaker. Even the feat Head Shot only inflicts the daze effect.

Remember anything that Players are allowed to do, enemies should do too.

[Khedrac]

Oddly I took one look at the length of the process and though "is it worth the hassle?", but since you have structured it so that a called shot is never wore than a normal attack, you (so far as I could see) have just left the basic question that must always be answered in Called Shots rules:

True Strike

What prevents the level 1 sorcerer with a light crossbow becoming the ultimate level 1 combatant?

[Andezzar]

How do you model the different amounts of coverage different suits of armor give? It should be easier to damage the unprotected thigh of a character wearing a chain shirt than the thigh of a chain mail wearer. IMHO hit locations and called shots also need a system for localized armor.

[lsfreak]

A few comments.

- As Andezzar said, called shots go hand-in-hand with actual armor coverage, as well as ability to ignore armor, such as daggers getting through weak spots or weapons unable to damage "ear" but only "head" because of wearing a solid helm.
- How does miss chance interact? No change from normal? Chance to hit where you didn't aim?
- This is often going to double rolling, so it likely to slow the game down quite a bit. Just something to keep in mind.
- This MORE than doubles rolling, because there's no reason not to try and save every round to tough through an injury. Combined with that there's zero reason not to try for a called shot, there's going to be a lot of extra rolls during combat.
- There are severe balance issues among the targets. There is little reason to ever target the hand when you can target the arm unless you're purposely trying to mutilate a target for short-term but non-combat reasons, such as ruining their ability to forge. There is damn near no reason to attack the ear when attacking the head has all the same penalties, plus a ton of other penalties, plus has an AC 4 lower; at least attacking eyes has a chance of inflicting a useful penalty despite otherwise being a worse target than the head.

[Maginomicon]

Oddly I took one look at the length of the process and though "is it worth the hassle?", but since you have structured it so that a called shot is never wore than a normal attack, you (so far as I could see) have just left the basic question that must always be answered in Called Shots rules:
It was deliberately no more complicated than the following exchange:
<Player> Called shot to its head with my crossbow.
GM remembers the head to be its normal AC+4.
Player rolls higher than its normal AC+4.
<GM> It hits the head. Roll for damage.
Player rolls 7 for damage.
GM jots down how much damage was done to the head.
Monster attempts (and fails) a DC 10+7 will save to avoid the effects, and thus takes the associated penalties.

True Strike

What prevents the level 1 sorcerer with a light crossbow becoming the ultimate level 1 combatant?
It's intentionally that way. It has to be a non-touch attack (which a light crossbow qualifies for). The damage output (not the attack roll) determines the save. The sorcerer must take two turns each time to pull this off since casting True Strike is a standard action. Given how much time that takes, honestly, I'm fine with that.

How do you model the different amounts of coverage different suits of armor give? It should be easier to damage the unprotected thigh of a character wearing a chain shirt than the thigh of a chain mail wearer. IMHO hit locations and called shots also need a system for localized armor.
I don't. This is deliberate. D&D does not give the facility to consistently determine armor coverage for every type of armor, and thus I don't bother messing with that can of worms.

- As Andezzar said, called shots go hand-in-hand with actual armor coverage, as well as ability to ignore armor, such as daggers getting through weak spots or weapons unable to damage "ear" but only "head" because of wearing a solid helm.
As said above, I deliberately don't open the can of worms that is the question of armor coverage. D&D as a system does not provide the GM with the ability to quickly and painlessly answer whether a given armor type (among the dozens of armor types out there, of-which things like mage armor have the same problem) covers up a certain part of the creature's body, so it's not worth the hassle.

- How does miss chance interact? No change from normal? Chance to hit where you didn't aim?
No change. A miss from miss chance is a total miss. Anything less than a total miss from a miss chance would negate the point of there being a miss chance.

- This is often going to double rolling, so it likely to slow the game down quite a bit. Just something to keep in mind.
- This MORE than doubles rolling, because there's no reason not to try and save every round to tough through an injury. Combined with that there's zero reason not to try for a called shot, there's going to be a lot of extra rolls during combat.
First off, it's a choice for whether someone attempts a fort/will save, they can always choose to not bother toughing through it (although it's unlikely).

Second, injuries to the same area overlap, not stack. All of the damage gets through as damage, sure, but only the highest damage that's ever been done to a particular area determines the DC for the tough through save. Thus, getting in a good shot on the head is the best you can do on the head so you should start targeting other areas.

- There are severe balance issues among the targets. There is little reason to ever target the hand when you can target the arm unless you're purposely trying to mutilate a target for short-term but non-combat reasons, such as ruining their ability to forge. There is damn near no reason to attack the ear when attacking the head has all the same penalties, plus a ton of other penalties, plus has an AC 4 lower; at least attacking eyes has a chance of inflicting a useful penalty despite otherwise being a worse target than the head.
Actually there's a very good reason to not always target the head: Penalties from injuries to different areas stack. While the head would be a great first choice for targets, depending on what you want him to be screwed by, a hand or ear becomes a great second choice. The penalties are a cumulative -2 (no bigger than a typical circumstance penalty) per relevant injured area, so it's not exactly debilitating.

[Andezzar]

I don't. This is deliberate. D&D does not give the facility to consistently determine armor coverage for every type of armor, and thus I don't bother messing with that can of worms.So you allow additional effects based on hit locations, but do not allow protection against these effects based on the coverage of armor. That is pretty unfair. A blow to the head should be much less severe if the target wore a helmet. Why would anyone wear a helmet or greaves besides using them for carrying enchantments?


As said above, I deliberately don't open the can of worms that is the question of armor coverage. D&D as a system does not provide the GM with the ability to quickly and painlessly answer whether a given armor type (among the dozens of armor types out there, of-which things like mage armor have the same problem) covers up a certain part of the creature's body, so it's not worth the hassle.One could just as well say that D&D as a system does not provide the GM with the ability to quickly and painlessly assign additional effects based on hit locations, because that concept does not exist in the rules.


Actually there's a very good reason to not always target the head: Penalties from injuries to different areas stack. While the head would be a great first choice for targets, depending on what you want him to be screwed by, a hand or ear becomes a great second choice. The penalties are a cumulative -2 (no bigger than a typical circumstance penalty) per relevant injured area, so it's not exactly debilitating.That sounds really unrealistic, especially if you use such large locations as the head. One blow could impair your balance by damaging the inner ear, another could impair vision (ranging from a cut above the eyes to brain damage) a third could restrict breathing (crushed nose, damaged windpipe or a fourth could simply rob you of consciousness. Why wouldn't those stack?

Also basing the ease of overcoming the effects on the damage dealt does not seem to model reality very well: For example temporary blindness through blood or other things in the eyes may be hard to overcome in a combat situation, but not fatal and easily cured later, whereas a combatant might not even register massive abdominal trauma in the heat of battle despite this being a death sentence without medical care.

[Maginomicon]

So you allow additional effects based on hit locations, but do not allow protection against these effects based on the coverage of armor. That is pretty unfair. A blow to the head should be much less severe if the target wore a helmet. Why would anyone wear a helmet or greaves besides using them for carrying enchantments?In the case of wearing a separate helmet item (filling the helmet slot) that's possibly a different story, but armor types themselves don't provide the GM with a facility to easily adjudicate armor coverage.

One could just as well say that D&D as a system does not provide the GM with the ability to quickly and painlessly assign additional effects based on hit locations, because that concept does not exist in the rules.One, it explicitly does exist in the rules, as my called shots system is taken largely wholesale from a variant in the DMG itself. (Only the "Called Shot Attacks" section, the idea of "tough-through saves", and the improved AC values are new.)

Two, you're making an argument that if it doesn't imply it's possible, that it can't be done. It's much better to argue that if it doesn't imply it's possible, that it shouldn't be done.

Three, mine is an argument based on how much (or rather, if any) research is required to put it into effect. I can't stress this enough: involving armor coverage would be opening a can of worms.

That sounds really unrealistic, especially if you use such large locations as the head. One blow could impair your balance by damaging the inner ear, another could impair vision (ranging from a cut above the eyes to brain damage) a third could restrict breathing (crushed nose, damaged windpipe or a fourth could simply rob you of consciousness. Why wouldn't those stack?

Also basing the ease of overcoming the effects on the damage dealt does not seem to model reality very well: For example temporary blindness through blood or other things in the eyes may be hard to overcome in a combat situation, but not fatal and easily cured later, whereas a combatant might not even register massive abdominal trauma in the heat of battle despite this being a death sentence without medical care.There's your problem. Do not put medical realism and D&D in the same argument.

[Andezzar]

In the case of wearing a separate helmet item (filling the helmet slot) that's possibly a different story, but armor types themselves don't provide the GM with a facility to easily adjudicate armor coverage.You might want to read the descriptions of the various armors. Some mention helmets, gauntlets greaves etc. others don't. So you can pretty easily deduce which parts are covered and which are not.


One, it explicitly does exist in the rules, as my called shots system is taken largely wholesale from a variant in the DMG itself.Really, where can I find it?


Two, you're making an argument that if it doesn't imply it's possible, that it can't be done. It's a much better to argue that if it doesn't imply it's possible, that it shouldn't be done.That's what I meant. But I also meant you would not have a great benefit if you only do one (called shots) and don't do the other (armor coverage). Going half way is IMHO just as bad a can of worms.


Three, mine is an argument based on how much (or rather, if any) research is required to put it into effect. I can't stress this enough: involving armor coverage would be opening a can of worms.If you do not want some kind of realism and balance, why not simply assign additional penalties randomly and then describe the attack as hitting the appropriate body part? That at least would make the rolling quicker.


There's your problem. Do not put medical realism and D&D in the same argument.Don't you base your additional effects on (first or second hand) real life experience? The normal Hit point mechanic is very abstract and not very close to reality. Unless the mechanism for assigning the penalties and the penalties themselves more closely resemble reality, I don't see much merit in going through the extra hassle of making more dice rolls.

[Maginomicon]

You might want to read the descriptions of the various armors. Some mention helmets, gauntlets greaves etc. others don't. So you can pretty easily deduce which parts are covered and which are not.That's why I said "research required". It's not going to happen during play (or even during out of game time).


Really, where can I find it?
...
Read the freakin' OP.

What I've done is taken the "Damage to Specific Areas" variant rule in the DMG p27 and modified it so that it's more comprehensive of called shots.

That's what I meant. But I also meant you would not have a great benefit if you only do one (called shots) and don't do the other (armor coverage). Going half way is IMHO just as bad a can of worms.No, it's not. A "can of worms" is something which is problematic. It generates more (and/or tougher) questions (and more work) than it does answers. Excluding mention of something (such as the issue of armor coverage) explicitly doesn't generate more questions than answers.

If you do not want some kind of realism and balance, why not simply assign additional penalties randomly and then describe the attack as hitting the appropriate body part? That at least would make the rolling quicker.Because then it's not consistent.

Don't you base your additional effects on (first or second hand) real life experience? The normal Hit point mechanic is very abstract and not very close to reality. Unless the mechanism for assigning the penalties and the penalties themselves more closely resemble reality, I don't see much merit in going through the extra hassle of making more dice rolls.There's a very big difference between abstracting what should get a typical-sized circumstance penalty (which is what I was doing) and making a complex and inconsistent system based on human-specific medical jargon (which is what you were doing).

EDIT: And furthermore, that table's in the DMG. I didn't make it up at all.

[Psyren]

It's intentionally that way. It has to be a non-touch attack (which a light crossbow qualifies for). The damage output (not the attack roll) determines the save. The sorcerer must take two turns each time to pull this off since casting True Strike is a standard action. Given how much time that takes, honestly, I'm fine with that.

Just wanted to point out that True Strike is very easy to Quicken (or cast using a second action of some kind, e.g. Belt of Battle) due to being low level.

[Maginomicon]

Just wanted to point out that True Strike is very easy to Quicken (or cast using a second action of some kind, e.g. Belt of Battle) due to being low level.
As a caster, by the time you have access to quicken or a belt of battle, you will have better things to do with your actions and spell slots than plink away with non-touch attacks.

[Psyren]

As a caster, by the time you have access to quicken or a belt of battle, you will have better things to do with your actions and spell slots than plink away with non-touch attacks.

Gishes are a thing too, and True Strike is most likely meant for them.

[Maginomicon]

Gishes are a thing too, and True Strike is most likely meant for them.
Alright, then let them do it. There's nothing wrong with letting mundanes and gishes get nice things, even if those nice things aren't really all that nice.

(The mundanes can afford to do it every round without needing True Strike, and the gish can afford to do it every other round or even every round with True Strike. Either way, the benefits aren't exactly game-breaking. They still need to take the time to make non-touch attack rolls multiple times to get any really sizable benefit, as you can only make one called shot each round.)

[Psyren]

Alright, then let them do it. There's nothing wrong with letting mundanes and gishes get nice things, even if those nice things aren't really all that nice.

The +20 may not be, but the "ignore concealment" certainly is.



Either way, the benefits aren't exactly game-breaking.

No one is saying they are (I'm certainly not.)

[Maginomicon]

Hm... perhaps the number of called shots you can make per round should be tied to your number of iteratives? (not number of attacks, number of iteratives). Then at least it would scale better with mundanes than gishes.

[Andezzar]

Which gish has a BAB under 16 eventually?

[Maginomicon]

Which gish has a BAB under 16 eventually?
Eventually, yes, but scaling better is what's important here.

[Andezzar]

Not all mundanes take only levels with strong BAB either. Fighter/Rogue wouldn't get BAB 20 either.

[JusticeZero]

Did I read right that a hit to the location is a critical? Expect a lot of gish with scythe?
Haste. True Strike defensively. Attack the head. Oh, a 14 confirms? Quad damage, yo. Next round? True Strike..

[Cainen]

The problem with doing this without some kind of anti-magic clause is that CoDzilla and gishes are the ones with the sky high attack bonuses, not melee. It doesn't take a genius to realize "Oh hey I can soak a -14 to hit and still hit on a 17 thanks to my massive hit bonus, so I should Power Attack them in the eye, all but guarantee a critical strike, and take them out of the fight forever!" Scythe and heavy pick gishes would be ridiculous.

Warblades would also benefit from this disproportionately even though they don't need any help being the best noncaster melee ever. You think that gishes are overkill? Wait until they Emerald Razor your eye.

[Maginomicon]

Did I read right that a hit to the location is a critical? Expect a lot of gish with scythe?
Haste. True Strike defensively. Attack the head. Oh, a 14 confirms? Quad damage, yo. Next round? True Strike..
You read it wrong.

On the first roll of a called shot, if your roll is in your critical threat range...
All the normal rules for criticals stay the same.

The problem with doing this without some kind of anti-magic clause is that CoDzilla and gishes are the ones with the sky high attack bonuses, not melee.Not attack bonuses, number of iteratives. The degree of the penalty is never more than a -2 per injured area. Increasing the damage just increases how high they'd have to save to ignore the -2 penalty to that injured area.

[Cainen]

The degree of the penalty is never more than a -2 per injured area.
I'm pretty sure blinding trumps -2 to hit. It also stacks with it. That's pretty much SoL status, and even a basic hit in mid levels is going to saddle you with a DC 32 or whereabouts save to stop being blinded, which is way, way out of the range of anyone who's not a Warblade or Swordsage.

[Maginomicon]

I'm pretty sure blinding trumps -2 to hit. It also stacks with it. That's pretty much SoL status, and even a basic hit in mid levels is going to saddle you with a DC 32 or whereabouts save to stop being blinded, which is way, way out of the range of anyone who's not a Warblade or Swordsage.
To blind, you'd have to do severe damage to each eye. For most humanoids that's two attacks. If you're attacking a cyclopean that's another matter. Yes Emerald Razor makes it a touch attack, but so does the wraithstrike spell (and the Spot the Weak Point skill trick), regardless it still has to beat an improved AC.

[Andezzar]

Don't forget Wraithstrike lasts one round, with Emerald Razor you only get one attack. Additionally Wraithstrike can be extended and persisted.

[Maginomicon]

Don't forget Wraithstrike lasts one round, with Emerald Razor you only get one attack. Additionally Wraithstrike can be extended and persisted.
Nothing wrong with fighting dirty. :smallwink:

[Telok]

Personally I would either double the AC bonus or make a called shot require a full round action.

One issue I can see is a rogue with Bow Feint and a level of sorcerer or wizard. A raven familiar with a wand of True Strike and a good bluff check (fear the potion of Glibness!) Can sneak attack the eyes every time. You also want to determine what happens in the case of Manyshot, Improved Trip, grapple, lance/charger builds, and that ranger spell that lets you shoot at every target within one range increment.

[Maginomicon]

Personally I would either double the AC bonus or make a called shot require a full round action.

One issue I can see is a rogue with Bow Feint and a level of sorcerer or wizard. A raven familiar with a wand of True Strike and a good bluff check (fear the potion of Glibness!) Can sneak attack the eyes every time. You also want to determine what happens in the case of Manyshot, Improved Trip, grapple, lance/charger builds, and that ranger spell that lets you shoot at every target within one range increment.
Even assuming a raven can cast spells through UMD, a raven does not, himself, have the share spells ability. Share spells goes from caster to familiar, not the other way around, so the raven using a wand of true strike on himself will not affect the PC.

[Telok]

Even assuming a raven can cast spells through UMD, a raven does not, himself, have the share spells ability. Share spells goes from caster to familiar, not the other way around, so the raven using a wand of true strike on himself will not affect the PC.

I think that you are right about that. I have limited access at the moment and cannot check my memory or assumptions. You still need to decide about Manyshot and other feats. Also, non-humanoid critters. You will want to make explicit what happens on called shots to a dragon's wings, fish fins, shells or carapaces, antenna (rust monsters use them), mouths, and wierdness like the Gut Snake spell.