Thoughts on called shots.

[frogglesmash]

What're your thoughts on called shots, and how do you prefer to implement them, if at all?

[Crake]

I've been wanting to implement a called shot system in my game while utilizing the wounds/vitality system. Basically, any time you would be able to deal wound damage instead of making the target fatigued, you'd be able to apply a different condition based on where you were aiming.

[DarkSoul]

Not at all, for the same reason I don't use any kind of fumble rule:

Over the course of their adventuring careers, any given PC rolls more d20's and is subjected to more attacks than any 10 NPCs in the same campaign. Anything that has negative effects on a given die roll is going to affect PCs far more often than it will NPCs.

If you think your players will be alright with getting limbs chopped off and eyes shot out, then by all means use them. Personally, I think debilitating wounds like that should be used to describe critical hits. If you do use called shots, I'm willing to bet your game will eventually devolve into everyone saying "I aim for the head".

[Crake]

Not at all, for the same reason I don't use any kind of fumble rule:

Over the course of their adventuring careers, any given PC rolls more d20's and is subjected to more attacks than any 10 NPCs in the same campaign. Anything that has negative effects on a given die roll is going to affect PCs far more often than it will NPCs.

If you think your players will be alright with getting limbs chopped off and eyes shot out, then by all means use them. Personally, I think debilitating wounds like that should be used to describe critical hits. If you do use called shots, I'm willing to bet your game will eventually devolve into everyone saying "I aim for the head".

Called shots don't need to mean permanent, debilitating wounds. I believe the damage to a specific area sidebar in the DMG suggests that when a character is returned to full hp the penalty is removed, and they're generally small penalties, -2 to various rolls depending on where you were hit.

If you're part of a group where you carry around wands of lesser vigor, penalties aren't really gonna last beyond the immediate encounter in any case.

[Psyren]

Pathfinder has pretty detailed rules (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/called-shots/) for using them, and the vast majority are temporary. If you're still worried about monsters rolling natural 20s though, simply limit them to "heroic characters" - i.e. the PCs, and important villains. (You can combine them with Hero Points to reinforce this - i.e. to attempt one you must spend a hero point, or anyone can attempt one but without spending the point you have to roll twice take worst when you do.)

[Bronk]

They had called shots in older versions of DnD, and yeah, it often devolved into 'aim for the head', then 'aim for the jugular' or 'aim for the eye'. Helmets were more prevalent.

[frogglesmash]

Not at all, for the same reason I don't use any kind of fumble rule:

Over the course of their adventuring careers, any given PC rolls more d20's and is subjected to more attacks than any 10 NPCs in the same campaign. Anything that has negative effects on a given die roll is going to affect PCs far more often than it will NPCs.

If you think your players will be alright with getting limbs chopped off and eyes shot out, then by all means use them. Personally, I think debilitating wounds like that should be used to describe critical hits. If you do use called shots, I'm willing to bet your game will eventually devolve into everyone saying "I aim for the head".

I don't think this is an comparison for a number of reason.

1. Crit fumbles are completely random and compulsory, whereas players can alway choose to roll their attacks normally thus avoiding any downsides/upsides a called shot might entail.
2. Crit fumbles cannot be mitigated, they always occur 5% of the time whether you like it or not, characters can avoid being on the receiving end of a called through all the same methods one would employ to evade regular attacks.
3. Crit fumbles are entirely detrimental to the player, whereas called shots shots are generally involve some give and take i.e. you decrease your hit chance, but get to apply status effects.

Furthermore, you assumption that called shots must result in the complete destruction/removal of the targeted are is inaccurate, most of the called shot systems prefer to either inflict temporary status effects, or enhance the damage dealt. I also don't think having players consistently go for headshots is a problem or a likely occurrence, because a) I implemented the system, it'd be dumb if I didn't want the players to use it, and b) if the system is built properly, it should act as a series of useful options, and not a automatic "I win" button.

[Crake]

It's worth noting that power attack and deadly aim in pathfinder are already kinda like called shots, in that you take a penalty to hit, and gain a bonus to damage. Deadly aim is quite literally fluffed as "aiming for the head", yet nobody has any problem with including that.

Personally, I think giving martials options like that without forcing them to waste feats on it is a good thing, not a bad thing.

[Darth Ultron]

I don't like them and don't use them.

The couple of times I've done it, they have just ruined the game.

D&D just is not made for a called shot system, as basically such a system is just ignoring the rules. Hit points are made to be vague, non harmful(a character can still act just fine even if wounded to one hit point) and power/level based.

To have a character just ignore all that and be like ''I stab in the soft stop and try and do the instant kill'' just ruins the game.

And..of course..some players love such systems....until the DM has the ''world'' use them. And then oh, you will watch the player whine and cry when a 1 hd goblin makes a called shot to kill their super special 10th level drown ninja/wizard/assassin with one blow.

[Hellpyre]

I say let your players fluff called shots, but stay away from mechanical implementation. The PCs still get to feel badass, but it doesn't devolve into always needing to call a shot for max benefit. Just roll the description into your damage narration.

[skunk3]

I say allow called shots just for fluff but no change to anything else. I like to hit people in the balls with Eldritch Blasts, but it doesn't actually confer any penalties or extra damage. It's just funny.

[Yahzi]

What're your thoughts on called shots, and how do you prefer to implement them, if at all?

From Heroes of Prime (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/222339/Heroes-of-Prime):

Crippling strikes
During combat creatures may aim their attacks at a specific location in attempt to force a crippling strike. They incur the listed to-hit penalty. If the strike lands, it does normal damage (with a normal chance to do critical damage) and the target must make a Fort DC 10 saving throw (with a -1 for each point of damage inflicted) or suffer the effects listed under Permanent Injury. These effects are removed as soon as the damage is healed, unless the attack also reduced the target to below 0 total HPs, in which case the damage is permanent.
Rogues can take a feat (Crippling Strike Focus) which has two effects: it adds a +4 to hit when attempting a crippling strike, and it removes the chance to make a saving throw. Each location requires a different feat.

Location To-hit
Eyes -20
Eye -12
Ears -16
Ear -8
Mouth -12
Face -8
Head -8
Arm -8
Hand -12
Leg -4
Foot -12
Body -4

Permanent Injury
When a character takes damage that reduces them below 0 hit points they may have suffered a permanent injury. Roll on the following table to determine the location and effects of the injury. These effects last until the character is restored to full hit points. At that point the character makes a DC 10 Fort save. If this save fails, the effects are permanent until cured by a Restoration, Regeneration, or Heal spell. The saving throw is modified by the amount of damage below 0 the character dropped before stabilizing (note that at negative CON the character dies so this imposes an upper limit on the difficulty of the check) and gains a +2 if under the care of a trained healer who makes a Healing skill DC 15 check. Being healed by magic (Cure Minor Wounds) gains another +2.

D20 Location Effect
1 Eyes Character is blind
2 Eye -4 to Ranged attacks
3 Ears Character is deaf
4 Ear -4 to Spot (Listen) checks
5 Mouth Character is mute
6 Face -1D4 CHR
7 Head -1D4 INT
8 Arm -1D4 DEX
9 Hand Cannot use 2-handed items
10 Leg -1D4 STR
11 Foot movement is halved
12 Body -1D4 CON
13+ Any Permanently lose 1 HP
This table applies to humanoids; other creatures may have different body parts or effects.

[martixy]

Pathfinder has pretty detailed rules (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/called-shots/) for using them, and the vast majority are temporary. If you're still worried about monsters rolling natural 20s though, simply limit them to "heroic characters" - i.e. the PCs, and important villains. (You can combine them with Hero Points to reinforce this - i.e. to attempt one you must spend a hero point, or anyone can attempt one but without spending the point you have to roll twice take worst when you do.)

I love them and I love those.

In fact I extended the system quite a bit for my game. Like being able to impose penalties to casters, options to increase the severity of called shots, a new weapon property that allows called shots on magical protections, vorpal now interacts with the system and a bunch of other stuff. You can make focused builds that are quite an effective way for martials to control creatures.

I've had it used by monsters and on monsters. A couple sessions ago I sicced an advanced That Damn Crab on my party and one of the players repeatedly kept bonking it on the head to get its attention. Later they fought a half-giant wielding a giant hammer I affectionately named "the kneecapper". Managed to critical shot a PC in the wing, though he made the save and kept flying(technically wings are considered arms, but in this case it made more sense to count them as a leg).

It does add some bookkeeping obviously - tracking all the effects, but it gives a lot of neat options for martials and it's just cool and dramatic.

P.S. I play 3.5 and it's perfectly compatible with it(though I do liberally borrow from PF - such as this system).

[Anymage]

Called shots on the body range from risky to absolute nope. D&D doesn't have much in the way of mutilation effects outside of some pointedly tacked on stuff and the high level Regeneration spell to counter them, so making mutilation common and/or easy will lead to some seriously messed up PCs. (Unless you never use the system against them, in which case why have it in the first place?) I'd be okay with a called shot to inflict a narrative wound that inflicts a minor penalty (slash above their eyes to partially blind them and give them -2 to hit, bruise their leg to give them a -5' movement), but nothing more severe, nothing that increases damage, and nothing lasting.

Called shots on inanimate targets (including worn/wielded objects) are more okay, but those are already covered under the sunder rules.

[Mordaedil]

I think Shadowrun handles called shots better, but that is a system with firearms as the main type of combat engagement.

I think some of it could be translated to D&D, but it'd should much harder to pull off than it is in Shadowrun.

[Andezzar]

They had called shots in older versions of DnD, and yeah, it often devolved into 'aim for the head', then 'aim for the jugular' or 'aim for the eye'. Helmets were more prevalent.Well to simulate hit locations with any degree of verisimilitude, you would have to totally rewrite the armor rules. How would for instance a breastplate protect against hits to the femur? What about all those armors without helmets, gauntlets etc. You would also have to decide what the maximum effect of a hit to a certain location would be. While a crushed hand would certainly be detrimental in a fight, it would not be fatal and additional hits to that location should not further incapacitate the victim.

All in all to much hassle for too little gain.


I say let your players fluff called shots, but stay away from mechanical implementation. The PCs still get to feel badass, but it doesn't devolve into always needing to call a shot for max benefit. Just roll the description into your damage narration.Seconded. I do that myself as a DM and encourage my players to do the same.

[Khedrac]

If a called shot can give a significant penalty to the target then there is one additional houserule that needs to be added - remove truestrike as a spell.

Unless called shots take more than 1 round to deliver (like the assassain's death attack) then truestrike becomes far too powerful.

[Andezzar]

I disagree. even now you use truestrike when you stack on attack penalties like for power attack. I see no difference between mitigating the panalty from power attack or some other penalty with true strike.

Don't forget True Strike is a standard action spell, so you can only use it every other round, and it only modifies one attack.

[Psyren]

If a called shot can give a significant penalty to the target then there is one additional houserule that needs to be added - remove truestrike as a spell.

Unless called shots take more than 1 round to deliver (like the assassain's death attack) then truestrike becomes far too powerful.

The PF rules take care of that - true strike and similar abilities transform your called shot attempt into a normal attack.

[ExLibrisMortis]

I don't like called shots that rely on specific anatomy. Mainly because that anatomy may not always be present.

If you frame "called shot" as a variant of Power Attack that trades to-hit for crit range (2:1 ratio of attack:crit, or 1:1 ratio for a finessable weapon?), I'm all for it.

[martixy]

If a called shot can give a significant penalty to the target then there is one additional houserule that needs to be added - remove truestrike as a spell.

Unless called shots take more than 1 round to deliver (like the assassain's death attack) then truestrike becomes far too powerful.

There are usually far better uses of your actions than casting true strike. While the PF variant does indeed call out that interaction, I think allowing true strike to work on called shots is a good buff for a spell that otherwise sees very little use.

Or maybe that depends on group, I don't know.

[Malimar]

One problem with called shots is that if they are present, inevitably a player will declare "CALLED SHOT TO THE NUTS". (Depending on your group, this may not be a particularly problematic problem.)

Another thought: I don't know why some above commenters are assuming a called shot system must entail permanent maimery. The two things are entirely disconnected. Why would aiming for a specific spot magically make your attack unhealable? That's just a strange thing to assume. (I actually endorse the idea of a system for permanent maimery, if only to give the regenerate spell a purpose, but I haven't seen a good one, and a good one would probably not connected to a called shot system.)

Real main thought: my first inclination is to allow it, but with no mechanical effect. You declare a called shot to the nuts at no penalty, and if you hit, you hit him in the nuts for regular damage. This has no effect beyond injuring him normally.

[martixy]

One problem with called shots is that if they are present, inevitably a player will declare "CALLED SHOT TO THE NUTS". (Depending on your group, this may not be a particularly problematic problem.)

Another thought: I don't know why some above commenters are assuming a called shot system must entail permanent maimery. The two things are entirely disconnected. Why would aiming for a specific spot magically make your attack unhealable? That's just a strange thing to assume. (I actually endorse the idea of a system for permanent maimery, if only to give the regenerate spell a purpose, but I haven't seen a good one, and a good one would probably not connected to a called shot system.)

Real main thought: my first inclination is to allow it, but with no mechanical effect. You declare a called shot to the nuts at no penalty, and if you hit, you hit him in the nuts for regular damage. This has no effect beyond injuring him normally.

Both points gracefully handled by the PF system above.
And I quote:

The vitals correspond to the abdomen on a humanoid: critical organs not well-protected by bone. Attacks on the vitals can also include dastardly “low blows.” [Emphasis mine]

[Telok]

3.5 does also have called shots in the form of those feats where you trade sneak attack or skirmish dice for extra benefits. Unfortunately they're too weak for the cost in most games.

[frogglesmash]

I'm personally not a big fan of just having called shots just be re-fluffed regular attacks. Don't get me wrong, I thing fluffing normal attacks to be targeted at specific body parts is fine, but calling them called shots seems mildly dishonest to me.

[DarkSoul]

I don't think this is an comparison for a number of reason.

1. Crit fumbles are completely random and compulsory, whereas players can alway choose to roll their attacks normally thus avoiding any downsides/upsides a called shot might entail.
2. Crit fumbles cannot be mitigated, they always occur 5% of the time whether you like it or not, characters can avoid being on the receiving end of a called through all the same methods one would employ to evade regular attacks.
3. Crit fumbles are entirely detrimental to the player, whereas called shots shots are generally involve some give and take i.e. you decrease your hit chance, but get to apply status effects.

Furthermore, you assumption that called shots must result in the complete destruction/removal of the targeted are is inaccurate, most of the called shot systems prefer to either inflict temporary status effects, or enhance the damage dealt. I also don't think having players consistently go for headshots is a problem or a likely occurrence, because a) I implemented the system, it'd be dumb if I didn't want the players to use it, and b) if the system is built properly, it should act as a series of useful options, and not a automatic "I win" button.

1: So are called shots that rely on an attack roll penalty to inflict some penalty to the target, at least until high (character or optimization) levels when the actual die roll doesn't matter quite so much.
2: Neither can called shots. Characters can avoid being hit by a called shot through all the same methods as they would to evade regular attacks? So you mean AC, miss chance, etc.? Once the potency of the attacker exceeds the potency of the defender by a great enough margin, called shots WILL work all the time.
3: So are called shots, if the enemy chooses to use them. A decrease in hit chance would have to be significant enough to make the die roll matter again at high levels in order to inflict status effects that bypass resistances, and if resistances apply there will be a way to become immune to them.

You should probably outline what you're considering for a called shot system and see what people think of that. The fact remains that your PCs are going to be on the receiving end of this system a lot, so you might also want to ask the players what they think. You can implement all you want, but if your players don't like the system, they're not going to use it and if it's forced on them they'll likely stop playing. Furthermore, what you might see as just a series of useful options can likely be turned into an auto-win whether you want it to or not. Especially in this forum.

[Bronk]

Well to simulate hit locations with any degree of verisimilitude, you would have to totally rewrite the armor rules. How would for instance a breastplate protect against hits to the femur? What about all those armors without helmets, gauntlets etc. You would also have to decide what the maximum effect of a hit to a certain location would be. While a crushed hand would certainly be detrimental in a fight, it would not be fatal and additional hits to that location should not further incapacitate the victim.

All in all to much hassle for too little gain.


Well, that was the thing with called shots... you only used the called shot rules when you called a shot, otherwise armor worked normally.

If you didn't want your hands hit, or your head hit, and your armor didn't come with gauntlets or helmets, you had to get them separately.



Another thought: I don't know why some above commenters are assuming a called shot system must entail permanent maimery. The two things are entirely disconnected. Why would aiming for a specific spot magically make your attack unhealable? That's just a strange thing to assume. (I actually endorse the idea of a system for permanent maimery, if only to give the regenerate spell a purpose, but I haven't seen a good one, and a good one would probably not connected to a called shot system.)


That was the whole point of called shots. Normally, the hit point system works so that you if you're hurt, you just end up with generic damage. But, if you're specifically targeting something, and doing damage to it, that body part might get destroyed (for example, a spear to the eye, or an axe to a hand). Since regular cure and heal spells don't fix missing or destroyed body parts, you're stuck looking for a regeneration spell.

[heavyfuel]

I think allowing true strike to work on called shots is a good buff for a spell that otherwise sees very little use.

Not going to argue for or against called shots, but True Strike is an unbelievably amazing spell in 3.5. You can use it to basically have a 100% chance at a Disarm or Sunder attempt. It's also relatively easy to quicken at higher levels

[Jay R]

They work well in systems designed for them, and poorly in systems not designed for them.

Therefore I routinely use them in Flashing Blades, but never in D&D.

[ericgrau]

The general issue is that they are usually either strictly superior or strictly inferior to regular attacks. Either of which is broken. And if it's about making the best attack possible, players are doing that all the time anyway.

IMO only allow called shots in special circumstances where you must hit a part of someone for some reason. Give it a penalty with no benefit to damage. Even if it's a head shot, you merely scratch his face on low damage or etc. The benefit is that you only hit the part you want and not other parts for whatever reason. Maybe you want to harshly subdue him vader style and cut off his hand. Maybe there's some special ability about the monster that makes you want to aim for a specific part.

Most of this is already covered by the sunder rules. The iffy part is how much hp the body part has. For most creature's I'd just use the creature's full hp, as long as the part is near his main body. This prevents cheese. If it's away from his main body and you think it won't be too OP, give it half HP or something like that. That seems reasonable for a hand or foot, but not anything else on a humanoid. Not even an arm or leg IMO. You'd usually die from that anyway, and hacking off a limb is often harder than killing someone. Even for a called shot to the arm I'd usually say you broke his arm, not severed it.

[Pleh]

Called shots are like any other additional detail added to the game: the players have to be up for it, but not in the intent to simply exploit for tactical arms race.

My general rule for called shots is that it's a full round to make 1 attack (you really have to line it up) and the enemy AC gets a size bonus according to the body part being targeted. An arm is tiny, a hand is diminuitive, and an eye is fine. The point about armor is a good one. I'd probably lay some multiplier on armor bonus against called shots (maybe x1.5 or x2) and especially for called shots like the head or neck that are obvious targets.

So injuring an arm to weaken attacks with that arm are easy enough, but actually gouging an eye is quite a feat.

For internal organs, I'd apply regular rules: they have soft cover and total concealment on top of armor multipliers and size bonus.

Touch attacks and spells (except weaponlike spells, such as rays) are never called shots.

[Bronk]

The general issue is that they are usually either strictly superior or strictly inferior to regular attacks. Either of which is broken.

I'd guess that's probably the reason they mostly got rid of called shots...


And if it's about making the best attack possible, players are doing that all the time anyway.

Well, they'd be trying to, and I think that's pretty well covered by critical hits. Called shots were usually the better choice when you didn't think you were going to hit anyway... if you could only hit on a natural twenty, why not have it really count? The difference between a regular critical hit, or a critical hit right to the head, with the same chance to hit? If that's an option, a PC would be crazy not to try for it.



IMO only allow called shots in special circumstances where you must hit a part of someone for some reason. Give it a penalty with no benefit to damage. Even if it's a head shot, you merely scratch his face on low damage or etc. The benefit is that you only hit the part you want and not other parts for whatever reason. Maybe you want to harshly subdue him vader style and cut off his hand.

The scratch on his face sounds more like a pure role playing moment (or part of the Mosquito's Bite feat?), but cutting off the hand sounds like a classic called shot to me.


Maybe there's some special ability about the monster that makes you want to aim for a specific part.

Most of this is already covered by the sunder rules. The iffy part is how much hp the body part has. For most creature's I'd just use the creature's full hp, as long as the part is near his main body. This prevents cheese. If it's away from his main body and you think it won't be too OP, give it half HP or something like that. That seems reasonable for a hand or foot, but not anything else on a humanoid. Not even an arm or leg IMO. You'd usually die from that anyway, and hacking off a limb is often harder than killing someone. Even for a called shot to the arm I'd usually say you broke his arm, not severed it.

The only similar thing I'm aware of (aside from vorpal abilities) is the sunder attempt to attack a hydra's neck, and that does result in a cut off head.

I think it's better, and definitely simpler, without called shots at all, despite the weirdness of having a core regeneration spell with so few core uses for it (and so few 3.5 uses overall).

[ericgrau]

I think it's better, and definitely simpler, without called shots at all, despite the weirdness of having a core regeneration spell with so few core uses for it (and so few 3.5 uses overall).
That's what I was pushing for 98% of the time. But it's nice to allow sunder as a called shot for the 2% of the time that it really matters and isn't over-complicating things. Subduing, hydras, etc. Not to try to kill faster.

[ExLibrisMortis]

The only similar thing I'm aware of (aside from vorpal abilities) is the sunder attempt to attack a hydra's neck, and that does result in a cut off head.
There are a limited number of monsters with tentacles that can be severed (kraken, for example, and grell), and anything with Swallow Whole has a gizzard/stomach that can be targeted separately (while swallowed, anyway). But yeah, it's very rare. Could stand to have some extension--just give each monster one or two special targetables. You might make Sunder rules more useful, and its monster-specific character means that you can take into account unusual anatomy.

[Eladrinblade]

What're your thoughts on called shots, and how do you prefer to implement them, if at all?

On several occasions, I've had players ask if they could shoot somebody in the leg to slow them down. Eventually I just made a rule that with a -4 penalty to the attack, you could hit your targets leg and they have to make a fort save equal to 10+half the damage dealt or be treated as if under a heavy load.

I wouldn't go any farther than that, however.

[martixy]

Many people here have expressed their own opinions.

I'm wondering what those same people think of the PF system(of which Psyren posted a link). Like what are its shortcomings in your eyes, what are you looking for in such a system, things you think it does well and things it does poorly...

I mean everyone is listing some generic opinions and you can't really derive much context from any of them. Give some specifics.

[DarkSoul]

Many people here have expressed their own opinions.

I'm wondering what those same people think of the PF system(of which Psyren posted a link). Like what are its shortcomings in your eyes, what are you looking for in such a system, things you think it does well and things it does poorly...

I mean everyone is listing some generic opinions and you can't really derive much context from any of them. Give some specifics.Without really digging into it I'm pretty sure you can build a martial (melee or ranged) that can instant-kill pretty regularly with called shots to the heart. Note that the definition of debilitating blow doesn't specify half of the target's current or maximum hit points as a qualifier, so after a few rounds the 50-point threshold becomes half their hit points and then the fight is just over.

[Telok]

I'm reading it as whichever is higher of 50 or half. Plus that -10/-20 on the strong effects with no magic assistance is kinda harsh. Double or more the effect of concealment and cover, resistance or immunity to crits, one attack a round and no charging, it's not looking easy.
It's probably easier to build a standard ubercharger than a called shot killer.