There are numerous different mechanics and effects for the "Called Shot" depending on which reference or sourceguide you use. I imagine this is also true of the edition you use, too.
My next tricks...uh...questions (you knew it was coming!) include the following:
1) What penalties do you use 'to hit'?
I believe it is the standard -4, with a potential added -4 (grand total of the hefty -8) for a head/neck/throat shot.
2) What outcome do you use if the 'called shot' is met?
Do you double damage?
Do you access the crit hit table?
Both?
I have long been dabbling (does this shock you?) with all sorts of variations, hoping for a balance between realism (jamesdglick, this is up your alley!) and mechanics.
I first started by merely doubling damage before I got a hold of The Complete Book of Fighters. That reference further broke down classifications based on location of the struck body, as well as introducing the concept of 'struck' vs. 'useless' effects. In my mind, a 'useless' critical area (head, torso, abdomen) meant 'death.'
Then came out Options: Combat and Tactics, one of my favorite books. It augmented the outcomes/effects started by the aforementioned sourceguide based on severity and location. But it never said anything (to my knowledge) about 'called shots' and if you use the crit tables, double damage, or anything of that nature.
So why make a called shot, I ask?
If I am a character, and I want to lame an enemy, take out a leg or arm. Maybe the bloodloss will kill your foe, too.
If I want to KILL my foe outright, go for a vital area: abdomen, torso, back, or head (good luck unless you have a good THAC0). But what does that 'called shot' get you? Besides your DM saying, "Well, you hit his neck, roll your damage."
Pointless, to me, as a player, unless the damage is doubled (or you use the 'struck' or 'useless' outcomes), you get to roll on the crit hit table, or both.
What do you use in your campaigns? Also, kindly offer your explanation. I am always interested.
Back in my 1 E playing days. I used helms ac as helping adsorb some of the damage inflicted by a called shot. Yes I used a -8 or -10 rule I believe. Some hit could cause temporary or permanent loss of sight or hearing, often stunning the opponent for 1d4 rounds. In rare cases it could cause instant death helm no helm you would have to roll double zero or lose your head though dex bonus could help so if you had no dex bonus no helm you were probably gonna lose your head. If your helm and or dex bonus ac was 3 you would keep your head if you rolled 71-00 normal damage dealt. It you rolled 41-70 then you would be temporarily blinded or deaf for a number of rounds equal to the damage dealt if a weapon did 1d8 points of damage an an 8 was rolled you would roll again and combine the total as damage dealt. If the roll was 11-40 you could be permanently blinded or deaf and suffer bleeding damage until healed bleeding damage was 1 point a round for small weapons, 2 for medium and 3 for large weapons. Note bludgeoning weapons stunned instead of causing bleeding damage for 1d4 plus damage dealt. if a 1-1o was rolled you lost your head or in the case of piercing weapons a hole was puntured through your neck and if bludgeoning your head was bashed in or your neck was broken.
Frankly, that's something that didn't make the conversion to 3rd Edition, and there were a lot of people that didn't really like that.
I used a mechanic that the 3e system provided, and still allowed characters to make them, after a fashion.
Size modifiers. For me it was as simple as that. there was essentially a bonus to the creatures AC based on the size of the body part that one was targetting.
Small +1; 2 ft. to 4 ft, or 8 to 60 lb.
Tiny +2; 1 ft. to 2 ft, or 1 to 8 lb.
Diminutive +4; 6 in. to 1 ft, or 1/8 lb. to 1 lb
Fine +8; 6 in. and less, or 1/8 lb. or less
Essentially, a "Headshot" or other called shot was typically at a portion of the body that was smaller than a pie plate, so it was a +4 to the AC of the target (basically the same as a penalty to the attack roll). If they were going for something specific like a throat or palm, it was diminutive, and penalty of 8!!
Isn't it interesting that those numbers happen to be the same as the 2nd edition penalties?
As far as effect, I used a tool that I learned while I was a Combat Medic in the U.S. Army: the Rule of Nines. It's used in emergency medicine and trauma for estimating surface area of the body. Essentially, I would look at the intended target, and use the Rule of Nines to decide how much of their total hit points in damage the attack had to do in order to get a "cool" effect. So, if they were trying to shoot someone in the head, they had to do 9% of their targets HP in damage, and then the target would be dazed, blinded, stunned, or whatever effect the PC was shooting for.
I always adjudicated effects on a case-by-case basis, I never used Crit Charts, or anything like that. I might use them for inspiration as to the gruesome effect, but, I never rolled on them for Crits. That's too much an opportunity for great storytelling to let a die and chart do it for me. :)
I have tried many different methods, including critical hit charts (the one in the Best of the Dragon IV was my favorite), but in 3.5e/Pathfinder, I simply go with the -4 for a called shot, -8 for a called shot to the head. I use the normal critical hit modifiers for the weapon used if the hit is successful, then I use a very limited chart for the effect.
Head = (d3) Blindness, deafness, or stunned for d4 round;
Arm = Useless/drop anything held for d4 rounds;
Leg = Target moves at half speed, can't run or charge for 1d4 rounds;
Torso = Critical hit damage is increased by x1;
Wings = Target can't fly and falls from the sky for d4 rounds.
These are similar to the effects listed for the Pathfinder Gunslinger class, but not identical. In addition, a successful hit automatically threatens critical damage, but the additional effects listed above may be mitigated by a successful DC 15 (+ damage done) Fortitude or Reflex save (target's choice). The DC, therefore, is generally very high, but the target gets to use its best save to try to avoid the extra effects.
Called shots don't = critical hits, just hits to less or unprotected areas. If the hit is also a critical (whatever system you are using) don't roll for location- the critical hit hits the area targeted (apply the appropriate effect). Called shots are usually targeted at unprotected areas that are therefore just easier to hit, but also because certain weapons don't work on armored areas at all, like a sap or garrote. It goes without saying that most called shots will be directed towards the target's head/neck. Called shots can also be directed at a target's hand so as to perhaps critical hit and disable the foe without killing them. A bit harsher than disarming them, but it works if you can do it and would rather that the enemy is rendered combat ineffective without being dead/unconscious so that you can take them captive and question them.
Then there are the old "I'm gonna shoot the apple off his head." and "I'm gonna shot the potion/scroll/etc. out of the enemy's hand before he can use it." called shots. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
Called shots work very poorly with hit points and with D&D in general. It's hard to explain but let's say that it's kind of boring when you boost your attack bonus and only perform called shots to eyes... constantly!
However I do allow called shots but they only have some special effect if you roll a natural 20. I give something nice and extra but no insta-death.
You also need a full-round action to perform a called shot which automatically rules out high-level called shots ad infinitum against weaker opponents.
Last but not least, you receive penalty to your attack roll:
-4 for limbs and torso.
-8 for head.
-12 for eyes and groin.
I have been satisfied with this house-rule because the players have the option to have called shots but it's so difficult that it's generally not worth. Not all the time, at least.
Last edited by Sutemi on Thu Jul 26, 2012 6:59 am; edited 1 time in total
D&D is a poor system to use something like called shots in because it is so abstracted and unrealistic already, and then you're trying to hammer something very precise and realistic into it. If you were using a system like 1st edition Runequest, Cyberpunk 2020 or (God help you) The Morrow Project it could work pretty well.
Given that, if someone really wants to gamble on a called shot I'd probably go with something like Sutemi worked out, although I'd probably scale back the to hit penalty a little bit to -2 for limbs, -4 for head, -8 for eyes, groin. I wouldn't insist on a natural 20, but probably go with something more like the attacker having to roll the max base damage for the weapon for the special effect to occur. And since I run 4e I'd probably also allow adjacent enemies to take an opportunity attack against you, because I'm a mean bastard .
...If I am a character, and I want to lame an enemy, take out a leg or arm. Maybe the bloodloss will kill your foe, too.
If I want to KILL my foe outright, go for a vital area: abdomen, torso, back, or head (good luck unless you have a good THAC0). But what does that 'called shot' get you? Besides your DM saying, "Well, you hit his neck, roll your damage."
Pointless, to me, as a player, unless the damage is doubled (or you use the 'struck' or 'useless' outcomes), you get to roll on the crit hit table, or both...
-The Big Meanie ( ) answered for me:
Cebrion wrote:
Called shots don't = critical hits, just hits to less or unprotected areas. If the hit is also a critical (whatever system you are using) don't roll for location- the critical hit hits the area targeted (apply the appropriate effect)...
...besides the garrotes and saps Cebrion mentions, there are stakes through the vampire's heart (never seen it, but I'm waiting) and tossing poison into a open mouth (which I have seen- powder of sneezing and choking into a bear's mouth at the Hill Giant's Steading) which would require called shots. The main use (as Cebrion states) is an opponent using partial armor (also a C&T feature!), particularly if much of the target has cover. In that case, a -8 to hit penalty at the head isn't so bad when the alternative would be a penalty of anything between -2 to -10 to hit if aiming at the entire body.
Lanthorn wrote:
...Then came out Options: Combat and Tactics, one of my favorite books. It augmented the outcomes/effects started by the aforementioned sourceguide based on severity and location. But it never said anything (to my knowledge) about 'called shots' ...
-I'll have to go home to check this exactly, but the notes I keep on the options, variants and outright changes I use for D&D 3.5 states:
"Add 'CALLED SHOT' to options... [Variant based on AD&D 2nd Edition C&T, pp. 42-43]"
...so check pages 42 and 43 in C&T for a reference to called shots.
Icarus wrote:
...Essentially, a "Headshot" or other called shot was typically at a portion of the body that was smaller than a pie plate, so it was a +4 to the AC of the target (basically the same as a penalty to the attack roll). If they were going for something specific like a throat or palm, it was diminutive, and penalty of 8!! ...Isn't it interesting that those numbers happen to be the same as the 2nd edition penalties?
-Precisely what I use.
There was a comment in an old (60s?) issue of Dragon where someone wrote "This is either a case of 'Great minds run in the same direction' or 'Idiots think alike.'"
I'll leave it to others to decide.
Icarus wrote:
...I always adjudicated effects on a case-by-case basis, I never used Crit Charts, or anything like that. I might use them for inspiration as to the gruesome effect, but, I never rolled on them for Crits. That's too much an opportunity for great storytelling to let a die and chart do it for me...
-We have to part company. I like to be "find out" what happend. Whether someone drops like a marrionettte with its strings cut, or whether they stagger a bit or whatever is largely dependent on whether they we knocked down to "0", went into negative hit points or straight to -10.
Icarus wrote:
...Of course, I also used Weapon Speeds in 3rd Edition, and I caught no end of grief for *that*!!
-Yeah, I largely gave it up for D&D 3.5, unless the intiative score is a tie.
OK, so you get the called shot to the less protected area. What does this translate into? I get what many of you are saying, that 'called shots' and hit points don't translate together very well. As I noted earlier, The Complete Book of Fighters tried to tie those together with the "numbed" and "useless" categories. Damage to those areas matching or exceeding 25% of the hp total (or current total, depending on your decision) equated to a "numbed" effect. Damage matching or exceeding 50% resulted in the "useless" effect, which, for a vital area (head, chest, etc) could be construed as death. This is similar, I believe, to Icarus' Rule of Nines perspective.
I also understand that a "called shot" doesn't necessarily equate to a 'crit hit,' though it is possible. But, to me, if a character (or bad guy, monster, whatever) is willing to accrue the penalty for a 'called shot' to a specific area, there's gotta be a pay-off, whether that translates to a potentially lethal result (if striking a vital area) or incapacitating the enemy's struck area.
I know there's no easy answer here, but wanting to solidify, in my mind, the 'balanced' effect, whatever that may be...
As I stated much earlier, even I am struggling with this notion, and that is the reason why I am pestering all of you about it.
... But, to me, if a character (or bad guy, monster, whatever) is willing to accrue the penalty for a 'called shot' to a specific area, there's gotta be a pay-off...
-First, I use the C&T table to determine what part would be hit.Now, if the target is behind 90% cover with only the head appearing, that could (in AD&D 2, IIRC) either be +10 to hit (and almost certain to hit the head anyway when you use the table) using the normal way, or -8 (or +8) using a called shot. The called shot is definitely a better deal.
If the target is wearing bandedmail armor (AC 4 = +6), is behind 50% cover (=4 AC), but isn't wearing his helmet (AC10), then taking the called shot (-8) is still a better deal.
And so on.
And again, there's teh issue that teh critical hits against the head, abs and torso tend to be nastier than those against the arms or legs.
I also understand that a "called shot" doesn't necessarily equate to a 'crit hit,' though it is possible. But, to me, if a character (or bad guy, monster, whatever) is willing to accrue the penalty for a 'called shot' to a specific area, there's gotta be a pay-off, whether that translates to a potentially lethal result (if striking a vital area) or incapacitating the enemy's struck area.
An Anti-Paladin wearing +5 Full Plate of Vaderness, and with a Dex of 16, only has time to grab up his +5 Shield of Blocking Things and draw his +5 Unholy Avenger of Making Paladins Cry as the PCs burst into his lair. Woops! He didn't have time to also don his Grimacing Demon-faced Warhelm of Evil Awesomeness. So, do the PCs target his general AC of -12, or do they target his AC 8 head with called shots at -4 to hit? Hmmm. Attack vs AC -12, or vs. AC 4. What ever will they choose to do? If only called shots had some sort of payoff...
Also, check out the critical hit table in C&T, and notice how much more effective critical hits are when they hit certain areas of the body. Kind of a built-in pay-off right there. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
Lanthorn, I think of it this way -- AC is an abstraction of all the things that make it harder to hit somebody and do damage to them. Sometimes you hit them and it doesn't get through their armor, sometimes you just don't hit them at all. I don't usually worry about the details that much except by way of using some descriptive narration as combat occurs. "You got your shield up just in time, blocking the orc chieftain's warhammer," etc... But that varies based on how close someone comes to hitting an enemy. That said, when trying to hit a smaller target on a person, even if it is unarmored, I would feel justified in just applying a penalty to hit based on the target's normal AC, which could be a combination of different factors such as reflex, armor, magic, etc... This is because you are trying to hit a smaller part of your normal target. Yeah, it would make more sense to only make this harder if the target's AC comes mainly from their DEX or magic, and it would be easier to hit someone in the head if most of their AC comes from armor and their head happens to be unarmored, but that seems to be too much of a pain in the butt to me.
Once that occurs the point to me would be how the target is affected by hitting that location with a called shot. If hit in the head the target is stunned. If hit in the weapon hand they drop the weapon, etc...
I am gathering from the "collective wisdom" that none of you, with the posible exception of Icarus (using his Rule of Nines, right?), allows a succesful 'called shot' to do extra damage, or to potentially incapacitate or destroy the struck area based on damage. Or am I wrong on this issue?
Ceb, I understand your point why sometimes it is better to make a 'called shot' to strike a less armored area, typically when battling heavily armored foes. Does that translate in your campaigns to heavily armored creatures, like, say, a dragon, where they only 'weak points' may be the gaping mouth, nostrils, or eyes? Just wondering.
Before I offer some of my own ideas, want to make sure I am correct on the above points.
I am gathering from the "collective wisdom" that none of you, with the posible exception of Icarus (using his Rule of Nines, right?), allows a succesful 'called shot' to do extra damage, or to potentially incapacitate or destroy the struck area based on damage. Or am I wrong on this issue?
Well, to be perfectly fair, I use the Rule of Nines to acertain how much damage an attacking PC has to do to a target before I will give them a "special effect" or condition like incapacitation, blinding, stunning, etc. I don't actually give extra (or critical) damage, or destroy appendages, for a called shot. And, I have even used a similar system to denote that the "special effect" replaced the damage, rather than supplement it.
Oh, also, (though this was from farther upthread), the 1% thing is a super common joke. I used to know (mostly female) medics that would refer to a man getting his <ahem> hurt as, "getting his 1% knocked in".
I am sure there are lots of fellas who take exception to the 1%...
Back to your Rule of Nines. I like the idea, and this is quite akin to what the Complete Book of Fighters does with the 25%+ damage = 'numb' and 50%+ damage = "useless" categories for locations. You seem to be the lone wolf on using a similar system, but I like it!
Otherwise, it makes the 'called shot' in many situations a completely pointless exercise (Ceb's heavily armored opponents with one 'weak' spot, notwithstanding, of course).
...Otherwise, it makes the 'called shot' in many situations a completely pointless exercise...
-I'd say don't forget the examples where the target has cover, and special cases (Vampire's heart, etc), but yeah. Sometimes you're better off just aiming center mass.
I keep coming back to this image in my mind during one campaign that I ran. The characters, led by my friend's paladin of Heironeous, had established a beach head fortification, a hastily erected 'wall' of sand, for what seemed to be the 'final battle' against the Slave Lords. Several ships were sailing towards the beach, including the flagship (I named it the Leviathan) with the Lords of Nine themselves on its decks. The coup de grace against the PCs was about to be delivered...
The PCs (and NPCs) readied themselves defensively for the bloody assault, and their final stand-off. Smaller boats from the larger vessels hit the beach, and howling waves of foot soldiers, pirates, and humanoids spilled out, racing for the (pretty much) doomed party. Looking at the dire situation and odds stacked against them, the paladin did something which I found...tactically and logically sound. Surrounded on all sides save the wall of sand at his back, the player announced:
"Called shot. Leg," he stated, to his first target.
"What?" I inquired. "Why not a normal hit?"
"I won't be able to kill them all," my player replied. "I need to knock down their numbers, incapacitate a few," he reasoned (or something like that). There were more foes swarming the beach, and still the Slave Lords themselves had not taken to the field, which worried my player.
I nodded, satisfied with his logic. Made sense to me. "Roll," I countered.
My player did, and still with a -4 penalty to a leg shot, modified by all sorts of factors, his paladin scored a SOLID strike. At the time I was using the 'numbed' and 'useless' system as per The Complete Book of Fighters, and his damage (again, modified by Strength, magic sword, whatever) exceeded the 50% mark, I believe. I do not recollect if he got a crit strike. But what I do recall, with utmost clarity, was my description of the end result for his 'called shot' tactic.
"Your bastard sword cleaves through his leg (thigh?), taking it off cleanly. There is a spray of blood, and, screaming, he drops to the sand."
Suffice it to say, that enemy was down and out...
Justarius, the paladin, was making called shots the duration of the fight to hobble, disarm, or lame foes, just to whittle down the numbers for what he believed to be his 'last battle.'
I guess this discussion has me going back to that initial 'effect' table in The Complete Book of Fighters and a system very much like Icarus' Rule of Nines. Yes, crit hits and called shots are NOT the same. But some of the more 'theatrical' called shots aside (apple off the head, wand out of the wizard's hand, or Ceb's example of the helmetless tank in invulnerable armor), a more 'realistic' (that's for you, Jamesdglick!) outcome to me seems necessary:
Specifically announce to strike an area, do enough damage, and it will be crippled or rendered useless.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises
while, for others, 
) answered for me:
