Precedence for Called Shots in D&D

[JMiskimen]

I've seen it said time and time again on this board that D&D combat is considered abstract, in that each roll represents a flurry of attacks and feints. This is not completely supported by the rules. Consider adventuring helmetless. Intelligent creatures will often times target your unarmored head. Consider fighting a Beholder, Bulette, Remorhaz, Giant Snail, (or possibly even a Vampire,) where specifically called shots are almost mandatory to fight the creature.

It only takes one example to break a rule and in the case for abstract combat, there are several.

Now keep in mind, I am willing to accept that in combat with a group of Berzerkers, for example, the abstract combat idea holds up well until one player decides to make a called shot to one of the Berzerker's eyes, hoping to blind him and offset that berzerking bonus to hit. How do you handle called shots on creatures without multiple AC values?

[derv]

Jun 7, 2014 19:05:15 GMT -6 JMiskimen said:

How do you handle called shots on creatures without multiple AC values?

I'm not sure that I consider "called shots" less abstract. I rarely encounter them being attempted in my games. But, I would handle them as stipulated in the rules or, otherwise, on a case by case basis depending on how difficult the attempt was. I may even rule the attempt out entirely, if I thought it was hair brained. An attack would still involve the abstraction of positioning and possible multiple dodges and blows focused on a target.

You want to stab the beserker in the eye? Roll a natural 20

[Deleted]

I ignore them. The assumption of D&D combat is that you are always trying to do your best.

For that matter, for a creature with multiple armor classes, I ignore called shots. Roll the dice and there is a chance you hit the lower armor class and a chance you hit the higher.

Everyone in combat is always trying to do the best thing. The dice represent how successful they are.

[Lord Cias]

I've posted this before at DF a long time ago:

In D&D, there are basically three ways to target a specific body part:

1) Positioning -- Take the carrion crawler for example. Whether a character is attacking the AC 3 head or the AC 7 body depends entirely upon whether the character is in front of the monster or if he is attacking from the sides/rear.

2) Random Chance -- The beholder description in the MM provides an example. Basically this represents how frequently the monster exposes different parts of its body to attack during melee (see also the helmet rule in the DMG). PCs cannot choose which part they are attacking.

3) Special Knowledge -- This applies when the PCs are facing a monster that has a special vulnerable spot (like the bullette) that can be attacked, but the kicker is that the players have to discover this vulnerable spot (and possibly also get into the right position as per #1) before they can specifically attack it. This is a way to reward players for creativity or for gathering info about a monster before the encounter. As long as the PC knows of the vulnerable spot and is in position to attack it, then he usually can.

Note that attacking specific body parts only applies when the attack is either 1) against a different AC than the rest of the body, OR 2) the attack results is something other than simple hp loss. For example, attacking one of the eyes of a beholder could prevent it from using that eye. In all other cases where the AC is the same for the entire creature and the attack is for no other purpose than to attempt to kill (h.p. loss), "called-shots" are moot.

[talysman]

Calling shots doesn't mean you are suddenly only making one attack. It can mean that the flurry of blows in that minute just happens to be targeted at the head. Success means one of the blows struck home.

I use AC 5 ("half" of 9) for head/limbs or AC 3 (half again) for eyes or other small targets, or the actual armor class for that location if better. A critical hit on a called shot cripples that location, with edged/pointed weapons causing loss of body part, which could mean instant death for some body parts.

[waysoftheearth]

Jun 7, 2014 19:05:15 GMT -6 JMiskimen said:

I've seen it said time and time again on this board that D&D combat is considered abstract, in that each roll represents a flurry of attacks and feints. This is not completely supported by the rules.

If we presume using the Alternative Combat System for resolving hits and Chainmail's one minute combat turns (which would be reasonably "standard" OD&D play), then all the individual "rounds" of blows that could be struck within a single turn of Chainmail melee are compressed into a single attack roll per turn (of heroic ACS combat) in 3LBB OD&D. M&T also states (p19) that speed, ferocity, and weaponry are all subsumed within the (ACS's) attack matrices, which can be read as implying much the same thing.

If we go with Holmes' ten second combat turns, then we might possibly be getting down to the "blow by blow" level of detail. I haven't studied Holmes closely enough to have formed an impression either way.

Jun 7, 2014 23:00:36 GMT -6 talysman said:

Success means one of the blows struck home.

I agree with talysman, but I would adjust the last bit to: a success (aka "a hit") means one or more blows struck home. Assuming a one minute combat turn, we don't need to know how many individual hits were involved; it could be one, or it could be several.

[oakesspalding]

Jun 7, 2014 21:25:18 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

I ignore them. The assumption of D&D combat is that you are always trying to do your best.

I agree completely. There might be special cases, but they are, well, special cases.

For the fun of it, perhaps, the GM could be tolerant of a called shot request, but the bias should be towards making the expected value of that request less than just rolling a normal attack. So if you want to try to explicitly blind that Berserker, fine, roll a 20, or whatever, but all things being equal you're better off just letting your character slash away in the best way that he can, given the time and circumstance.

[waysoftheearth]

Jun 8, 2014 1:17:37 GMT -6 oakesspalding said:

So if you want to try to explicitly blind that Berserker, fine, roll a 20, or whatever, but all things being equal you're better off just letting your character slash away in the best way that he can, given the time and circumstance.

Hmm, there's a reasonable case for the opposite too; as in a player is almost always better off "trying something" to get any edge than he is just letting combat play out "on autopilot". The way I see it, that's exactly what the player is meant to do in combat--especially if he's playing a fighter.

I don't mean to imply the player needs to use a "called shots" mechanic; he just needs to always be looking to work the tactical situation to his (or his group's) advantage.

[Finarvyn]

I think if you want to bring the "called shot" into the game you really need to start with the hit location system in Supplement II Blackmoor. This model puts specific hit point numbers onto each body part. The rules already come with hit location charts for each type of creature, so all you would need to do is assign a minus to-hit number so that the character can select the part being attacked.

The flip side of this, of course, is that the rules work the same both ways. Now that 30 HP character finds out that maybe his head only has 5 hit points. Certainly a good reason why the helm was invented...

[jdjarvis]

A problem with called shots is folks are trying to bypass the role of hitpoints in the game. You don't defeat a foe until they have 0 hp. It ignores the impact of hitdice and level if not tied to other rules in the game.
I'd recomend a saving throw for the target to avoid suffering a special effect so foes don't completely loose the benefit of HD/level in combat on the defensive side of things.

That said I do like the simplicity of halving the AC mentioned up thread, it's simple and makes good use of the AC score so no additional modifiers or statistics need be recorded.

[talysman]

Jun 8, 2014 12:42:28 GMT -6 jdjarvis said:

A problem with called shots is folks are trying to bypass the role of hitpoints in the game. You don't defeat a foe until they have 0 hp. It ignores the impact of hitdice and level if not tied to other rules in the game.
I'd recomend a saving throw for the target to avoid suffering a special effect so foes don't completely loose the benefit of HD/level in combat on the defensive side of things.

That said I do like the simplicity of halving the AC mentioned up thread, it's simple and makes good use of the AC score so no additional modifiers or statistics need be recorded.

I specifically did want a way to bypass hit points, so that there is no totally safe level... Man an attack, score a critical, possibly kill or incapacitate you target. You could drop the requirement for a critical and instead follow up the attack roll with a save, or with the subdual system, of course, to work either level or hit points back into the equation, but that means an extra roll.

[oakesspalding]

Jun 8, 2014 1:40:12 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Jun 8, 2014 1:17:37 GMT -6 oakesspalding said:

So if you want to try to explicitly blind that Berserker, fine, roll a 20, or whatever, but all things being equal you're better off just letting your character slash away in the best way that he can, given the time and circumstance.

Hmm, there's a reasonable case for the opposite too; as in a player is almost always better off "trying something" to get any edge than he is just letting combat play out "on autopilot". The way I see it, that's exactly what the player is meant to do in combat--especially if he's playing a fighter.

I'm not sure I agree that this is what players playing fighters are always meant to do, but I take your point. However, in my view the abstract mechanism of combat means that within a certain sphere, things will be on "autopilot" and should be. In normal circumstances I would place "called shots" along with the usual feints, jabs, parries and so on within that sphere. Your fighter character understands the details of the "martial arts". You don't (or you probably don't as well as he does). Plus, he's perfectly happy to exercise his craft in real time while you're eating your potato chips, or whatever.

Now one could design a mechanic or use the mechanic of an existing game to more "realistically" simulate fighting, but leaving aside the obvious implications and problems, I don't think anyone here really wants that. On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with players or the referee describing things in a fun and evocative way without changing the mechanic. Thus, "okay I'll roll again to attack" could become "I come right back at him, slashing at his eyes," or whatever.

Of course, there are often things beyond the standard menu, so to speak, that might legitimately constitute "trying something". And these add realism, interest and fun if used appropriately within the overall vibe of the game. "I reach into the bag I stole from the Ogre's lair and throw a fistful of that white powder at the Berserker, hoping to blind him," would be one example. Or (if fighting a large monster),"I try to get some blows in at the joints on the back of its knees-the captured princess told me that the scales seem thinner there." (Instead of refereeing that as a called shot, I would simply award some sort of attack or damage bonus for the clever use of such valuable information.)

You are right that there should be a place, perhaps a big place for that sort of thing. I think we would both agree that Matt Finch's examples of Old School combat in "A Quick Primer for Old School Gaming" are fun, funny and spot-on.

Jun 8, 2014 12:42:28 GMT -6 jdjarvis said:

A problem with called shots is folks are trying to bypass the role of hitpoints in the game. You don't defeat a foe until they have 0 hp. It ignores the impact of hitdice and level if not tied to other rules in the game...

I think that's exactly right. And I would add that among other things, being of a higher level or having more hit dice means in part that one is just better at say figuring out exactly where and when to slash at one's opponent for best effect.

[waysoftheearth]

Jun 8, 2014 16:08:09 GMT -6 oakesspalding said:

However, in my view the abstract mechanism of combat means that within a certain sphere, things will be on "autopilot" and should be. In normal circumstances I would place "called shots" along with the usual feints, jabs, parries and so on within that sphere. Your fighter character understands the details of the "martial arts". You don't (or you probably don't as well as he does). Plus, he's perfectly happy to exercise his craft in real time while you're eating your potato chips, or whatever.

I agree that there's a time and place for the simple, hard slog of trading blows. But I'd suggest that the more frequently players can avoid this eventuality, the better off they'll be.

If I may push the "autopilot paradigm" to its (il?)logical conclusion: the referee could very well resolve an entire combat with no input from the players after their initial instruction to attack. Combat would be entered, and then final results given. For example; "Combat occurred; 5 orcs and 3 players were slain in six rounds, before the remaining 4 orcs ran away. Sorry Mike, Adam, and Jane, your characters were killed. What do the rest of you want to do now?"

The above may well be fun to try, but one of the reasons to resolve combats round-by-round (if that's what you do) is to allow the players an opportunity to respond to the evolving circumstances as they happen. I.e., to put the players in control rather than on autopilot.

Consider also that the quickest/least-risky route to victory is rarely beating all the opposition down to zero hit points in hand to hand combat. That's generally slow, noisy, and terribly risky.

The best strategy is usually to force morale checks early and often. Magic can be marvelous here. Ignoring spells, overbearing can often be more effective than attacking to kill--and can get a result in exactly one round regardless of hit points. The rules also allow for subduing, parrying/defending, running away, and deterring monsters which can all be good options. Not to mention the various strategies that can always be employed during a fight-to-kill such as weapon selection, defending obstacles, blocking routes, pushing over precipices, out flanking, forming lines or spear walls, falling back to choke points, retiring those wounded, and so on.

All I'm suggesting is that it is the player's role to devise strategy. It's his character's role to (attempt to) deliver on his strategy in game.

I agree that, regardless of whether the player's strategy is attacking on autopilot or anything else, the character will always do his/her best to achieve the player's directive.

[Deleted]

The way you avoid "the slog of combat" is TACTICS. You should be using position and maneuver every round. You should be holding the line with your heavy troops while your skirmishers move into position for a flank or rear attack and your magic users attempt to get a clear shot at the enemy, because you can't throw a spell through friendly troops and you don't want to get into the front rank if you can possibly avoid it.

Specifying what my fighter is actually doing with his sword is the least interesting form of "tactics" there is. I've played almost nothing but fighters for 42 years, and "called shots" are utterly unnecessary and, in fact, distract players from actually thinking tactically.

[JMiskimen]

Firstly I just want to state that I don't think that every combat situation ought to allow for called shots. In many cases it would be frivolous. However, let me ask you this; if my earlier example of a strike to the eye on a Berzerker were changed to a strike to the eye of a Cyclops, how much more tempting to permit in game would it be? Wasn't that the classical means of defeating Polyphemus? Should D&D not emulate such stories, or are such imaginative tactics in a game based on imaginative play simply in violation of the rules as written?

derv said:

You want to stab the beserker in the eye? Roll a natural 20

There is much traditional merit to this. While there is nothing in the rules as written to justify it, many D&D groups have house ruled the rolling of a natural twenty as a critical strike, automatic hit or otherwise successful called shot. There's nothing wrong with that.

@gronanofsimmerya said:

For that matter, for a creature with multiple armor classes, I ignore called shots. Roll the dice and there is a chance you hit the lower armor class and a chance you hit the higher.

I can get behind the relatively random nature of the attacks of seasoned warriors in a game. The attack matrix is structured to to represent advancing levels of skill against the randomness of the dice. But I think the reliance on randomness can be taken way too far, especially when it supersedes the actions of player characters. I understand that you are using randomness in an attempt to appear as an unbiased arbitrator representing the tactical defense of a supposedly intelligent foe, such as the beholder, when you say the dice determine where the players get to strike the multi-Armor Classed creature. But don't the stats as written, in this case AC, already determine how easy it is to hit the three features of the Beholder rather than your interference? That would seem to be the more literal interpretation of the rules rather than your house ruled method.

@Lord Cias said:

1) Positioning -- Take the carrion crawler for example. Whether a character is attacking the AC 3 head or the AC 7 body depends entirely upon whether the character is in front of the monster or if he is attacking from the sides/rear.

Right on! No argument here. Positioning is an important use of tactics.

@Lord Cias said:

Note that attacking specific body parts only applies when the attack is either 1) against a different AC than the rest of the body, OR 2) the attack results is something other than simple hp loss. For example, attacking one of the eyes of a beholder could prevent it from using that eye. In all other cases where the AC is the same for the entire creature and the attack is for no other purpose than to attempt to kill (h.p. loss), "called-shots" are moot.

Yet attacking specific body parts, no matter how special the case, IS a called shot. There is nothing moot about that.

talysman said:

Calling shots doesn't mean you are suddenly only making one attack. It can mean that the flurry of blows in that minute just happens to be targeted at the head. Success means one of the blows struck home.

I can get on board with this line of thinking too, until we drag out the “dead-horse-to-beat,” missile weapons.
If missile combat is abstract and multiple missiles are launched every round, how do you keep record of your ammunition without house ruling it? You must house rule it to keep it abstract. I've never seen any rule other than Rate of Fire that says how many missile to deduct from my my equipment during any given combat round. So, if my archer fires two arrows in a combat round, I can conclude that he uses two arrows from his quiver. That's two rolls of the D20 in separate phases of the combat round for two individual strikes. There's nothing abstract about that.

And while we're on the subject of archers, here's where called shots really come into play. The archer is spending time, considerable time when you consider the length of a combat round, aiming at his target. When he rolls his dice to hit, I'm not saying that he hit the exact spot he was aiming for, but he should hit fairly close to that location … unless he calls his shot and-

derv said:

You want to stab the beserker in the eye? Roll a natural 20

True, another house rule, but I still believe there is precedence for called shots in the rules as written.

waysoftheearth said:

Hmm, there's a reasonable case for the opposite too; as in a player is almost always better off "trying something" to get any edge than he is just letting combat play out "on autopilot". The way I see it, that's exactly what the player is meant to do in combat--especially if he's playing a fighter.

Yeah … this is called tactical advantage. More on this in a bit.

talysman said:

I specifically did want a way to bypass hit points, so that there is no totally safe level... Man an attack, score a critical, possibly kill or incapacitate you target

This house rule could certainly take the “auto-pilot” out of combat for players and monsters. I think we could all agree that ”auto-pilot” combat draws players out of the immersion of the game.

@gronanofsimmerya said:

The way you avoid "the slog of combat" is TACTICS. You should be using position and maneuver every round. You should be holding the line with your heavy troops while your skirmishers move into position for a flank or rear attack and your magic users attempt to get a clear shot at the enemy, because you can't throw a spell through friendly troops and you don't want to get into the front rank if you can possibly avoid it.

I completely agree with this statement.

@gronanofsimmerya said:

Specifying what my fighter is actually doing with his sword is the least interesting form of "tactics" there is. I've played almost nothing but fighters for 42 years, and "called shots" are utterly unnecessary and, in fact, distract players from actually thinking tactically.

This statement, not so much. D&D is more that a board game. In a board game, really the only viable tactics you may use are formation and positioning (and depending on the game, weapon selection might be a viable tactic as well.) My point is there are limited tactics one may employ. I would suggest that D&D is more open in its format to allow players more of a choice in which viable tactics to use.

You may find it uninteresting to use your sword to your advantage, but I do not. I say that a stab to the eye is an allowable variation of tactics, just as viable as positioning and movement in D&D. There are after all rules written that cover blindness.

Choosing to attack a Beholder's eyestalk rather than his central body is a viable tactic, and there are two different armor classes present to permit these options without house ruling the choice. The player may call his shot by simply making that choice.

[Deleted]

My advice is that if somebody wants to slice up the combat turn finely, play Fantasy Hero.

D&D is not designed for things like "called shots" and Fantasy Hero is. Use different games for what they're good for.

[cadriel]

Jun 9, 2014 14:02:46 GMT -6 JMiskimen said:

I can get on board with this line of thinking too, until we drag out the “dead-horse-to-beat,” missile weapons.
If missile combat is abstract and multiple missiles are launched every round, how do you keep record of your ammunition without house ruling it? You must house rule it to keep it abstract. I've never seen any rule other than Rate of Fire that says how many missile to deduct from my my equipment during any given combat round. So, if my archer fires two arrows in a combat round, I can conclude that he uses two arrows from his quiver. That's two rolls of the D20 in separate phases of the combat round for two individual strikes. There's nothing abstract about that.

That's a problem with the 60-second round, not with abstract combat. A 10-second round lets you have missile weapons be single shots, while melee means several attempts at attacks.

[Lord Cias]

I think it is a mistake to take a characteristic unique to a single monster and try to apply it wholesale to all combatants. Just because some attacks against a bulette or beholder, for example, may affect the eyes specifically does not mean PCs can choose to target the eyes of a berserker. (With regard to your Cyclops example, remember that Odysseus and men put out the giant's eye while it was sleeping rather than targeting it for attack during combat, making it more a coup de grace move than a combat maneuver.)

Furthermore, I would contend that even in the case of those examples you listed (un-helmeted warrior, beholder, bulette, remorhaz, giant snail, and even vampire) there is no indication that the PCs may choose which location to strike at through any means other than by positioning or random chance. For example, the description for the bulette from the MM says:

Its eyes are armor class 4, but they are relatively small (8" oval).

Which indicates that even though the bulette's eyes have a worse AC than the rest of its body, their small size may make them difficult to target (thus a small random chance for a blow to be aimed at an eye). Clearly attacking the AC 6 spot under the bulette's crest is a matter of positioning (and may also require knowledge of this vulnerable spot), as is attacking the underbelly of a remorhaz. Of course attacks against an un-helmeted head are explicitly random. Staking a vampire's heart, at least as far as it is described in D&D, certainly falls under the coup de grace category rather than a target during normal combat. I can't speak to the giant snail, as I couldn't find any stats for it anywhere, but if I were to make a ruling I'd say that too would be a matter of positioning rather than conscious targeting.

You call gronan's use of random chance to determine whether an attack against a beholder targets its body, an eye stalk, or an eye a house rule. It should be noted, however, that while such a method was not explicitly stated in the Greyhawk supplement this is the exact procedure the MM describes when fighting beholders and is clearly in line with the other examples provided.

Jun 9, 2014 14:02:46 GMT -6 JMiskimen said:

@Lord Cias said:

Note that attacking specific body parts only applies when the attack is either 1) against a different AC than the rest of the body, OR 2) the attack results is something other than simple hp loss. For example, attacking one of the eyes of a beholder could prevent it from using that eye. In all other cases where the AC is the same for the entire creature and the attack is for no other purpose than to attempt to kill (h.p. loss), "called-shots" are moot.

Yet attacking specific body parts, no matter how special the case, IS a called shot. There is nothing moot about that.

I think you missed my point. I was referring to cases that were explicitly NOT special, where the result of the "called shot" would be the exact same as the result of a normal attack. The thing is, with the exception of a handful of monsters with rules specific for them, the D&D rules have no accounting for specific injuries, no listing of penalties for the crippling of this body part or that. Therefore, the only time any a called shot would result in anything other than a normal attack are those cases where the creature has a different AC for specific areas or an attack against a specific area has some result other than hp loss. And since in these cases such attacks are determined either by random chance or positioning rather than player choice, as demonstrated above, calling them "called shots" is a bit of a misnomer.

[derv]

Jun 9, 2014 17:22:03 GMT -6 Lord Cias said:

The thing is, with the exception of a handful of monsters with rules specific for them, the D&D rules have no accounting for specific injuries, no listing of penalties for the crippling of this body part or that. Therefore, the only time any a called shot would result in anything other than a normal attack are those cases where the creature has a different AC for specific areas or an attack against a specific area has some result other than hp loss. And since in these cases such attacks are determined either by random chance or positioning rather than player choice, as demonstrated above, calling them "called shots" is a bit of a misnomer.

While I agree with your sentiment here, D&D does have a means for accounting injuries in regards to body parts. Finarvyn mentioned it already. It's located in the Blackmoor Supplement under Hit Locations. The system is still random and would not fall in the area of "called shots" though. It still maintains and possibly even emphasizes the importance of positioning.

Jun 8, 2014 12:42:28 GMT -6 jdjarvis said:

A problem with called shots is folks are trying to bypass the role of hitpoints in the game. You don't defeat a foe until they have 0 hp. It ignores the impact of hitdice and level if not tied to other rules in the game.

Interestingly, even Dave Arneson seems to have bypassed the role of hitpoints with this sytem of Hit Location

[waysoftheearth]

Jun 9, 2014 14:02:46 GMT -6 JMiskimen said:

If missile combat is abstract and multiple missiles are launched every round, how do you keep record of your ammunition without house ruling it? You must house rule it to keep it abstract. I've never seen any rule other than Rate of Fire that says how many missile to deduct from my my equipment during any given combat round. So, if my archer fires two arrows in a combat round, I can conclude that he uses two arrows from his quiver. That's two rolls of the D20 in separate phases of the combat round for two individual strikes. There's nothing abstract about that.

One minute combat turns come from Chainmail, as do the rate of missile fire rules (which, from memory, are later repeated in Greyhawk). Chainmail does not require tracking of ammunition, and nor do the 3LBBs say anything about it that I can recall.

This being the case, the idea that one attack roll with a bow should strike off one arrow is a house rule too. As already pointed out, one (or even two) shots per turn doesn't fit "nicely" with one-minute combat turns, but it works better with 10-second combat turns.

Since a one-minute turn is six times as long as a 10-second turn, it seems plausible that 1-6 arrows could be fired per attack roll at the one-minute scale, so why not strike off 1-6 arrows per attack roll if using one-minute combat turns?

Jun 9, 2014 14:48:44 GMT -6 cadriel said:

That's a problem with the 60-second round, not with abstract combat. A 10-second round lets you have missile weapons be single shots, while melee means several attempts at attacks.

The one-minute turn is also troublesome when it comes to surprise. Being surprised for 10-seconds makes a lot more sense at the 1:1 scale than does being surprised for one-minute.
On the otherhand, the one attack per HD versus mooks rule makes more sense at the one-minute scale. Having Lords, vampires, evil-high priests and the like throwing 10+ attacks per 10-second turn stretches it a bit.

Back onto "called shots"...

I'd like to think most special attacks can be handled within the existing rules. If a monster has several hittable "locations" with different ACs then either:

1) The AC that's relevant versus any attack each turn is determined by relative positioning. E.g., a Giant centipede may have a hard armored head and a relatively unarmored body, so a good strategy would be to have a fighter with the best AC turtle down and distract the head, while his fellows surround it and attack the soft body,

or

2) What can be hit by any particular attack is determined according to the individual attack roll. E.g., if a Beholder has an AC7 central eye, AC5 eye stalks, and AC3 body (I'm making this up) then, on any attack roll good enough to hit AC3 the player could hit the central eye, stalks, or body (his choice). On an attack roll good enough to hit AC5 the player could hit either the eye stalks or the centeral eye (his choice). On an attack roll good enough to hit AC7 he could hit only the central eye. If eye stalks were hit, I'd randomise which specific stalk was hit.

Another thing to consider, perhaps, is that D&D already describes a mechanism for at least one monster to use its "called shot"; Purple worms (and giant toads too, I think) will swallow victims whole on any attack roll which exceeds the to hit target by 4 or more, or is a natural 20 in any case. This same mechanic is frequently used in D&D-variants and house rules, and it seems to work pretty well. It might makes sense to apply the same rule to players who want to pull "fancy moves", whatever they may be.

FWIW, the aerial missile fire rules in U&WA also provide a table of specific hit locations for missile fire versus monsters.

[oakesspalding]

More of my two cents:

1. Carrion Crawlers, Beholders and the like are exceptions. Their different armor classes for different body parts are part of their allure, so to speak, put in to spice things up. Now, if you want to universalize that stat mechanic, you have two options: rewrite and expand the description of every monster to incorporate this sort of thing (perhaps as Arneson did in Blackmoor) or let the Referee decide the numbers in each case on the fly. Neither of those options is satisfactory in my opinion.

2. Re: the whole called shot to the eye thing-for Berserkers, Cyclopes or what have you: So you have this 20 foot tall one-eyed giant taking swings at you. Now, frankly, you'd have to have an intelligence of -1 not to want to jab him in the eye. But the thing is, he's twenty feet tall, and he only bends down occasionally (to better see his puny opponent). So do you:

a) Wait for him to bend down to swing so that one can concentrate on his eye.
b) Swing at his ankles-they are always, so to speak, available, and a good slice will hurt him and potentially bring that eye closer.
c) Try to climb up his back to swing at his eye from behind.
d) Just try to Jab him real hard in the b___s.
e) Hack at whatever you can.

Quite honestly, I have no idea what the "best" tactic is. The rules don't tell us. Should they? Is it up to the referee to figure it out? The player? Or more problematic, must the player correctly suss out what the referee's opinion is on the matter?

Actually, I don't really care. I think the issue is sort of boring in part because it's so arbitrary.

Abstract combat assumes that this sort of thing is being decided on the ground, so to speak, which is where I think it should be decided.

So is the "logical conclusion" of this that one just rolls a die to see whether the whole dungeon expedition was successful? Well, no, because in OD&D dungeon exploration is obviously not abstract in the same way. Now, as I see it, one of the main problems with "new school" play is that everything, or to be more fair, almost everything is made abstract in an inappropriate and not very fun or interesting way. "I check for traps", "I roll to see if I can beat my 'fast talk' score", "to see if my clever plan works I make a 'clever plan' check", and so on and so forth. But the fact that it's more fun and interesting to generally, so to speak, play these sorts of situations out as old school philosophy recommends, does not mean that combat should be "played out" in the same way. There's a reason why there's an abstract combat mechanic in the 3 LBB's but not (quite) an abstract check for traps mechanic (that would have to wait for the later Thief class-which was the origin of all kinds of mischief. ) . But in turn, the point about combat does not imply that there also isn't room for some good old-fashioned table leaping, precipice boxing out, tactical withdrawing and the like.

[waysoftheearth]

Another plausible comparison which comes to mind is:

If you follow the combat example in EPT it demonstrates that the referee can strike off hit points from a collective group of mooks by starting with the weakest individual, and working his way through them, allowing damage to carry over from one mook to another.

FWIW--I've been playing this method recently and it certainly reduces the ref's workload; there's no need to know *precisely* who is fighting who, or how much damage any individual mook has sustained. Instead, the sum of them are treated as a single entity with individuals getting hacked off as the players deal damage. It certainly encourages the idea that one attack roll can represent multiple attacks because a single hit (equally with sword or arrow) can damage--and even kill--more than one individual.

Back on topic now: Applying the EPT method of damage allocation versus a group of mooks with mixed ACs appears to be quite analogous to the beholder example I posted just above. E.g., we might have an all in melee of players versus a bunch of goblins (AC6) and wolves (AC8). In this case, a player attack roll good enough to hit AC6 could hit either goblins or wolves (player's choice). However, an attack roll good enough to hit only AC8 could hit only wolves.

[Deleted]

Dave Arneson never used the Hit Location table any of the times I played in BLACKMOOR, and I'm not convinced he even wrote it.

[JMiskimen]

Perhaps I am not making myself understood.

I am in no way saying every combat should or must have the opportunity for called shots. My example of the Berzerker was just that, an example of a monster that gets a bonus to hit a PC that in perhaps a desperation move or whatever, the player attempts something outside the bounds of normal combat (and perhaps a poor example at that. Apparently, the Cyclops was no better.) But being that there are creatures in OD&D that have multiple AC values for different locations; assuming the PC is in proper position to hit one of the said locations, and the fact that there is no printed method of dealing with random determination of hits for these monsters under the umbrella of OD&D, aside from the aforementioned Blackmoore Supplement, (which to me, fits about as well as Greyhawk's Additions and Changes to the Alternative Combat System - which is to say, that it doesn't fit for me,) the only other option is to allow the player to state where he is focusing his attack, then have him roll for success or failure.

I am aware of what it says in AD&D's Monster Manual, but I'm not discussing AD&D. I am attempting to stay within the bounds of requirement laid down by this particular discussion board, which states “ All things related to characters and combat in OD&D. This can be boxed set or also include the brown book supplements, Strategic Review, or early issues of the Dragon.” As near as I can tell, the Giant Snail and possibly the assumption of Chainmail's Combat Turn Length were the only missteps I took in adhering to those requirements.

All I am saying in this thread is there is precedence for called shots in D&D evident in the nature of the game, and I'm not the only one who shares this idea. From Philotomy’s OD&D Musings:

Called Shots

I think the concept of the called shot is a poor fit for D&D because of the abstract nature of the combat system. Unless there is a special reason for targeting a specific area, D&D combat assumes that combatants will take the best shots they can get. For example, consider the situation of a PC fighter facing off against an orc warrior wearing chainmail and a helm. The player might say "I swing at his head with my sword." Since this combat is a completely normal situation, it follows the standard assumptions of the rules, and the PC should not receive any special modifiers to his attack roll, or to damage if his attack succeeds. Rather, I would treat his statement as flavor. I might respond, "Okay, make a standard attack roll..." If the attack succeeds, but only does a single point of damage, I might say "You step forward, raining blows down around the orc's head and shoulders; he manages to fend off most of your strikes, but one glances off his helm, drawing a thin trickle of blood from his temple. He grunts and snarls at you." If the attack hits and does six points of damage, I might say "You step forward, raining blows down around the orc's head and shoulders; he parries wildly, grimacing as you nearly knock his weapon from his hand, then a vicious backswing connects solidly, ringing his cloven helm like a gong. Gore splatters across your sword-arm, and his falling body almost pulls the hilt from your grasp, but you hold on and jerk the weapon free." If the attack missed, I might say "You step forward, raining blows down around the orc's head and shoulders; he parries easily, guiding your attacks to the side while sneering at you with yellowed tusks..."

Nevertheless, there may be special situations that fall outside of standard combat assumptions. For example, an arrow shot to pin clothing to the wall, an attack intended to shatter the potion bottle in an enemy's hand, et cetera. There is also precendent in D&D for striking a specific spot on certain creatures (e.g. a beholder's eye); typically, the monster description assigns a separate AC for this location, as appropriate. I think this approach is superior to an approach that applies a standard modifier for called shots (e.g. -4). Rather than a "one-size-fits-all" modifier for such actions, each called shot should be handled separately, with the referee determining difficulty and assigning a target AC or die roll modifier that he believes appropriate.

Special situations still maintain a precedence. I was really on the fence about the Vampire until I went back and reread the description of the monster in Monsters and Treasure.

If they are exposed to direct rays of sunlight, immersed in running water, or impaled through the heart with a wooden stake they are killed; otherwise they can be hit only as Spectres, but such hits do not kill them but only force them to assume gaseous form if they lose all hit points.

It would be impossible to coup de grace a cloud of gas, so unless you somehow surprise a sleeping Vampire, I don't know how else you coup de grace one with a wooden stake.(Something, I suppose, similar to finding a sleeping dragon...) But I can see how you might kill one in combat with a wooden stake, and by the rules as written, it should work.

[talysman]

I realize that Buffy changed people's perceptions about the stake through the heart, but traditionally it *was* specifically restricted to sleeping vampires. So, not a good example of a hint of a called shot procedure.

[Deleted]

The biggest problem with called shots in my experience is that once you use them nonrandomly, most players will want to use them all the time, and a significant number of players will argue incessantly if you say "you are assumed to be fighting smart, called shots are redundant." Making positioning or random chance the determinant prevents this. Want to hit the soft part of a Carrion Crawler? Get into position to do so.

Gary always said he was going for a very Hollywood style combat -- specifically, the final fight between Basil Rathbone and Errol Flynn at the end of Robin Hood, where the hero and main villian sword away at each other madly for a while and then the fatal blow is struck. No stabs to the eye, kicks to the nuts, wounds, bleeding, or such; the fight ALWAYS takes a long time.

If you want other things, other game systems would work better.

[JMiskimen]

Jun 10, 2014 13:09:20 GMT -6 talysman said:

I realize that Buffy changed people's perceptions about the stake through the heart, but traditionally it *was* specifically restricted to sleeping vampires. So, not a good example of a hint of a called shot procedure.

LOL!!!

I hadn't even thought of that!

[talysman]

Jun 10, 2014 13:14:44 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

The biggest problem with called shots in my experience is that once you use them nonrandomly, most players will want to use them all the time, and a significant number of players will argue incessantly if you say "you are assumed to be fighting smart, called shots are redundant." Making positioning or random chance the determinant prevents this. Want to hit the soft part of a Carrion Crawler? Get into position to do so.

This is why my called shot house rule keeps the attack roll the same, but adds a special effect on a critical hit, which I don't normally use. All a called shot does is add a weapon-and-target-based effect on either a critical hit or reducing hit points to zero. You aimed for the head with an edged weapon and scored a critical? Head is severed. Didn't score a critical, and enemy still has hit points? Just a standard attack. Players can use called shots all the time, always saying "I aim for the head!" for every attack, but most of the time, the effect will be the same.

Positioning is still important to me. The soft underbelly of that critter is easier to hit? Great, but you still have to be able to aim for it. You may need to flip it over, or let it overrun you. Similarly, choice of target matters... Some opponents might not be killable with a head shot, but might need to be stabbed in the heart... Or you might not be able to reach either spot, but may need to have a few tentacles chopped off to make the creature easier to handle.

I mostly wanted a called shot rule that differentiated weapons without stooping to damage roll changes or complicated modifier rules. Edged weapons are good for cutting things off, pointed weapons are good for stabbing vital organs, blunt weapons are good for knocking people backwards or stunning. It gives people a reason to use more than one weapon, and to think about what they are doing. Of course, you could dump the critical and only let the called shot and weapon used alter the result of reducing an opponent to 0 hits. That still gives some differentiation.

[tetramorph]

Jun 8, 2014 16:08:09 GMT -6 oakesspalding said:

I think we would both agree that Matt Finch's examples of Old School combat in "A Quick Primer for Old School Gaming" are fun, funny and spot-on.

oakesspalding, thanks for throwing this sentence in one of your posts. As I read the thread, I couldn't help thinking about his little book.

I agree with the general consensus growing here that called shots are, in the main, not helpful / incompatible with the ease of the mechanic.

However, I love role-play in battle.

I ran a recent encounter where a group of low-lvl PCs ran into about 25 goblins and their King. It was pretty fun. But the most fun thing was not endlessly rolling "to hit" and damage. The most fun thing was that these brand new players "got" what role play in abstract battle really allowed them. They didn't "call shots," as in specific body parts, etc.

They set fire to the room, ran out, and then jammed the door shut. As the screams died down, they ran in to clean up. The cleric had scooped up some green slime in a clay jar in a previous encounter. Since it was not a usual melee weapon I had her make both a dex check and roll "to hit." I suppose the dex check was her figuring out how to handle the clay jar like a weapon, the "to hit" was her actually hitting her mark. She tagged the King on the chest and did some damage. The wizard decided he was going to go invisible, run up behind the goblin king, grab and stab. He cast the spell and I told him it would take a round of melee for him to get into position. I rolled to see if the goblin king sensed anything funny. The "oracle" of the dice told me he was too busy trying to get green slime off of himself amidst the sprawling insanity around him. I made the wizard do a 3d6 dex check for the grab. He had to make a regular "to hit" for the dagger to do its job. Luck prevailed for him in both cases. (I forget to make him roll a save against the green slime all over the guy, but hey, you can't remember everything.) Because of the interesting role play I didn't even ask for a damage roll: I just said, you cut his throat and he's down. We all cheered. It was super fun. That is the point!

So I suppose, for me, I don't want called shots, but I love rewarding thoughtful, fun, imaginative role play in combat. Something like what Gronan says, above, but I am no war-gammer so I just can't be that technical about it. If the simplified battle mechanic we have in 0e is abstract, I see that as allowing for more role play, rather than shutting it down.

Thanks for the topic. I've learned a lot.

[Deleted]

Jun 8, 2014 15:56:24 GMT -6 talysman said:

I specifically did want a way to bypass hit points, so that there is no totally safe level...

Then you might want to try a different system, because what you're attempting is literally directly against the intended design purpose of the system.

Try the PENDRAGON combat system; combat, especially between heavily armored opponents, is often a lengthy endeavor, but there is a chance in any round of a critical hit ending the fight with a single blow.