Called shots came up a few sessions ago in Fimbulvinter, and I dusted off the Pathfinder optional rules (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateCombat/variants/calledShots.html) for called shots. These kind of suck, though.
How do you guys do called shots? I've been thinking of houseruling the rules above so that to make a called shot instead of taking an enormous penalty and having to deal over 50 points of damage for the upgraded forms of called shot (both are weird for various reasons - and sort of unsuitable for E8) you must simply roll to-hit twice and land both. If you miss with one, you still make a regular hit, but if you miss with both you've critically fumbled and dropped your weapon/tripped/broken your sword etc, so there's a disincentive to always trying for a called shot. If you hit both, you've made a regular called shot. If you hit both and crit with one, you made a critical called shot. If you crit with both, you've made a debilitating blow. Tricky shots impose a -2 penalty on both rolls and Challenging shots impose a -4 penalty on both rolls.
I'm curious how other people handle called shots, though, both in Pathfinder and in other games. I think this has been discussed in various places before but the search function didn't turn up much apart from a fleeting discussion we had about them ages ago for Fimbulvinter.
Basically called shots are fun, and very much in keeping with the gore-drenched hackfest that is most Fimbulvinter combat, so it might be good to integrate them somehow.
QuoteHow do you guys do called shots? I've been thinking of houseruling the rules above so that to make a called shot instead of taking an enormous penalty and having to deal over 50 points of damage for the upgraded forms of called shot (both are weird for various reasons - and sort of unsuitable for E8) you must simply roll to-hit twice and land both. If you miss with one, you still make a regular hit, but if you miss with both you've critically fumbled and dropped your weapon/tripped/broken your sword etc, so there's a disincentive to always trying for a called shot. If you hit both, you've made a regular called shot. If you hit both and crit with one, you made a critical called shot. If you crit with both, you've made a debilitating blow. Tricky shots impose a -2 penalty on both rolls and Challenging shots impose a -4 penalty on both rolls.
I like this way of handling it. Seems smooth and not overly penalizes people for attempting the called shots, so its much less punitive than most systems I've encountered, but the higher risk of fumbling provides a good reason to not do it every single time. One scenario you didn't cover in that - what happens if you crit with one roll and miss with the other? is that a regular hit, or do you still achieve the called shot because a crit is a crit?
QuoteI'm curious how other people handle called shots, though, both in Pathfinder and in other games. I think this has been discussed in various places before but the search function didn't turn up much apart from a fleeting discussion we had about them ages ago for Fimbulvinter.
My method is fairly simple, or at least I think it is: the body parts all are given a size rating based on how much smaller they are than the whole person, and get the corresponding size bonus to AC. If you make a called shot and hit the AC of that body part, you hit that body part. If you make a called shot and miss the AC of the body part but hit the overall person's AC, you do a normal hit. If you miss the attack, your target gets a 2 round bonus I use in my games called "Righteous Indignation" - most often given to players if a comrade falls, it gives you a +2 bonus to Attack, Damage, and Defense against the source of your anger. Righteous Indignation bonuses stack and extend the duration of the entire stack.* (For example, you attempt a called shot and miss. Your target gets +2 to Attack, Damage, and AC for 2 rounds. If you attempt another called shot the next round and miss, you target now has a +4 to attack, damage, and AC for the full 2 rounds) If you crit, it's a critical called shot, and you roll another attack roll to confirm debilitating. If you succeed on the debilitating check, it's a debilitating blow.
*In one group, attempts at groin shots became so common, I had to start giving the Righteous Indignation bonus even if the attack only hit normal AC, a decision I made around the time the monk began routinely exclaiming for each combat "Flurry of Nutpunches!". That's also when I decided that Righteous Indignation bonus stacking was not just for PCs.
Body Part size categories are as follow:
Torso, Legs, Arms: Creature size - 1 (Small for Medium)
Head, Hands, Feet, Heart*, Genitals: Creature size - 2 (Tiny for Medium) *Also required a DC 15 Heal, Survival, or related knowledge skill to accurately aim.
Fingers, Toes, Eyes, Mouth**, Ear: Creature size - 3 (Diminutive for Medium) **this was the roll needed to put something in someone's mouth, which the alchemist used to horrifying effect.
Quote from: XathanOne scenario you didn't cover in that - what happens if you crit with one roll and miss with the other? is that a regular hit, or do you still achieve the called shot because a crit is a crit?
I'd just call this a regular crit but not a called shot - so you missed the bit of someone you were aiming for, but your blow managed to pierce a vital part through a mixture of luck and skill - like, for example, you aim a blow for their leg, get parried, but turn your blow and end up puncturing a lung.
Quote from: XathanBody Part size categories are as follow:
Torso, Legs, Arms: Creature size - 1 (Small for Medium)
Head, Hands, Feet, Heart*, Genitals: Creature size - 2 (Tiny for Medium) *Also required a DC 15 Heal, Survival, or related knowledge skill to accurately aim.
Fingers, Toes, Eyes, Mouth**, Ear: Creature size - 3 (Diminutive for Medium) **this was the roll needed to put something in someone's mouth, which the alchemist used to horrifying effect.
This is useful - might be a good alternative to the tricky/challenging ratings.
It seems unnecessarily complicated. Is there really a need to account for three different tiers of called shot effects? Personally, I'd rather just have the basic called shot effect and drop the critical & debilitating ones. I do like the idea of requiring two attack rolls, but I'd simplify it somewhat. Maybe like this:
- If either roll fails, the attack misses. Same if they both fail. No fumbles or anything like that.
- If only one of the rolls threatens critical, there is no benefit whatsoever.
- If both rolls threaten critical, roll once more to confirm as per normal rules.
The only called shot system I've ever enjoyed was the one in Riddle of Steel, because that's actually integrated into the combat system - every attack is a "called shot," because there's no such thing as a generic "attack." Every attack designates a type, which has a chance of hitting particular areas - a "diagonal downward swing" has a chance of hitting the neck, shoulder, upper arm, or lower face/jaw, each of which has a different effect on a table.
To me, called shots have always worked poorly in D&D (and thus PF) because the attack/hit point system is so abstract. Normally D&D attacks don't even hurt a target - yes, they subtract HP, but until all HP are gone, the target can still move, attack, cast, etc. without hindrance.
Another issue is that a "called shot" system, of a sort, already exists in PF - it's called the Dirty Trick maneuver. Fluff it how you want: blind = swinging at their face, sickened = groin/abdomen shot, deafened = knocked in the head, and so on. Most of the effects of the optional called shot rules are already replicated by Dirty Trick effects, and those that aren't could easily be migrated over. The problem is, of course, that combat maneuvers in PF are rather lame - you need to climb the right feat tree to use them, and even then many monsters have really high CMDs that make it all but impossible to maneuver against them at the level you'd normally be facing them. They also don't deal damage, so it's a called system in which your special hit effects are in lieu of damage rather than in addition to it.
I once read a thread on some PF forum where a DM had made every attack include a combat maneuver - that is, there was no longer such a thing as a "generic attack," but rather every normal (melee) attack you made required you to also name a combat maneuver which could potentially trigger if your attack hit. The idea was to give melee combat characters options in combat without forcing them to give up attacks and damage - if you really want to trip that guy, you don't have to stop attacking him to do it. I wrote up a variant of this for a P6 game I was thinking of running at the time (and still may, someday), but I haven't field-tested it, and in any case that may be a more significant tweaking of PF than you're prepared to do in Fimbulvinter.
I also don't think a called shot system is a good fit for D&D/PF at all. AC and HP are just too abstract to really be able to arbitrarily narrow things down and suddenly decide you're going to be swinging for and actually hitting a certain body part.
Mechanically speaking, as far as I can tell, there are really two (not mutually exclusive) reasons why you'd want to try a "called shot" in a Pathfinder game:
- To carefully aim for some vital part in order to do lots of damage.
- To target some weak point in hopes of getting some status effect.
The first thing is covered in a few different ways already. Critical hits represent a lucky chance to strike some exposed vital part, sneak attack damage is a skilled character taking advantage of a situation to do extra damage, and the idea of taking an attack penalty to add to damage is just Power Attack. So layering
yet another mechanic on top of this to do basically the same thing seems silly and pointless. As for the second thing, that's what combat maneuvers are for, or, at least, that's what I thought they were for. Doing a trip maneuver and making a called shot at the leg aren't really all that different, really, and as Polycarp mentioned dirty trick is good for a lot of other called shot type effects. I feel like fixing Pathfinder's dumb combat maneuver system would work better and be much more satisfying than layering another incompatible and dumb mechanic on top of it... although it'd probably be more work.
So, as for the proposed system, it probably goes without saying but... I don't really like it much. I don't like called shots in general, but also, I feel like adding critical fumbles to a called shot system is just trying to fix a bad mechanic by adding another bad mechanic to it.
Quote from: Steerpikegore-drenched hackfest that is most Fimbulvinter combat
I should point out that due to rising HP, this might need to be mitigated somewhat because both we and our level-appropriate foes can quite simply take more punishment now-- the alternative is that it turns into an absurd Mortal Kombat style fight where buckets of blood pour out after every single hit.
Thanks for the responses guys!
Quote from: GhostmanIt seems unnecessarily complicated. Is there really a need to account for three different tiers of called shot effects?
This is a very good point. The rules are a little overly complex. Streamlining them seems easier.
Quote from: PolycarpI once read a thread on some PF forum where a DM had made every attack include a combat maneuver - that is, there was no longer such a thing as a "generic attack," but rather every normal (melee) attack you made required you to also name a combat maneuver which could potentially trigger if your attack hit. The idea was to give melee combat characters options in combat without forcing them to give up attacks and damage - if you really want to trip that guy, you don't have to stop attacking him to do it. I wrote up a variant of this for a P6 game I was thinking of running at the time (and still may, someday), but I haven't field-tested it, and in any case that may be a more significant tweaking of PF than you're prepared to do in Fimbulvinter.
Quote from: sparkletwistI feel like fixing Pathfinder's dumb combat maneuver system would work better and be much more satisfying than layering another incompatible and dumb mechanic on top of it... although it'd probably be more work.
To be honest, I didn't expect Fimbulvinter to prove so enduring. I basically didn't want to hack PF too much for the sake of a small handful of sessions. But people seem quite into the game and their characters and invested in the campaign, and while I might not always be able to keep up the pace I'd like to continue the game off and on. So I've been thinking about houserules and modifications with a bit more of an open mind than I did back when we started. I certainly wouldn't mind looking at your variant, Polycarp, which sounds more promising and elegant than a hack of the existing called shot rules, such as they are. I think you both make great points about the under-utilization of combat maneuvres.
Quote from: sparkletwistI should point out that due to rising HP, this might need to be mitigated somewhat because both we and our level-appropriate foes can quite simply take more punishment now-- the alternative is that it turns into an absurd Mortal Kombat style fight where buckets of blood pour out after every single hit.
This is somewhat true, although Ragnvaldr can still 2-3 shot even nasty foes, and vice versa. I do tend to narrate PC injuries more as glancing blows, scrapes, bruises, or other flesh-wounds as opposed to dodges and near-misses because one of the aspects of D&D combat I've never fully bought is the whole HP vs AC distinction. If HP is really supposed to be this abstract thing that represents parries and dodges it should obviously be modified by Dexterity as well/in lieu of Constitution (or so it seems to me). It's a bit different is armour is treated as DR, which is a whole other issue. I have thought about maybe switching over to a Wounds and Vigour model (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateCombat/variants/woundsAndVigor.html), though.
My reaction to PF add-ons like Called Shots and Wounds/Vitality (which, to be fair to PF, were also 3rd ed add-ons) has historically tended to be enthusiasm, followed by disillusionment. PF is a complex system. The complexity is why a lot of people like it - but it also means that implementing basic changes has potentially far-reaching effects on the whole system. Trying to plug in stuff like wounds/vitality tends to result in many more complications than you anticipate from the start.
I'm not necessarily saying something like wounds/vitality is a bad idea, but I've abandoned it in the past because I didn't fully realize - until I really started working with it - how much it actually altered the system.
I'll post my "attack maneuver" variant, but I don't want to suggest that I'm pushing for it in FW or elsewhere - it's simply something that occurred to me when I read this thread, because while I was concerned with different issues when writing it (specifically, the shittiness of combat maneuvers and the lack of options for fighters), it has some similarities to a called shot system using existing maneuver mechanics. I make no promises as to its suitability for play.
[spoiler=Variant Rule: Attack Maneuvers]Combat maneuvers are sad. Not only do they require large feat investments to get working, but they're often less effective than simply dealing damage. Certain maneuvers are frequently only useful in particular tactical niches, but these situations seldom come up often enough to justify the feat expenditure. Other maneuvers, like Trip, are broadly useful, but have to be very carefully balanced against attacking - otherwise one option or the other will practically always be superior. Typically, damage tends to win out.
Combat classes can also be sad. A common complaint is that some martial classes simply have nothing to do every round except say "I attack." Even those that build for maneuvers typically can't attempt more than one or two reliably; the feat investment is otherwise simply too high.
Fortunately, each of these issues recommends a solution to the other.
Attack Maneuvers
Whenever a character uses the attack or charge action to make a single melee attack, the player may declare a single combat maneuver that they are also attempting. If that attack hits, the attacker may, as a swift action, attempt the named combat maneuver against that opponent. A maneuver associated with an attack in this way is called, appropriately, an attack maneuver. You must meet all other requirements for the maneuver you choose – for instance, you must have movement left to Drag, and you must have a hand free to Steal.
Any combat maneuver can be attempted as an attack maneuver with the attack action. When using the charge action, however, the only combat maneuvers that can be attempted as attack maneuvers are Overrun and Bull Rush.
As a specific exception to the "attack or charge action" condition above, an attack maneuver may also be attempted as part of the single attack made during the Spring Attack full-round action. The only combat maneuvers that can be attempted as attack maneuvers with Spring Attack are Dirty Trick, Disarm, Steal, Sunder, and Trip.
Note that Feint is not a combat maneuver, and can't be used as an attack maneuver.
The following special restrictions apply to individual maneuvers:
Dirty Trick: This maneuver cannot impose the blind condition when attempted as an attack maneuver unless the target is currently dazzled (whether by a spell, light sensitivity, or a previous Dirty Trick).
Grapple: If the attacker is humanoid, this maneuver can only be attempted if the attacker has at least one hand free. Recall that having only a single hand free imposes a -4 penalty to CMB when attempting to grapple a foe.
Trip: This maneuver can only be attempted as an attack maneuver if the attack is made unarmed, with a natural weapon, or with a weapon with the trip special quality.
AOOs and Feats
A combat maneuver attempted as an attack maneuver never provokes an attack of opportunity, regardless of the attacker's feats.
This has the effect of devaluing the "improved" combat maneuver feats somewhat. To compensate, these feats now allow you to make the named maneuver as an attack maneuver as a free action instead of a swift action. Nevertheless, you can never attempt more than one attack maneuver per turn.
Explanation
This rule is intended to create more interesting fighting options by making it so martial characters don't always have to choose between dealing damage and making maneuvers. It is also intended to allow characters to experiment with maneuvers even if they haven't built their characters around them.
Maneuvers can still be attempted the traditional way, without being part of an attack, and there are times when this may be desirable. Succeeding with an attack maneuver requires both hitting with an attack and succeeding with the maneuver. Thus, if you really need to push someone off a cliff or grab a necklace right now, attempting the maneuver the old-fashioned way - which requires only a good CMB roll, not a successful attack as well - is more likely to succeed. Normal maneuvers may also still be useful in situations where attack maneuvers are unavailable (e.g. attempting a trip as an attack of opportunity).
A side effect of the attack maneuver rules is that full attacks are slightly less dominant, because full attack actions don't allow you to use attack maneuvers. While a melee combatant may still prefer to make a full attack to get as much damage as possible, full attacks are no longer strictly better than standard attacks – the potential for more damage must be weighed against the potential for a successful maneuver. For a full attack focused character (like a TWF-ing Fighter or a wildshaping Druid), attack maneuvers are just an added bonus for times when they can't full attack or need to do something different; for a maneuver-focused character, attack maneuvers allow them to "do their thing" while still dealing damage, and make previously underwhelming combat feat-tactics like Spring Attack and Vital Strike significantly more powerful.
Because these maneuvers require a swift action, characters who rely on swift actions for other things may often forgo them, or take "Improved" feats to make that no longer an issue. If a character isn't using his swift action that round for anything, however, there's no reason not to attempt a maneuver in a situation where it's available (aside perhaps from some maneuvers, like Trip, which have potential penalties for failure).
Issues
It's inevitable that this system will slow combat, because it involves an additional roll for those making an attack, charge, or spring attack action. Take that as you will.
Trip is a very powerful maneuver. To avoid making every attack maneuver into a trip attempt, I've limited the weapons which can be used in this way, as mentioned above. It's possible this may still be too powerful, however. One possibility is to nerf the effects of the prone condition somewhat (e.g. reduce the AC penalty from -4 to -2).
Vital Strike transforms from a largely worthless feat to a quite powerful feat with this variant, because Vital Strike is used with the attack action, which also allows attack maneuvers. I don't think it goes so far as making full attacks redundant, because Vital Strike still only doubles weapon dice damage, but it's probably worth watching if this variant rule is put into play. It seems likely to be a must-have for maneuver-specialized characters, though it's worth noting you can't use both VS and Spring Attack.
Blind is by far the best condition Dirty Trick imposes. In contrast, Dazzled is by far the worst. I attempted to fix both these issues as mentioned above, but it remains to be seen whether my solution works.
Swift actions are always troublesome because some classes rely on them heavily, while others almost never use them. A Swashbuckler can hardly tie his shoes without using swift actions, while a fighter without a swift action focused build may forget they even exist. Attack maneuvers were made into swift actions to impose some cost and to give characters who seldom use swift actions some benefit over those that do, and "improved" feats were changed to waive this swift action use so swift-using characters can still utilize attack maneuvers that they've had some training in without sacrificing other class features. Action economy in PF is a strange and delicate thing, however, and I don't know if my solution is the best one.[/spoiler]
It's a very interesting set of rules. I was curious about how you'd handle things like trip and full attacks, and I'm quite pleased with the way you approached them.
Speaking for myself - and since you had these rules ready-to-hand - I'd be up for playtesting them in Fimbulvinter if the players are game. The worst that can happen is that we decide we don't like them (too slow, unbalanced, what-have-you). The best is more interesting, tactically varied combat.
I do think that we should probably pick a house-rule to test before adding a bunch of others on. Opinions from other Fimbulvinter players are welcome either here or in the main Fimbulvinter thread.
I'd also be curious about testing variant maneuver rules in BftU. It's a very different feeling game, I think, so it would be interesting to see what contrast there is (if any) in how the rules play out.
I worry a little that hordes of zombies and summoned monsters doing combat maneuvers would slow things down far too much, though...
You could always rule that minions can't do attack maneuvers, or at least zombies can't due to their staggered condition.
In the initial discussion which I based that variant off of, one suggestion was to use the same roll result for both the attack and the maneuver - in other words, if you rolled a 16 for your attack (and it hit), you added your CMB to 16 for your resulting maneuver. That shortens the process because you aren't making any additional rolls, but you do still have to check twice ("do I hit his AC" and "do I hit his CMD"), so it probably still takes a little bit longer. I rejected that for my variant because it made maneuvers too certain - you've got a much, much higher chance to make the maneuver successfully because any d20 result which was high enough to hit AC is usually high enough to beat CMD too (unless it's a monster with really high CMD or unusually low AC).
As far as zombies and summons go, I probably wouldn't apply this rule to low/no intelligence creatures unless they had a relevant ability or feat (e.g. a wolf's trip ability, a bear's grab, or the Improved Overrun feat you opted to give to the Mutant Zombie Ogre in dungeon room 16). I admit, however, that there's no reason a horde of orcs wouldn't be trying to trip/disarm/whatever you with every attack. All I can say about that is that hopefully a large horde of relatively weak creatures won't be landing many hits anyway, and attack maneuvers are only rolled with a hit.
I do think things might be a little faster once CMB/CMD are part of regular play. As it stands, I know Kylfa's AC by heart, while CMD is an arcane figure I have to look up on the rare instances when it's called for. My guess is that part of the reason combat maneuvers slow down play is that the whole system is ignored and forgotten until suddenly you need to push a guy off a cliff, and then everyone's so rusty it all crawls to a halt as the DM looks up how exactly Bull Rushes work again and the players look up their CMBs. Maybe if CMB/CMDs are being regularly consulted as a part of ordinary play, it would speed up a bit.
That's a good point. When I think to and am not being lazy I often jot down PC ACs to speed combat up. I could do the same with CMDs.
I actually just posted my maneuver system, which functions well as a called shot system: http://www.thecbg.org/index.php/topic,210215.0.html
It's modified from Book of Iron Might, a Mike Mearls book from Malavok Press from back in the 3E D&D age.
It tries to avoid effects that immediately end the fight, but it's based around the concept of Power Attack and trading attacks for effects. I think called shots do just fine in a D&D HP system, you just have to not have "called shot to the neck so you die" effects; that's what a critical hit is.