New D&D 3.5 epic campaign starting up

[James McMurray]

Cordiss: http://rpg-tools.org/dnd-epic-win/pcs/Cordiss.pdf
Kastiel: http://rpg-tools.org/dnd-epic-win/pcs/Kastiel.pdf
Tarlan: http://rpg-tools.org/dnd-epic-win/pcs/Tarlan.pdf

Retired:
Malcolm: http://rpg-tools.org/dnd-epic-win/pcs/Malcolm Reynolds.pdf
Maevith: http://rpg-tools.org/dnd-epic-win/pcs/Maevith - Half Dragon Goliath Fighter - Fowler.pdf

Those are the only ones I've got in pdf form right now.

[James McMurray]

Part 5

In which they find a powerful artifact and uncover demonic double agents in Geoff.

[James McMurray]

The called shot feat is up. Nobody actually has it yet, but it came up last session so I tossed something together.

[sparkletwist]

Called shots are not a very good thing to have in a system that not only abstracts battle fatigue and actual wounds together, but also generally abstracts dodging an attack and being hit by the attack but protected by armor. My suggestion for a player asking for called shots in D&D is simply to say, as you eloquently put it, "you hit what you hit and you don't throw a fit."

[James McMurray]

I agree, but one of the players wanted to make one to stop the duke from calling his guards and we couldn't think of a good way to hole it so the compromise as to make clued shots a feat, which gave me a week to hack something together and lo means that they might never actually get used.

[sparkletwist]

In my opinion, making it a feat is one of the worst ways to resolve the issue. Just making it a "thing you can do" might work if you feel you really need it, but having it as a feat introduces a number of additional problems.

First of all, it has that dissociated "what do you mean I can't swing my axe any more times today" feel that 4e martial powers do, because, what, some characters can't aim their strikes at all?

Secondly, accepting that, it is just not a very good feat. Some feats are just not worth a feat slot, and it seems hard to accept that a fighter would want to burn one on this when there are plenty of more useful combat feats out there. I'd take Power Attack, Cleave, etc. long before this.

And thirdly, assuming a player has taken the feat, that means that player has now invested resources into making this mechanic available, and will probably try to use it more often due to having invested those resources and wanting to get a return... so, if the feat ever does get taken, you'll be seeing a lot more called shots, probably, and the system is as ill-suited to them as ever.

[James McMurray]

Everyone aims their attacks for vital spots. Those with improved critical are better at it. Those with called shot are even better.

I agree that its not an amazingly powerful feat. Its not intended to be. If its better than power attack and cleave its too good.

I already give bonuses for making combat more than swinging and hitting. If theyntakenthis feat and use it a lot, more power to them. If it turns out to be too powerful or too weak in play we'll modify it accordingly. That said, I'd rather it never be taken, but the game isn't all aboutmy wishes.

[sparkletwist]

Everyone aims their attacks for vital spots. Those with improved critical are better at it. Those with called shot are even better.

These are two different things. Normally, the process of aiming a shot and getting critical hits is automatic and handled by the dice. Given the abstracted nature of hp, what a "critical hit" actually even represents varies quite greatly depending on how much hp is being taken off and what kind of shape the target is in afterwards. On the other hand, a called shot is a deliberate thing designated by the player which is assumed to have actually hit (or at least come really near) what the character was aiming at.

I agree that its not an amazingly powerful feat. Its not intended to be.

So why add another "trap option" to a system that's already full of them? Why have it be a feat at all?

Like I said before, just having it be a thing that characters can do if needed would probably work better. Then, combat will normally go along in the normal D&D way, but you'll have rules just in case someone wants to attempt a called shot. Maybe characters with Improved Critical have slightly lessened penalties, or something, if you want to have some kind of bonus tied to a feat. But... you even said yourself you'd rather nobody ever took the feat, so why even bother with having it as one?

[James McMurray]

Having it be a feat is what the group agreed on. I'm not the lord high muckety muck, so me wanting it to not exist is just one vote not an automatic veto. Granted, if I felt vehemently against it I'd veto it. but one guy wanted it, so I figured something out.

You're preaching to the choir, but my group's dynamics mean it doesn't matter if I'm a convert. :)

If it ever gets taken, I'll post how it worked out (and any changes we ended up making along the way).

[Tangential]

No disrespect, but I don't dig that design at all.

If you truly feel the need, use the PF system for called shots. It's backwards compatible, pretty much.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/variant-rules#TOC-Called-Shots

If you really like the feat as a means of taxing the player who wants to use this, you could make it a prereq for   the use of these mechanics.

[James McMurray]

Thanks for the link! I just forwarded it to the group so we may end up using those instead of a feat.

[sparkletwist]

What difference does it make?
Called shots are ill-suited for D&D no matter how they're implemented.
That Pathfinder system looks as terrible as any other. (No offense; it's a game structure thing, not any fault of yours)

[Tangential]

If you can't discern the difference between the die modifiers and therefore the percentage of occurrences, I suggest a re-read.  Further this system is far more tied to the game's expected penalties and basic status effects rather than a jumble (a pretty though out one at that, James) or hand to track, hard to trigger negatives.

Called-shots are D&D. I don't like that, you don't like that. But they've been there sincethe early days and so ill-suited is less true perhaps than unfun. 

It's kinda my fault, as those rules passed over my desk before hitting the public. /shame
>.>

[sparkletwist]

No, they're ill-suited. Called shots just are not suited to a system that abstracts attack rolls, AC, and HP to the degree that D&D/Pathfinder/whatever does. The fact that people have been trying to shoehorn them in there since the old days doesn't make them any more suited, it just means people have been trying (and failing) at it forever.

That's all I meant by "as terrible." I understand that there are mechanical differences. One square peg might be shinier and more well-constructed than someone else's square peg. It's still not going to fit in a round hole.

[James McMurray]

Apart from our differences of opinion on called shots (which aren't as different as they might seem), anyone got something to say about the campaign itself. :)