PDA

View Full Version : "Critical Strike" [fighter fix]



Skjaldbakka
2008-05-03, 02:54 PM
You know what, I think you are onto something.

I have always been perfectly happy ruling off the cuff, but maybe a well structured system for called shots is exactly what is needed.

I may do something about this... after these next three essays are finished.

I'm thinking it will need:
- Effect of damage to specific locations
- Different minuses to hit for different locations and different maneuvers

...actually that might be about it. It sounds pretty straightforward. Unless you can think of anything else you would like to see included.

In order to discuss this further, I am starting a new thread.

Here are my initial thoughts: Called Shots, with a good system, could be a way to balance fighters by giving them at-will save-or-suck effects. It has also been a minor annoyance with me that while there is a spell to restore a severed limb, there isn't actually any way to sever a limb.

Here is an off-the-cuff idea:

Fighter 6: You may take a full-round action to make a single attack targetting an opponent's hands, knees, or gut. If you hit, and deal damage at least equal to the opponent's CON+armor bonus, the target must make a Fort save, DC = 10 +1/2 fighter level +str mod, or suffer the following effects based on location:

Hands: Target is unable to use a hand for any purpose for 1d4+1 rnds, or until they receive magical healing equal to your fighter level. The target drops whatever was in that hand automatically.

Knees: Target drops to a knee, effectively considered to be 'crouched', with all the bonuses and penalties associated with that. If both knees are hit, the target is considered prone. This lasts 1d4+1 rnds

Gut: The target is stunned for 1 rnd, and takes 1pt of Con dmg.

These are admittedly not well thought out, and could use some tweaking, I am sure. higher level effects could sever limbs, instant kills from severed heads, slash the throat, blind, etc.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-05-03, 02:58 PM
The full round action could be a problem, since they're so hard to get.

Vortling
2008-05-03, 02:59 PM
What happens when you run into things that don't have anatomy or aren't affected by the loss of limbs or the like?

Nohwl
2008-05-03, 03:01 PM
if stuff like that was allowed id play a fighter.

Skjaldbakka
2008-05-03, 03:09 PM
I suppose it could be a standard action, but the idea was to make another option other than 'full attack'.

Some more ideas:

Fighter 12:
You may take a full round action (standard?) to make a called shot against an opponent's arms, legs, or throat. If you hit and deal an amount of damage equal to 2X the opponent's CON+armor bonus, the opponent must make a Fort save, DC 10 + 1/2 fighter level +str mod, or take one of the following effects, based on the location struck:

Throat: The opponent is staggered for 1d4+1 rnds, and cannot speak. In addition, the opponent takes 1 pt. of con damage every round they are staggered unless they make a Fort save (same DC).

Arm: The opponent's arm is severed. If the arm is held to the stump and the target receives magical healing equal to the fighter's level in the next round, the arm is reattached. Otherwise, more powerful magic must be used to restore the limb. In addition, the target immediately suffers 1d6 con damage.

Leg: The opponent's leg is severed. If the leg is held to the stump and the target receives magical healing equal to the fighter's level in the next round, the arm is reattached. Otherwise, more powerful magic must be used to restore the limb. In addition, the target immediately suffers 1d6 con damage


Fighter 18: You may take a fullround (standard?) action to make a called shot to sever the opponent's head (or other vital area, such as the heart). If you deal 50+armor modifier or more damage, the opponent must make a Fortitude save or die, DC 10 + 1/2 fighter level, + str modifier.

Swooper
2008-05-03, 03:31 PM
I think you're on to something. I like this idea. I wouldn't make it a fighter-only thing though. Maybe it could be a feat or a feat chain?

Another comment: Shouldn't the effect be different based on what kind of damage your weapon deals? I can't really see someone severing an arm with a hammer. That sounds waaay too messy :smalleek: Maybe bludgeoning weapons would get stunning-type effects, slashing weapons would have a chance of severing limbs and piercing weapons... I dunno, ability damage from internal bleeding?

Edit: Also, make it a standard action. Fighters are gimped enough for mobility as is.

Skjaldbakka
2008-05-03, 03:34 PM
Another comment: Shouldn't the effect be different based on what kind of damage your weapon deals? I can't really see someone severing an arm with a hammer. That sounds waaay too messy Maybe bludgeoning weapons would get stunning-type effects, slashing weapons would have a chance of severing limbs and piercing weapons... I dunno, ability damage from internal bleeding?

I agree completely, I just hadn't gotten around to differentiating based on damage type. I was also thinking that a Finesse fighter might use Dex instead of Str for the DC, and target Reflex instead of Fort saves.

Rutee
2008-05-03, 03:35 PM
What happens when the monsters start taking advantage of these?

Skjaldbakka
2008-05-03, 03:39 PM
Monsters with Fighter levels?

Rutee
2008-05-03, 03:42 PM
If it's Fighter Only, that leaves the other Melee high and dry.

Skjaldbakka
2008-05-03, 03:44 PM
Other melee classes have class features, and skill points. However, here is a feat:

Called Shot:
prereqs: Power Attack, Combat Expertise, Weapon Focus (any), BAB +12
You may make called shots as a fighter of half your level with any weapon you have weapon focus in.

FMArthur
2008-05-03, 03:45 PM
I don't think the "1d4+1 rounds" duration makes it worth it, and it's also incredibly unrealistic. Why not make it last until they recieve a Heal check of a certain DC or until they magically heal the same amount of HP as the Heal check DC? It would also be a way to make Heal a more important skill.

Spiryt
2008-05-03, 03:46 PM
Another comment: Shouldn't the effect be different based on what kind of damage your weapon deals? I can't really see someone severing an arm with a hammer. That sounds waaay too messy :smalleek:



I don't really see a problem. Hammer of flail can't actually sever arm, but certainly can turn it to something 'unusable'. Open Fracture, anyone?

Alternatively, bludgeoning weapons could have ability to get around some DR/ Armor/natural armor bonus. That was the point of using them in warfare, and it should be interesting - and besides those "stun effects" never were to concvicting to me

veilrap
2008-05-03, 03:55 PM
Why not make the called shots feats that have requirements that a fighter meets easily (like BAB or something). That way other melee's aren't left out, and a fighter still benefits since they can take a ton of feats.

I think it makes sense that anyone should be able able to make these attacks with enough practice: aka feat/level progression

Heres some ideas i've had

Called Shot: Cripple Limb
Requires: Bludgeoning Weapon
Smashes a targets limb to a pulp. Similiar in hinderence to not having the limb, but can be fixed simpler, just a healing spell HP = fighter level/2 would do

Also called shots could be made by a skilled archer allowing the arrows to stick in the opponent. For example a arrow stuck in a hand would render the hand unuseable until the arrow is removed. The DCs and such could be similar to the ones previously mentioned.

mabriss lethe
2008-05-03, 04:20 PM
Well, here's my 2 gp on the subject.

I think what this requires is a combination of things.

1: An expansion of called shot rules that will allow very basic save/suck effects. The basic rules themselves cover all characters, but will benefit Full BAB classes more than others.

2: A chain of feats, also accessible to all, but with more devastating effects than the new basic rule set. Requirements for the feats should favor fighters more than other classes and also be allowable as fighter bonus feats. It means that other melee types could pick up one or two at mid-high levels, but the fighter could start earlier and specialize in them. Maybe even have a few that specifically cater towards dex based or ranged fighting.

3: Non-Anatomy attacks: Allow a few feats in the chain to specifically target creatures without a discernable anatomy. My best guess would be to make them tied to Bludgeoning weapons. They'd work by just pulping enough of the creature's mass to cause the penalties, as opposed to any sort of precision. I'm not sure they should be directly connected to a new set of called shot rules, but should follow the same sort of guidelines to give the fighter the advantage over other classes.

Farmer42
2008-05-03, 04:24 PM
On thing you could do would be to make them similar to some of the monk feats, and require either Fighter Lvl 4 or BAB of 8. That way the fighter gets it much earlier, but it is still available to non-fighters.

Partysan
2008-05-04, 03:33 AM
For a start, you could simply copy the effects of the special sneak attack feats in CSc an let them have double the sacrificed dice as an attack penalty.

dspeyer
2008-05-04, 10:53 AM
I came up with a called shot system I liked a while back, though it may be somewhat overpowered and I never play-tested it. Requiring some feats might address the power issues.

Any attack may be made against a specific body part. The AC is increased both because the part is smaller and because it may be easier to dodge or naturally armored. On success, damage is dealt both to the creature as a whole and to the part in question. Healing effects both the creature as a whole and whichever damaged part(s) the healer selects. When the damage to the part exceeds the part's HP, it become unusable, and a penalty results.

Some example parts:
{table]Part|size|other ac|hp|effect
Leg|-1|+1(dex)|creature/4|creature's speed multiplied by remaining_legs/total_legs. A creature with no remaining legs is prone and can crawl 5 feet as a full action
Arm|-1|+2(dex)|creature/4|can no use that arm (for weapons, somatic components, etc). -5 to climb checks
Hand|-2|+4(dex)|creature/8|same as arm
Tail|-1|+2(dex)|creature/8|No tail attacks, -5 to balance
Ear|-3||creature/16|-5 to listen checks
Eye|-4|for many creatures, eyes have no armor or natural armor, sometimes making them easier to hit|creature/16| -5 on spot, becomes blind if all destroyed
Carotid Artery|-5|+5(nat arm), a dc 15 knowledge check is needed to find it (though for one skill point, you can always find the carotid artery of a specific species, and rangers can always find them in their favored enemies)|1|creature goes to 0hp and begins bleeding out
[/table]

Of course, this all needs to be adjusted based on what anatomy a creature actually has.

Ossian
2008-05-04, 11:29 AM
The idea is neat, but there is one thing I donŽt get (in concept). All the above mentioned CS are aimed at "Legs, Arms, Throat, Guts, Hands, Feet" etc... with crippling if not killing effects. So are we to take that all the uncalled shots land on the torso? (which is where most vital organs are)

CS are nice, but I see them working better only in conjunction with other campaign settings, a bit like the rules in Unearthed Arcana. They look ok for a duel-heavy campaign, where the opponents are mostly humans, and rapiers are hot. The "bash Žem up" style which seems to be at the base of D&D does not really fit with fancy fencing maneuvers.
Plus, they look a lot like something the average Player is dying to abuse.

O.

Ecalsneerg
2008-05-04, 11:41 AM
If you introduce called shots, ban True Strike.

Charity
2008-05-04, 01:16 PM
Is there a minimum damage (or % damage) nessisary to inflict these effects?
What about stuff with high DR, or immunities?
How many fighter levels would you need to take advantage of this?
True strike?
Touch attacks?
Would the effects vary by creature?
Whats good for the goose.. Instakills on party members by NPC's with fighter levels will cause some serious player conflict... is it for players only?

This seems to indicate that HP = physical damage, which comes with it's own raft of difficulties.

IMO 3.5 needs another layer of complexity like it needs a hole in the head, if you are looking for fighter fixes you need to address their lack of flexibility, I'd be far more inclined to simply turn them all into warblades and be done with it.

DirtyPacifist
2008-05-04, 01:30 PM
"Ah, I still remember the day when my DM declared called shots... That, boys, is why every fighter has taken enough cross class UMD to be able to cast true strike (divine version, from a cleric with proper domain) from a scroll..."

veilrap
2008-05-04, 02:13 PM
The idea is neat, but there is one thing I donŽt get (in concept). All the above mentioned CS are aimed at "Legs, Arms, Throat, Guts, Hands, Feet" etc... with crippling if not killing effects. So are we to take that all the uncalled shots land on the torso? (which is where most vital organs are)

CS are nice, but I see them working better only in conjunction with other campaign settings, a bit like the rules in Unearthed Arcana. They look ok for a duel-heavy campaign, where the opponents are mostly humans, and rapiers are hot. The "bash Žem up" style which seems to be at the base of D&D does not really fit with fancy fencing maneuvers.
Plus, they look a lot like something the average Player is dying to abuse.

O.

The difference between a called shot and a normal attack isn't necessarily where the attack hits, its what the focus/purpose of the attack was. A called shot is not meant to just hit an opponent some where on the body (which is the goal of a normal attack) the goal of the called shot is to target a specific functionality that a part of the body provides. The precision and power are what separate an attack to the shoulder from an attack severing your wrist.

mithrandir86
2008-05-04, 05:06 PM
There are a number of problems:

Firstly, I would only allow called shots in a no-magic game, as otherwise they would make Fighters completely useless in the face of Duskblades (and gishes).

Secondly, called shots do little to ease the divide in power magnitudes between Primary Casters and Warrior-Types.

Lastly, called shots suffer a problem of logic. If I do not declare a called shot, is my character merely trying to hit his opponent in a particularly non-damaging way? What's the difference of hitting my opponent in the gut if I declare it or not? I'm merely looking for an opening. Does that mean that every non-called shot has to be rolled on a random table to determine effects?

No, the Called Shot system has been tried before. In 3.0, it was a common homebrew system. In this period between ToB and 4E, there is little reason to try and 'fix' fighters.

Deepblue706
2008-05-04, 05:25 PM
I don't think this does that much for Fighters. Really, I always thought they needed more varied abilities, not just the choice between targetting someone's torso or left nut. And, I think it wrong to provide this ability only to Fighters - part of fighting is knowing how and where to strike an enemy. Anyone and anything with a full BAB progression should be granted this.

What makes the Fighter weak is the fact that he should never try to sunder, disarm, trip, or grapple without getting a feat for each. And, even though he may get a lot of feats to spend, these advantages are tiny in comparison to abilities freely granted to members of other classes. If you want to fix the fighter, I'd say begin with condensing what each feat provides him into packages, as well as grant him methods of obtaining mobility (even in heavy armor) and enhanced defenses against at least one kind of magic or status (fear, death spells, or even just fatigue).

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-04, 05:36 PM
What we COULD do, however, is, instead of called shots, craft combat abilities, a la charge or overrun, but actually useful, that require a feat or two to get, to slightly reduce the gap between ToB and normal meleers, which includes skillmonkeys too. Anybody up to help me flesh out the idea?

Nohwl
2008-05-04, 07:01 PM
ive got nothing better to do with my time right now, so i guess i can help.

Bob the Urgh
2008-05-04, 07:31 PM
you could have the called shots go from a full attack option to a standard action or every part of a regular full attack at higher levels.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-04, 07:59 PM
If it helps, here's an example of what I have in mind:

Precise Attacks:

Once per turn, you may use a full round option to perform a single devastating strike, instead of a succession of increasingly weak attacks. This attack does a damage equal to the normal damage of your first attack in a full attack, +6 damage, and has all damage (Except the extra +6) multiplied by a number equal to the amount of attacks you can normally do per full attack. Additionally, you get a +5 bonus to AB and to critical hit confirmation. This maneuver cannot be performed as part of a charge, bullrush, trip, sunder, disarm, feint, grapple, or overrun. Dual Strike (Feat) still applies, and all the modifications are applied to both weapons.

Wildcard Attack:

As a standard action, you may perform a Wildcard attack, an attack so risky and uncontrolled that it may gravely injure an opponent...or yourself. As part of the action, make a normal, single attack (Dual strike gives you a second strike), at a -4 penalty. If it succeeds, roll a d2. On a roll of one, the Wildcard attack fails spectacularly, and you injure yourself for half the damage of the attack. On a roll of two, the attack cripples an enemy, inflicting two points of STR damage, slowing their movement by half, and causing massive internal bleeding (Roll 1d6 each turn to determine the HP lost from said bleeding). You may not take any other attacks or combat actions during this turn, the Wildcard attack requires too much abandonment on luck to allow you to concentrate on other attacks. You may still move, however. After executing a Wildcard Attack, your AC is reduced by 5.

Devastating Onslaught

By spending TWO full round actions gathering up your strength, you may perform a Devastating Onslaught, a massively powerful and draining attack that could define a battle...in your favor, or against you. At the conclusion of your second full round action, you unleash a flurry of attacks at an enemy, doing at the very least your normal number of attacks on a full attack, and at most a far greater number. After the last normal attack, you may do additional attacks at your Attack bonus of your first attack, +2. However, each successive strike takes a -6 penalty to AB and a -2 penalty to damage, stacking for each successive attack. After executing a Devastating Onslaught, you take a -4 penalty on all rolls until the end of your next turn, weakened by the superhuman exertion and skill needed to pull off this maneuver.


Butterfly Attack

As a full round action, you may perform a graceful attack that throws off the defenses of your opponent, allowing you to strike their weak spots. As part of the full round action, make a normal attack at a -5 penalty. this attack deals no damage, but if it succeeds, you gain total concealment from the foe that suffered the attack, may move to any square that surrounds him/her, and makes your foe be considered subject to precision damage (Skirmish, SA, sudden strike, Etc) until the end of your next turn. If your foe has immunity to precision damage, this attack does nothing, unless you possess a feat, spell, class feature, or item that would make them vulnerable to normal precision damage (Such as Penetrating Strike, Mighty critical, a Greater Demolition crystal, etc.), in which case they can be affected by precision damage made by anyone who could surpass that immunity.

Nohwl
2008-05-04, 08:22 PM
that first one sounds interesting. my first thought was the two weapon fighting chain with it. since you could make 7 attacks from a full round attack, wouldnt it be x7 damage with increased damage and a better chance to hit? i wonder how many attacks you could get in a round if you really tried?

on the second one, is it -5 ac every time its used, or does the -5 go away at the start of your next turn?

i think a standard action and a full action would be better for the thrid one instead of 2 full actions. 2 full actions just seems like too much. if the thing you are targetting moves at all during the rounds you are focusing, it wont work.

i like the 4th one. you could have one person use the butterfly attack, and have another person sneak attack because of it.

Cuddly
2008-05-04, 08:33 PM
I don't think this does that much for Fighters. Really, I always thought they needed more varied abilities, not just the choice between targetting someone's torso or left nut. And, I think it wrong to provide this ability only to Fighters - part of fighting is knowing how and where to strike an enemy. Anyone and anything with a full BAB progression should be granted this.

What makes the Fighter weak is the fact that he should never try to sunder, disarm, trip, or grapple without getting a feat for each. And, even though he may get a lot of feats to spend, these advantages are tiny in comparison to abilities freely granted to members of other classes. If you want to fix the fighter, I'd say begin with condensing what each feat provides him into packages, as well as grant him methods of obtaining mobility (even in heavy armor) and enhanced defenses against at least one kind of magic or status (fear, death spells, or even just fatigue).

Absolutely this.
I hate feat chains so much. Feats should add really cool stuff to your character, like letting him run up walls, backflip off, and cut someone in half. Not make trip attempts.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-04, 08:39 PM
that first one sounds interesting. my first thought was the two weapon fighting chain with it. since you could make 7 attacks from a full round attack, wouldnt it be x7 damage with increased damage and a better chance to hit? i wonder how many attacks you could get in a round if you really tried?

on the second one, is it -5 ac every time its used, or does the -5 go away at the start of your next turn?

i think a standard action and a full action would be better for the thrid one instead of 2 full actions. 2 full actions just seems like too much. if the thing you are targetting moves at all during the rounds you are focusing, it wont work.

i like the 4th one. you could have one person use the butterfly attack, and have another person sneak attack because of it.

Well, in order:

1) What would you think would be more balanced? Letting you do as many attacks as you have ready, or up to your BAB?

2) Of course, this goes away. No one would use it else, what with the "damage to yourself" drawback.

3) I specifically had that in mind when designing this trick. Y'see, it's not intended to be used alone. It's more of a party trick. Something like the Wizard Greater Teleporting you to the enemy before you have your second round, or the other meatshield going full AoO on the enemy. Essentially, I built that trick as "It requires help, but if it goes off, you lose". Else, there's no reason to have anything else available.

4) Yep. That was the idea. Either the rogue does it and then hits you hard next turn, or the fighter helps and then the rogue goes wild. It should work.

Any ideas on other tricks?

Nohwl
2008-05-04, 09:06 PM
for the first one, i think it should work once per round for every weapon individually. if you have two of the same weapons the multiplier is stacked. so if you were using a longsword and a dagger with +20 bab, you would get x4 for the longsword and x3 for the dagger, instead of x7 for the longsword. if you were using 2 longswords, the damage would stack and it would be x7. from reading it, my interpretation was it didnt matter what damage it dealt or what was being used to attack, as long as it could be used during a full attack.

for the third one, i think you would be able to deal more damage with 2 full attacks instead of using it. youre getting the same number of attacks as you would have in 2 rounds, and there is a -2 on the secound group of attacks, so wouldnt it be a little bit weaker than just full attacking twice? why not just have the wizard cast a spell to stop them from moving and full attack twice?

Skjaldbakka
2008-05-05, 09:02 AM
Responses to a few points that have been made:

1) True Strike doesn't help with this called shot system, since there is no penalty to attack rolls. Instead, you can't make as many attacks. The Fighter Level 6/12/18 is no random coincidence. Instead of making 4 attacks at level 18, you have the option of attempting an instant kill (which isn't easy, requiring a single attack to deal 50+dmg, w/o the benefit of charge-monkey feats for high power attack returns, and allowing a save).

2) The reason this is fighter-only. Fighters in 2e were the only class able to make multiple attacks in a round. Now this is available to every class. Making called shots fighter-only puts fighters back in the running, with a unique combat option of their own. Barbarians rage, Paladins Smite, Rogues sneak attack, Fighters sever limbs and bust out kneecaps. The Fighter class should be the KING of melee. It isn't. Everything it can do everyone else can do better. Except monk. And Samurai. And Truenamer.

3) but, . . . TOB. Tome of Battle is a wonderful supplement, but it doesn't mesh with all campaigns. Busting out someone's knee with a mace is never setting in-appropriate. Tome of Battle often is. Furtheremore, some people strongly dislike the 'feel' of TOB. And finally, TOB being good is not a justification for giving up on Fighters.

4) Feat support: I agree with there being feats to augment this, and to give other classes the possibility of gaining access to Called Shots.

5) Called shots are unrealistic!
OK, we'll rename the class feature "Critical Strike". I like making NERO references when homebrewing anyway.