Iyfjky

Question

While running a session, I found that some of the players would like to "call shots".

Now while I don't want to allow "crit on desire" by always aiming for the head/eyes/etc., I was thinking about allowing it on a natural 20 - it's already guaranteed to hit & also do critical damage (most of the time), so what would be the effect of allowing this, assuming that the extra damage from "hitting in the head" would be the same as the normal crit bonus? This would be a fluff-only with no other effect besides the normal critical damage.

Has anyone tried running something similar to this? Does anyone see potential issues or unintended consequences? I'm looking at it as a way to allow the "fluff" without really changing the mechanics of it at all.

Related question: Aiming at specific body parts

For clarification...what extra effects do you see striking body parts to have? From your post, I can't tell if you're talking pure fluff, or if you have a table of extra effects... — 14 hours ago
To clarify, there would be no mechanical benefit to the called shot? It's just like a regular critical hit but with a narrated target? — 14 hours ago
"Purely fluff, but in general the normal crit damage" So the question is Ã¢Â€Â” is your fluff balanced? — 14 hours ago
@user2813274 I'm confused-- if it's just a narrated target with no additional mechanical features, what question remains? And if you intend to potentially allow other effects, do you have any guidelines on what those might be? — 13 hours ago
I'm asking for if there may be unintended consequences as far as what the players might do/ask - I'm looking to dry run it here before I try it mostly & wondering if anyone has done similar / can share — 13 hours ago

score 21 · Answer 1 · 2018-10-08 08:03:02Z

As long as the crit is unchanged, then it is balanced.

If nothing is different besides the narration, then by definition the mechanics of the game remain balanced, at least to a first approximation.

Crits are meant to represent great successes in the midst of combat, so in most cases they are a nice fit for called shots. It's a cool opportunity for you or the player to add some flair to the combat.

Beware of extreme called shots.

There are some called shots that simply cannot be successful without any mechanical implications. Consider these examples, where a player crits and wants the called shot to be: a decapitation with a greatsword; an arrow in the enemy's only eye; a strike that cripples a wing.

These called shots are admittedly extreme, but nonetheless it's clear that if they are successful they must come with unbalancing consequences: instant death, permament blindness, and loss of flight respectively.

Your premise is that such consequences do not occur, so your narration will have to undermine called shot like those to explain why the enemy only takes damage. The problem is that those called shots now feel like relative failures instead of unequivocal successes, because the player hoped for something more besides damage.

You have to manage your player's expectations

"Called shots" is not the term I would use to manage such expectations, because the default assumption is that called shots can include extra effects besides damage. Instead, just ask "Why don't you describe this crit?" or "How do you want me to describe this crit?". Questions like these provide just as much opportunity for flair and narration, without any of the expectations of a called shot.

Because what the consequences you describe are also available to the antagonists (i.e. to use against the PCs) it is difficult to see what you mean by "balance". A more deadly game Ã¢Â‰Â a less balanced game (especially since spell attacks also get criticals, and could likewise be adapted to "called shot" type damage). — 10 hours ago
@Lexible just because enemies can do the same does not mean everything remains balanced. D&D is inherently asymmetric: the overwhelming majority of enemies only exist for the purpose of one fight. If an enemy gets critted twice and both his eyes are gauged out, then the resulting blindness is only a big deal in the context of that one fight. If a party member goes permanently blind because the enemies can do the same thing, then that is a way bigger problem that is likely to result in a retired character. — 4 hours ago

lightcat 966114 · Answer 2 · 2018-10-08 06:49:34Z

Adding narrative details to your combat actions without any implications to game mechanics is not considered a called shot, it is simply a stylistic approach to describing battle.

A called shot refers to a method of combat where participants choose the part or region of their adversary's body they wish to strike. On a successful attack to that specific part/region of the body there is additional damage inflicted, the creature is affected by a condition, or there is some other additional negative impact on the creature. Because the effect is more severe, called shots are usually designed to be more difficult to achieve than a standard attack.

The question you are asking can be reduced to:

Should I let players participate in narrating their attacks?

Absolutely, Yes.

Giving players the opportunity to direct the details of their actions will make them more active participants in the world you have created. It will make the game more immersive, more fun, and you will experience more memorable events in your world and at your gaming table.

If, as you state, there is no change to game mechanics, then you can narrate however you choose without any concerns about balance.

In January I was GMing a game that included 4 players between 8 and 10 years old.

Kid 1: I want to hit the goblin in the pee pee!

Me: Which weapon do you use?

Kid 1: My sword!

Kid 2: No! Use the warhammer!

All kids: Laughing

Kid 1: My warhammer!

Me: Ok, with one or two hands?

Kid 1: Two hands! (more laughing)

[rolls 20]

Literally 7 minutes of laughter ensue. The kids are literally on the floor. Kids are laughing, adults are laughing at/with the kids. I'm laughing. It's an absolute riot.

Me: You nail the goblin between the legs and he flies into the air, knocking down the five goblins behind him. They get up, and are madder than ever. Now you're in for it!

Kid 1: Yeah!

All kids: shouting, screaming, laughing and imitating the goblin flying back holding his goblinny goobers.

Nothing changed in-game with this hit. Yes I said the other goblins got knocked down, but it was just for narrative flair and had no impact on their movement, actions or anything else. Mechanically, it was just a standard critical hit.

9 months later, the campaign has ended and that moment still comes up not infrequently in conversation between these kids.

How boring would it have been if the conversation went like this?

Kid 1: I attack the goblin.

Me: Which weapon do you use?

Kid 1: My sword.

[rolls 20]

Me: You nail him!

(roll damage and move on to next player)

If there are game-tables that tear through battle scenes, only following mechanics and never adding narrative flair I don't know of them. I'm sure they exist, and I'm sure they have fun, and I have no judgement, but that is not how I have seen anyone ever play the game. Sure there are times when efficiency trumps narration, and each table finds a comfortable balance, but it's always a balance between the two.

The game-table is a collection of players, including the GM. The GM's role is to build the world, narrate the actions of non-player characters and describe the results of player actions based on player input and dice roll. The more input the players give the GM as to the focus of their action, the easier it makes the GM's job of narrating that action.

When a player is specific about their attack it means there is something they want to see happen in the game narrative and the GM should absolutely run with it.

Upper_Case 42017 · Answer 3 · 2018-10-07 22:15:31Z

You're the GM, and so if your decision is that called shots are narrative flavor only, and no mechanical effects are allowed, then gameplay won't change in any way and there will be no balancing issues to deal with.

If you allow for any mechanical changes then the balance question comes down to what specific new things you allow, and not a general-case sort of answer.

That in mind, in general I would think that there are two issues, the former relevant if you do not allow any mechanical changes and the latter relevant if you do:

A called shot is a just a more difficult kind of shot, one that tries to hit a smaller and/or more mobile target. You try for the harder shot because there is some benefit to doing so-- maybe you damage an opponent's leg, slowing them down, or knock the weapon out of their hand, etc. I can't imagine any table bothering with a called shot that does nothing-- why not just let them narrate their combat moves however they want, if there is no mechanical difference? So I would think that any table where called shots are possible is one where players will constantly want them to do things beyond a garden-variety crit. If your players expect more than nothing from this, then you can expect regular conflict and disappointment from them.

Calling a shot after the roll seems odd to me. Since called shots are more just a harder kind of regular shot, I would expect a called shot to have a higher difficulty than a regular one. If you allow the called shot declaration after rolling, then a player will essentially be taking the "easier" shot, and its associated difficulty, and getting the outcome of a "harder" shot, perhaps one difficult enough that the player might not have attempted it. Again, if there are no mechanical changes at all then it's all irrelevant flavor and no need for varying difficulties. But if there is any mechanical change then I would think that called shots should be harder, not luckier.

I think #1 is the key issue here - OP might want them to have no mechanical benefit, but if there's no mechanical benefit, there's no reason to actually do any more than just flavoring attacks as normal. This doesn't seem like much of a houserule. — 13 hours ago

score 21 · Answer 4 · 2018-10-08 08:03:02Z

As long as the crit is unchanged, then it is balanced.

If nothing is different besides the narration, then by definition the mechanics of the game remain balanced, at least to a first approximation.

Crits are meant to represent great successes in the midst of combat, so in most cases they are a nice fit for called shots. It's a cool opportunity for you or the player to add some flair to the combat.

Beware of extreme called shots.

There are some called shots that simply cannot be successful without any mechanical implications. Consider these examples, where a player crits and wants the called shot to be: a decapitation with a greatsword; an arrow in the enemy's only eye; a strike that cripples a wing.

These called shots are admittedly extreme, but nonetheless it's clear that if they are successful they must come with unbalancing consequences: instant death, permament blindness, and loss of flight respectively.

Your premise is that such consequences do not occur, so your narration will have to undermine called shot like those to explain why the enemy only takes damage. The problem is that those called shots now feel like relative failures instead of unequivocal successes, because the player hoped for something more besides damage.

You have to manage your player's expectations

"Called shots" is not the term I would use to manage such expectations, because the default assumption is that called shots can include extra effects besides damage. Instead, just ask "Why don't you describe this crit?" or "How do you want me to describe this crit?". Questions like these provide just as much opportunity for flair and narration, without any of the expectations of a called shot.

Because what the consequences you describe are also available to the antagonists (i.e. to use against the PCs) it is difficult to see what you mean by "balance". A more deadly game Ã¢Â‰Â a less balanced game (especially since spell attacks also get criticals, and could likewise be adapted to "called shot" type damage). — 10 hours ago
@Lexible just because enemies can do the same does not mean everything remains balanced. D&D is inherently asymmetric: the overwhelming majority of enemies only exist for the purpose of one fight. If an enemy gets critted twice and both his eyes are gauged out, then the resulting blindness is only a big deal in the context of that one fight. If a party member goes permanently blind because the enemies can do the same thing, then that is a way bigger problem that is likely to result in a retired character. — 4 hours ago

lightcat 966114 · Answer 5 · 2018-10-08 06:49:34Z

Adding narrative details to your combat actions without any implications to game mechanics is not considered a called shot, it is simply a stylistic approach to describing battle.

A called shot refers to a method of combat where participants choose the part or region of their adversary's body they wish to strike. On a successful attack to that specific part/region of the body there is additional damage inflicted, the creature is affected by a condition, or there is some other additional negative impact on the creature. Because the effect is more severe, called shots are usually designed to be more difficult to achieve than a standard attack.

The question you are asking can be reduced to:

Should I let players participate in narrating their attacks?

Absolutely, Yes.

Giving players the opportunity to direct the details of their actions will make them more active participants in the world you have created. It will make the game more immersive, more fun, and you will experience more memorable events in your world and at your gaming table.

If, as you state, there is no change to game mechanics, then you can narrate however you choose without any concerns about balance.

In January I was GMing a game that included 4 players between 8 and 10 years old.

Kid 1: I want to hit the goblin in the pee pee!

Me: Which weapon do you use?

Kid 1: My sword!

Kid 2: No! Use the warhammer!

All kids: Laughing

Kid 1: My warhammer!

Me: Ok, with one or two hands?

Kid 1: Two hands! (more laughing)

[rolls 20]

Literally 7 minutes of laughter ensue. The kids are literally on the floor. Kids are laughing, adults are laughing at/with the kids. I'm laughing. It's an absolute riot.

Me: You nail the goblin between the legs and he flies into the air, knocking down the five goblins behind him. They get up, and are madder than ever. Now you're in for it!

Kid 1: Yeah!

All kids: shouting, screaming, laughing and imitating the goblin flying back holding his goblinny goobers.

Nothing changed in-game with this hit. Yes I said the other goblins got knocked down, but it was just for narrative flair and had no impact on their movement, actions or anything else. Mechanically, it was just a standard critical hit.

9 months later, the campaign has ended and that moment still comes up not infrequently in conversation between these kids.

How boring would it have been if the conversation went like this?

Kid 1: I attack the goblin.

Me: Which weapon do you use?

Kid 1: My sword.

[rolls 20]

Me: You nail him!

(roll damage and move on to next player)

If there are game-tables that tear through battle scenes, only following mechanics and never adding narrative flair I don't know of them. I'm sure they exist, and I'm sure they have fun, and I have no judgement, but that is not how I have seen anyone ever play the game. Sure there are times when efficiency trumps narration, and each table finds a comfortable balance, but it's always a balance between the two.

The game-table is a collection of players, including the GM. The GM's role is to build the world, narrate the actions of non-player characters and describe the results of player actions based on player input and dice roll. The more input the players give the GM as to the focus of their action, the easier it makes the GM's job of narrating that action.

When a player is specific about their attack it means there is something they want to see happen in the game narrative and the GM should absolutely run with it.

Upper_Case 42017 · Answer 6 · 2018-10-07 22:15:31Z

You're the GM, and so if your decision is that called shots are narrative flavor only, and no mechanical effects are allowed, then gameplay won't change in any way and there will be no balancing issues to deal with.

If you allow for any mechanical changes then the balance question comes down to what specific new things you allow, and not a general-case sort of answer.

That in mind, in general I would think that there are two issues, the former relevant if you do not allow any mechanical changes and the latter relevant if you do:

A called shot is a just a more difficult kind of shot, one that tries to hit a smaller and/or more mobile target. You try for the harder shot because there is some benefit to doing so-- maybe you damage an opponent's leg, slowing them down, or knock the weapon out of their hand, etc. I can't imagine any table bothering with a called shot that does nothing-- why not just let them narrate their combat moves however they want, if there is no mechanical difference? So I would think that any table where called shots are possible is one where players will constantly want them to do things beyond a garden-variety crit. If your players expect more than nothing from this, then you can expect regular conflict and disappointment from them.

Calling a shot after the roll seems odd to me. Since called shots are more just a harder kind of regular shot, I would expect a called shot to have a higher difficulty than a regular one. If you allow the called shot declaration after rolling, then a player will essentially be taking the "easier" shot, and its associated difficulty, and getting the outcome of a "harder" shot, perhaps one difficult enough that the player might not have attempted it. Again, if there are no mechanical changes at all then it's all irrelevant flavor and no need for varying difficulties. But if there is any mechanical change then I would think that called shots should be harder, not luckier.

I think #1 is the key issue here - OP might want them to have no mechanical benefit, but if there's no mechanical benefit, there's no reason to actually do any more than just flavoring attacks as normal. This doesn't seem like much of a houserule. — 13 hours ago

Category

Random preview

Would treating critical hits as â€œcalled shotsâ€ have unintended consequences?

3 Answers 3

As long as the crit is unchanged, then it is balanced.

Beware of extreme called shots.

You have to manage your player's expectations

Adding narrative details to your combat actions without any implications to game mechanics is not considered a called shot, it is simply a stylistic approach to describing battle.

Should I let players participate in narrating their attacks?

Absolutely, Yes.

When a player is specific about their attack it means there is something they want to see happen in the game narrative and the GM should absolutely run with it.

Your Answer

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Post as a guest

3 Answers 3

3 Answers 3

As long as the crit is unchanged, then it is balanced.

Beware of extreme called shots.

You have to manage your player's expectations

As long as the crit is unchanged, then it is balanced.

Beware of extreme called shots.

You have to manage your player's expectations

As long as the crit is unchanged, then it is balanced.

Beware of extreme called shots.

You have to manage your player's expectations

As long as the crit is unchanged, then it is balanced.

Beware of extreme called shots.

You have to manage your player's expectations

Adding narrative details to your combat actions without any implications to game mechanics is not considered a called shot, it is simply a stylistic approach to describing battle.

Should I let players participate in narrating their attacks?

Absolutely, Yes.

When a player is specific about their attack it means there is something they want to see happen in the game narrative and the GM should absolutely run with it.

Adding narrative details to your combat actions without any implications to game mechanics is not considered a called shot, it is simply a stylistic approach to describing battle.

Should I let players participate in narrating their attacks?

Absolutely, Yes.

When a player is specific about their attack it means there is something they want to see happen in the game narrative and the GM should absolutely run with it.

Adding narrative details to your combat actions without any implications to game mechanics is not considered a called shot, it is simply a stylistic approach to describing battle.

Should I let players participate in narrating their attacks?

Absolutely, Yes.

When a player is specific about their attack it means there is something they want to see happen in the game narrative and the GM should absolutely run with it.

Adding narrative details to your combat actions without any implications to game mechanics is not considered a called shot, it is simply a stylistic approach to describing battle.

Should I let players participate in narrating their attacks?

Absolutely, Yes.

When a player is specific about their attack it means there is something they want to see happen in the game narrative and the GM should absolutely run with it.

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Post as a guest

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What does second last employer means? [closed]

List of Gilmore Girls characters

One-line joke

Would treating critical hits as â€œcalled shotsâ€ have unintended consequences?

3 Answers
3

3 Answers
3

3 Answers
3