Café de Nuit

wolfgang_fener wrote:

Mangrum wrote: If you're trying to bypass armor, that's called beating the foe's armored AC. .

Usually, yes.

But if the fool in plate mail doesn't wear an helmet, I say that's stryking the fool on his bare head .

Of course it should not be easy but maybe easier than to strike through a thick metal breast plate.

What he's saying, I think, and I agree with. is that it should already be taken account in the armor class rules. The PHB description for full plate includes a helmet. If he's not wearing it, he's not wearing full plate and his AC should go quite a bit down.

Sometimes a called shot is just necassary. 99% of the time it isn't, but every now and then you need hit smoke a fleeing foe in the leg or shoot someone in the hand.
And sometimes, for dramatic effect, you want to cut someone's hand off or take out an eye.

In the 2nd edition PHB chapter 6, there's no helmet in the plate-mail description. The field plate description does include an helmet.

Then what about other type of armors like chain mail or studded leather ? Does it includes some kind of helmet too ? I always assumed no.

I think it's safe to assume all medium and heavy armour includes some manner of helmet.
Just like we assume "explorer's outfit" includes both shirt and pants and we don't need to buy everything like in 2E (I have horible memories of my first eight characters running around pantless because I assumed a tunic included that).

According to the 3.0 PHB, it seems only full plate and breastplate come with a helmet. Chain shirts come with a steel cap.

Of course the next question is, what would happen if someone wearing a non-helmet including armor bought a helmet and wore it.

Based on the difference in Armor Bonus between Full and Field plate, it can't be more than +1....

wolfgang_fener wrote:

Mangrum wrote: If you're trying to bypass armor, that's called beating the foe's armored AC. .

Usually, yes.

But if the fool in plate mail doesn't wear an helmet, I say that's stryking the fool on his bare head .

Of course it should not be easy but maybe easier than to strike through a thick metal breast plate.

No, that's explicitly a standard attack roll against the foe's armored AC.

Well, not according to 2ed DMG where they say: "It can penetrate weak points in armor".

In the Combat&Tactics rules book : "For exemple a called shot can be used to attack the head of an enemy who isn't wearing a helm...".

Anyway, to each his own (and I don't know about 3nd edition).

Whatever fits your particular campaign, you and your players is the rule.

wolfgang_fener wrote:Well, not according to 2ed DMG where they say: "It can penetrate weak points in armor".

In the Combat&Tactics rules book : "For exemple a called shot can be used to attack the head of an enemy who isn't wearing a helm...".

I suppose I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that 2nd edition AD&D citations have about as much bearing on 3rd edition D&D rules as, say, citations of Toon's mechanics.

well there is a pdf i have for transfering 2nd to 3rd but this is about called shots, i think as i said it depends on the Dm and the circumstances and such , all is taken into consideration(armor, helmet, is it a big melee, just you and the one u want to call the shot)what kind of weapon u have.... well just my opinion as we all have,,,, but it cant be easy maybe a -4 or -6 even and youd have to confirm it for sure

Sean K. Reynolds has a good article (albeit he calls it a rant) on his page about called shots.
You might want to take a look at it.

Called Shots Do Bad Things to the Game

The article doesn't take various spell effects - like True Strike or Wraithstrike into consideration - but even so, it points up some dangers - both in game balance as in absurdity ("So, it's easier to hit his left eye than his chest...") of using called shots.

Read it and he does make sense, thanks for the article

tarlyn st-denfer wrote:Read it and he does make sense, thanks for the article

I've read it too. Like his points. But two comments:

regarding damage given to an armoured or an unarmoured opponent, there are other games (notably Pendragon) where AC does not affect how often you're hit but instead deduce from the damage you receive. I mean, no matter if you have AC 10 or 20 (using D&D numbers) the attacked has the same chance of hitting you, safe that AC 20 armour will decude, let's say, 10 points from damage while AC10 will reduce 5. It's Damage Reduction in effect. Switching to this kind of game would completely subvert D&D combat system, so it's not recommended.

Criticals and training for better criticals: this actually gave me an idea for a house rule. Instead of wanting to perform a 'Called Shot', announce that you're applying for a critical. You make the same attack but must have a penalty on your attack. The specific penalty would have to be adjusted. Let's see a bit of math to study this:

if the attacker must roll 16+ to hit, and has a weapon with a crit-range 19-20, he has a chance of 2/20 * 5/20 = 1/40 to get a critical.

now suppose the penalty for applying for a critical is -4 (rather low, I'd put it higher): his chances for a critical are now 1/20, which means 50% better . I assume hitting in this fashion automatically disregards the usual rules.
However, if the penalty were -5, he'd have 0% chance of doing any damage, even if rolling a natural 20.

I'll save you the calculations. If the penalty is greater or equal than 0.9 the number of rolls that give a successful attack, this new system will make criticals harder. So, if you were to put this rule as a way to 'call for a critical' speciffically, you should adjust this penalty according to the attack bonuses of your players. Probably too much of a nuisance, but it's a thought.

Alex

Its not a nuisance as you want to do a called shot so it cant be easy anyways, Thanks Alex.
Steve

tarlyn st-denfer wrote:Its not a nuisance as you want to do a called shot so it cant be easy anyways, Thanks Alex.
Steve

Actually, I forgot to give a general result. When I said over 0.9 that was assuming the inital example with a longsword. I would have to include the threat range as a parameter in the calculation too.

Suppose the attacker's chance of success is a/20 counting all modifiers and his weapon's critical range is b / 20 (for the above longsword example, b = 2).
Chances to score a critical with the normal rules are ab / 400. Call this P1.

Now, in this optional system, suppose the penalty for a called shot is d. Then, your chance to score a critical is (a-d)/20. Call this P2.

Solving P2 < P1 for d gives
d > a - ba/20

which shows that your penalty varies according to both parameters. But hey, you make it as hard as you want, and allow it to make some shots easier than standard while others are harder. And at least, you make only one roll. One of my friends took out the second roll entirely in his campaign.

Alex

Yeah its all dependant on the exact situation as sometimes i would not allow it as well its all dependant, Alex
Steve