Then Leucis says... shoot his eyes?

156 posts / 0 new
Last post
Leucis is using a Greatbow, he wants to do some sort of Called Shot to the eyes to try and blind Szartharrax. Thoughts?
I am Blue/Black "The Red Dragon is pulverizing your friends..." -Me "Okay so I'm up here?" -Shrui "Yeah..." -Me "Okay I want to triple backflip down from the ceiling while holding my family's katana and drive it through the Dragon's head." -Shrui "Yeah you'll take a -15 because he's moving his head." -Me "Don't care, I try it anyway." -Shrui (Acrobatics Roll Succeeds) (Attack Roll Succeeds) "How much extra damage do I get for this attack?" -Shrui "It dies, you don't need to do an attack roll." -Me Evil Dungeon Master says, And now young adventurer... you die.
One more thing, they don't want to do it but I want to know about this...

Spinning Sweep knocks it's target prone on a successful hit, right? What if the target is larger than they are?
I am Blue/Black "The Red Dragon is pulverizing your friends..." -Me "Okay so I'm up here?" -Shrui "Yeah..." -Me "Okay I want to triple backflip down from the ceiling while holding my family's katana and drive it through the Dragon's head." -Shrui "Yeah you'll take a -15 because he's moving his head." -Me "Don't care, I try it anyway." -Shrui (Acrobatics Roll Succeeds) (Attack Roll Succeeds) "How much extra damage do I get for this attack?" -Shrui "It dies, you don't need to do an attack roll." -Me Evil Dungeon Master says, And now young adventurer... you die.
Leucis is using a Greatbow, he wants to do some sort of Called Shot to the eyes to try and blind Szartharrax. Thoughts?



No mechanical effect. Don't be tempted with minuses to hit versus extra damage.

If it hits and he bloodies the enemy, describe how it wounds it near the eyes.

If it hits and reduces the enemy to 0 hit points, describe the arrow piercing the eye and killing the enemy.

Leucis is using a Greatbow, he wants to do some sort of Called Shot to the eyes to try and blind Szartharrax. Thoughts?



No mechanical effect. Don't be tempted with minuses to hit versus extra damage.

If it hits and he bloodies the enemy, describe how it wounds it near the eyes.

If it hits and reduces the enemy to 0 hit points, describe the arrow piercing the eye and killing the enemy.




I'm afraid he wants to actually blind the target entirely, which still makes sense, why wouldn't you try this in reality?
I am Blue/Black "The Red Dragon is pulverizing your friends..." -Me "Okay so I'm up here?" -Shrui "Yeah..." -Me "Okay I want to triple backflip down from the ceiling while holding my family's katana and drive it through the Dragon's head." -Shrui "Yeah you'll take a -15 because he's moving his head." -Me "Don't care, I try it anyway." -Shrui (Acrobatics Roll Succeeds) (Attack Roll Succeeds) "How much extra damage do I get for this attack?" -Shrui "It dies, you don't need to do an attack roll." -Me Evil Dungeon Master says, And now young adventurer... you die.

Spinning Sweep knocks it's target prone on a successful hit, right? What if the target is larger than they are?



It works as written.

It works even if the enemy has no legs.

It only doesn't work if the enemy is immune to being knocked prone, and that wil lbe in the monster stat block.

The challenge is to find a way to describe it happening so that the game rules make sense. With a larger creature, it might not be fully knocked down, it might just stumble and be off-balance until it has a chance to right itself.

Try to avoid doing it the other way around - i.e. describing what happens then making the rules fit will in general work badly for the game system. This is unlike many other game systems on purpose.

Of course, if that way of thinking goes against the grain for your group, and you want to keep your called shots and logical "well the spell description says it can do X, so logically it can do Y (where Y has some extra unwritten rules effect)" - well, then you can do that, but you may as well look into playing another game system since 4E has loads of over-complex rules for balance that you don't really need. Storyteller style games will allow your called shots, spells can do extras and other mechanical things, with the mechanics playing second fiddle to the RP and description, and are much easier to get to grips with combat rules for.

Leucis is using a Greatbow, he wants to do some sort of Called Shot to the eyes to try and blind Szartharrax. Thoughts?



No mechanical effect. Don't be tempted with minuses to hit versus extra damage.

If it hits and he bloodies the enemy, describe how it wounds it near the eyes.

If it hits and reduces the enemy to 0 hit points, describe the arrow piercing the eye and killing the enemy.




I'm afraid he wants to actually blind the target entirely, which still makes sense, why wouldn't you try this in reality?



1) D&D isn't "reality"

2) You don't do this in D&D by changing the mechanics because it completely subverts the point of running the combat system.

If the player really wants to do this, there are good options based around descriptions (as I suggested) and powers that actually impose the blind condition on an enemy. Both of these options give the player what they want.

If you and the player are not happy with what the rule system provides, feel free to change it to fit with a house rule. Although from your descriptions so far speak to me of a group that would be happier playing a game other than D&D, where you are freer just to simply make things up.

well if a player wants to do something unexpected find the hard DC and give them a consiquence, like they grant combat advantage reguardless because he is taking a shot and ignoring the surroundings and maybe some other disadvnatage if he fails.

but the attack should do no damage.

use DMG pg. 42 for actions the rules dont cover.

Also the condition should either last until the targets end of turn or save ends.  Not permenant. 

Play whatever the **** you want. Never Point a loaded party at a plot you are not willing to shoot. Arcane Rhetoric. My Blog.

First off, we're using 4th Edition because it works for us. It just so happens my 3E players want to perform unlisted or unthought of actions. For example, I had to rule out a type of presitigidation shield, because it has over 1 pound of force. However allow me to mention the following for you...

We've been playing since 3E, the game works for us but considering we're a group of thinkers and storytellers in a mix we're always trying the most devastating and unique ways to take down a target. Second the Ranger/Rogue Hybrid doesn't allow a blinding effect around level 1. Third, Called Shots were originally involved in D&D, but apparently New Age gamers wouldn't try something this interesting. Finally...

Called Shots must work under some house rule I assume maybe I'll just give him -2 to attack rolls or maybe a bonus to the over powered White Dragon's armor class.
I am Blue/Black "The Red Dragon is pulverizing your friends..." -Me "Okay so I'm up here?" -Shrui "Yeah..." -Me "Okay I want to triple backflip down from the ceiling while holding my family's katana and drive it through the Dragon's head." -Shrui "Yeah you'll take a -15 because he's moving his head." -Me "Don't care, I try it anyway." -Shrui (Acrobatics Roll Succeeds) (Attack Roll Succeeds) "How much extra damage do I get for this attack?" -Shrui "It dies, you don't need to do an attack roll." -Me Evil Dungeon Master says, And now young adventurer... you die.
well if a player wants to do something unexpected find the hard DC and give them a consiquence, like they grant combat advantage reguardless because he is taking a shot and ignoring the surroundings and maybe some other disadvnatage if he fails.

but the attack should do no damage.

use DMG pg. 42 for actions the rules dont cover.

Also the condition should either last until the targets end of turn or save ends.  Not permenant. 



Thank you, I'll take a look at this. But how could I describe a saving throw for him ending blindness, you think Szartharrax would close one eye and fight this way... unless Leucis tries a called shot to his other eye.
I am Blue/Black "The Red Dragon is pulverizing your friends..." -Me "Okay so I'm up here?" -Shrui "Yeah..." -Me "Okay I want to triple backflip down from the ceiling while holding my family's katana and drive it through the Dragon's head." -Shrui "Yeah you'll take a -15 because he's moving his head." -Me "Don't care, I try it anyway." -Shrui (Acrobatics Roll Succeeds) (Attack Roll Succeeds) "How much extra damage do I get for this attack?" -Shrui "It dies, you don't need to do an attack roll." -Me Evil Dungeon Master says, And now young adventurer... you die.
Leucis is using a Greatbow, he wants to do some sort of Called Shot to the eyes to try and blind Szartharrax. Thoughts?


I'm wondering who or what Szartharrax is, and why this is central to this question.  Also what class is Leucis, if blinding opponents is central to this character's theme then I would suggest having him take a class that gives powers that can blind enemies.

Maybe your suggesting that Leucis class and powers should not be so restrictive and that D&D 4e should reward creativity?  One problem I see here is that IMO if someone gets shot in the eye with a Greatbow, they're not blinded, they die.  That's one thing about hit points, they don't just represent toughness, but luck, skill and resolve.  Just because you hit an enemy with a greatbow that doesn't  always mean that suddenly there's an arrow sticking in them.  This could be described as the enemy dodging the arrow, but pulling a muscle/tearing tendions in the process.  They could also be using up some of their luck (like a cat with nine lives).

As far as why someone might not try this in real life, in real life people would be using guns more than likely since they're much easier to use and have far more lethality.  Even so, shooting someone in the chest with a greatbow/gun is likely to kill them (maybe instantly, I'm not a doctor) and will have a much greater chance of hitting them.  So in effect, in "real life" shooting for the eyes only greatly reduces the chance of killing the opponent because it will be so much more difficult to hit them in such a small mobile part of their body, while not adding enough killing power to the attack IMO to make it worth while.
Leucis is using a Greatbow, he wants to do some sort of Called Shot to the eyes to try and blind Szartharrax. Thoughts?


I'm wondering who or what Szartharrax is, and why this is central to this question.  Also what class is Leucis, if blinding opponents is central to this character's theme then I would suggest having him take a class that gives powers that can blind enemies.

Maybe your suggesting that Leucis class and powers should not be so restrictive and that D&D 4e should reward creativity?  One problem I see here is that IMO if someone gets shot in the eye with a Greatbow, they're not blinded, they die.  That's one thing about hit points, they don't just represent toughness, but luck, skill and resolve.  Just because you hit an enemy with a greatbow that doesn't  always mean that suddenly there's an arrow sticking in them.  This could be described as the enemy dodging the arrow, but pulling a muscle/tearing tendions in the process.  They could also be using up some of their luck (like a cat with nine lives).

As far as why someone might not try this in real life, in real life people would be using guns more than likely since they're much easier to use and have far more lethality.  Even so, shooting someone in the chest with a greatbow/gun is likely to kill them (maybe instantly, I'm not a doctor) and will have a much greater chance of hitting them.  So in effect, in "real life" shooting for the eyes only greatly reduces the chance of killing the opponent because it will be so much more difficult to hit them in such a small mobile part of their body, while not adding enough killing power to the attack IMO to make it worth while.



Szartharrax is an over-powered Young White Dragon in the DMG.
Leucis is a Ranger/Rogue Hybrid Tiefling, Level 1.

I see where you're getting at but what do you think a penalty to attack roll would be? -20 or Something for a Medium so maybe a -10 for a YWD.
I am Blue/Black "The Red Dragon is pulverizing your friends..." -Me "Okay so I'm up here?" -Shrui "Yeah..." -Me "Okay I want to triple backflip down from the ceiling while holding my family's katana and drive it through the Dragon's head." -Shrui "Yeah you'll take a -15 because he's moving his head." -Me "Don't care, I try it anyway." -Shrui (Acrobatics Roll Succeeds) (Attack Roll Succeeds) "How much extra damage do I get for this attack?" -Shrui "It dies, you don't need to do an attack roll." -Me Evil Dungeon Master says, And now young adventurer... you die.
we're a group of thinkers and storytellers in a mix we're always trying the most devastating and unique ways to take down a target



This is cool. You roll the way you want to.

However, you should be aware that if this is a major feature of your play style, then you may as well not bother with the 4E combat rules. They will become a pointless timewaster for you. Hence why I recommend something more storyteller based as your core system.

But you might also want to consider running combat encounters with lots of this kind of ad-libbed single take-down in as Skill Challenges. Perhaps for each named bad guy where the players want some super-takedown, you could allow it as a skill challenge (athletics to jump up on its back, bluff to bring it down prone, monster knowledge check (dungeoneering) to identify best way to kill it - getting all 3 makes it Helpless against your next attack). That way, the combat can still carry on where you want it to, and the players get to do their out-of-the-box thinking. It might work for you?


we're a group of thinkers and storytellers in a mix we're always trying the most devastating and unique ways to take down a target



This is cool. You roll the way you want to.

However, you should be aware that if this is a major feature of your play style, then you may as well not bother with the 4E combat rules. They will become a pointless timewaster for you. Hence why I recommend something more storyteller based as your core system.

But you might also want to consider running combat encounters with lots of this kind of ad-libbed single take-down in as Skill Challenges. Perhaps for each named bad guy where the players want some super-takedown, you could allow it as a skill challenge (athletics to jump up on its back, bluff to bring it down prone, monster knowledge check (dungeoneering) to identify best way to kill it - getting all 3 makes it Helpless against your next attack). That way, the combat can still carry on where you want it to, and the players get to do their out-of-the-box thinking. It might work for you?





Yeah, like I mentioned earlier maybe he should take a -10 to attack, making it almost pointless to try, sound reasonable?
Also do you think that maybe Leucis could delay his turn before he attacks and grant a +2 bonus each turn to hitting one eye?
I am Blue/Black "The Red Dragon is pulverizing your friends..." -Me "Okay so I'm up here?" -Shrui "Yeah..." -Me "Okay I want to triple backflip down from the ceiling while holding my family's katana and drive it through the Dragon's head." -Shrui "Yeah you'll take a -15 because he's moving his head." -Me "Don't care, I try it anyway." -Shrui (Acrobatics Roll Succeeds) (Attack Roll Succeeds) "How much extra damage do I get for this attack?" -Shrui "It dies, you don't need to do an attack roll." -Me Evil Dungeon Master says, And now young adventurer... you die.
well if a player wants to do something unexpected find the hard DC and give them a consiquence, like they grant combat advantage reguardless because he is taking a shot and ignoring the surroundings and maybe some other disadvnatage if he fails.

but the attack should do no damage.

use DMG pg. 42 for actions the rules dont cover.

Also the condition should either last until the targets end of turn or save ends.  Not permenant. 



Thank you, I'll take a look at this. But how could I describe a saving throw for him ending blindness, you think Szartharrax would close one eye and fight this way... unless Leucis tries a called shot to his other eye.



well it might not exactly take out the eye.  It might graze the area around the eye and the saving throw is recovering from it.

In combat i would suggest from actually discribing permenant dehibilitating effects unless you want to deal with the consiquences,  Like dismemberment.

Play whatever the **** you want. Never Point a loaded party at a plot you are not willing to shoot. Arcane Rhetoric. My Blog.

well if a player wants to do something unexpected find the hard DC and give them a consiquence, like they grant combat advantage reguardless because he is taking a shot and ignoring the surroundings and maybe some other disadvnatage if he fails.

but the attack should do no damage.

use DMG pg. 42 for actions the rules dont cover.

Also the condition should either last until the targets end of turn or save ends.  Not permenant. 



Thank you, I'll take a look at this. But how could I describe a saving throw for him ending blindness, you think Szartharrax would close one eye and fight this way... unless Leucis tries a called shot to his other eye.



well it might not exactly take out the eye.  It might graze the area around the eye and the saving throw is recovering from it.

In combat i would suggest from actually discribing permenant dehibilitating effects unless you want to deal with the consiquences,  Like dismemberment.



As I've mentioned...

Can Leucis sustain his aim gaining a +2 and losing his standard action, while taking an initial -10 penalty because of the general size of a Young White Dragon's eye? Also he shouldn't be able to move?

Does this sound reasonable?
I am Blue/Black "The Red Dragon is pulverizing your friends..." -Me "Okay so I'm up here?" -Shrui "Yeah..." -Me "Okay I want to triple backflip down from the ceiling while holding my family's katana and drive it through the Dragon's head." -Shrui "Yeah you'll take a -15 because he's moving his head." -Me "Don't care, I try it anyway." -Shrui (Acrobatics Roll Succeeds) (Attack Roll Succeeds) "How much extra damage do I get for this attack?" -Shrui "It dies, you don't need to do an attack roll." -Me Evil Dungeon Master says, And now young adventurer... you die.
It's perfectly reasonable to allow the PC to try to blind a target. A handful of classes can do that at 1st-level. Just because someone doesn't have a power on his or her character sheet doesn't mean they can't make a go of something. Have the character make a skill check appropriate for the scene first (hard DC since this is effectively a daily power level effect, depending on the characters' levels). If he makes the check, it's a ranged basic attack that blinds (save ends) on a hit. If he blows the skill check, however, there must be a consequence in-game... drops his weapon, breaks a bowstring and has to take a standard to restring it, targets someone else, falls prone, or whatever is right for the scene.

Page 42 of the DMG essentially implies that a rogue can use monk powers by using terrain and skills. If you really want to make things interesting, you can do what I do which is allow for players to have essentially unlimited use of their powers provided they can make the skill checks to duplicate them.

If you're like to read more about how this is done, read this blog entry: at-will.omnivangelist.net/2011/04/singul...
 

For any decision or adjudication, ask yourself, "Is this going to be fun for everyone?" and "Is this going to lead to the creation of an exciting, memorable story?"

DMs: Dungeon Master 101  |  Session Zero  |  Structure First, Story Last  |  No Myth Roleplaying  |  5e Monster Index & Encounter Calculator
Players: Players 101  |  11 Ways to Be a Better Roleplayer  |  You Are Not Your Character  |  Pre-Gen D&D 5e PCs

Content I Created: Adventure Scenarios  |  Actual Play Reports  |  Tools  |  Game Transcripts

Follow me on Twitter: @is3rith

I think I have to echo the sentiments of others on this thread and state that if you plan to change combat rules in 4E based on player ideas, you may be more comfortable with another system.  In general, 4E combat can be flavorful and involve a lot of roleplaying, but the rules are set in a particular mold because 4E is designed to provide balanced combat.  If you go outside those combat rules, then it is going to be hard for DM's who are actually using the system as written to provide you with advice for every possible scenario your players come up with.  If someone told me they were trying to shoot for the eyes on a dragon, I would give them a substantial penalty to hit, enough that almost anything short of a natural 20 would miss, if I allowed it at all.  Blind effects are often daily abilities at first level (like Blinding Barrage), so allowing a person an opportunity to put a -5 to hit and CA on the target as an At-Will is not a good idea.  This is especially true if your Ranger/Rogue hybrid has Sneak Attack as part of their build.

As a side, who shoots at an enemy's eyes at first level?  I could understand this with a ranged attacker who is a master at their craft, perhaps paragon or epic tier, but a first level adventurer should be happy just to score a hit.  Based on this thread and based on the other one you created, you see your players as creative thinkers and storytellers, looking for intelligent ways to take down the enemies in combat scenarios.  I see players who recognize that their DM will allow them to do almost anything and are trying to create any mechanical advantage in combat that they can imagine.  

The 4E combat system is complex, varied, and gives players the opportunity to exercise excellent tactical options that can result in vicious combinations.  Having adjudicated it as a DM and having played with it as a player, I like it as written.  I create roleplay options within combat, but I also develop roleplay scenarios outside of combat that allow for players to use their imagination and be creative.  If you want to change the combat rules, that is your right as the DM, but I think a balanced system simply becomes one of those fantasies where the characters are never in danger and there is never any suspense.
Just my 2c on it,
Making called shots isn't in the rules because depending on the character, they can start to become very overpowered and allow characters to do much more than the rest of their party. 

The guy wants to blind a character, next he will want to pin him to the ground with a shot or 2, or snipe a weapon out of their arms.  Like what other people have said here, if he wants a power to blind people, then he should look into taking powers that impose the blind condition, or weapons/ammunition that do the same.  The reason you cant do this is because the game becomes unbalanced.

An enemy that's blind grants CA to everyone, and takes a -5 to all of its attacks if I believe, so with a single attack from your ranged character hes pulled off pretty much a free daily power.

If you want to rule a house rule to make called shots, the best way to do it would be something like "the attack does no damage, and its made at a -2 to impose blindness until the end of your next turn".
If you make penalties more lasting, like a permanent blindness, make it a skill check maybe?  Instead of using the monsters defense possibly use the hard dc of the monsters level (not sure if that would be higher).  Also remember that if the players start doing stuff like this, it opens it for you making called shots on your monsters.  They may regret trying to snipe out someones eyes when 2 fights down the road an enemy archer pulls the same thing on them.
I think I have to echo the sentiments of others on this thread and state that if you plan to change combat rules in 4E based on player ideas, you may be more comfortable with another system.  In general, 4E combat can be flavorful and involve a lot of roleplaying, but the rules are set in a particular mold because 4E is designed to provide balanced combat.  If you go outside those combat rules, then it is going to be hard for DM's who are actually using the system as written to provide you with advice for every possible scenario your players come up with.  If someone told me they were trying to shoot for the eyes on a dragon, I would give them a substantial penalty to hit, enough that almost anything short of a natural 20 would miss, if I allowed it at all.  Blind effects are often daily abilities at first level (like Blinding Barrage), so allowing a person an opportunity to put a -5 to hit and CA on the target as an At-Will is not a good idea.  This is especially true if your Ranger/Rogue hybrid has Sneak Attack as part of their build.

As a side, who shoots at an enemy's eyes at first level?  I could understand this with a ranged attacker who is a master at their craft, perhaps paragon or epic tier, but a first level adventurer should be happy just to score a hit.  Based on this thread and based on the other one you created, you see your players as creative thinkers and storytellers, looking for intelligent ways to take down the enemies in combat scenarios.  I see players who recognize that their DM will allow them to do almost anything and are trying to create any mechanical advantage in combat that they can imagine.  

The 4E combat system is complex, varied, and gives players the opportunity to exercise excellent tactical options that can result in vicious combinations.  Having adjudicated it as a DM and having played with it as a player, I like it as written.  I create roleplay options within combat, but I also develop roleplay scenarios outside of combat that allow for players to use their imagination and be creative.  If you want to change the combat rules, that is your right as the DM, but I think a balanced system simply becomes one of those fantasies where the characters are never in danger and there is never any suspense.



I guess it's time to add to the combat chapter of my Player's Handbook, throw in all of their tactics. By the way I said -10 penalty which is much more reasonable and makes it almost pointless to try. Plus I'll allow him to get +2 each turn if he does absolutely nothing else but aim.
I am Blue/Black "The Red Dragon is pulverizing your friends..." -Me "Okay so I'm up here?" -Shrui "Yeah..." -Me "Okay I want to triple backflip down from the ceiling while holding my family's katana and drive it through the Dragon's head." -Shrui "Yeah you'll take a -15 because he's moving his head." -Me "Don't care, I try it anyway." -Shrui (Acrobatics Roll Succeeds) (Attack Roll Succeeds) "How much extra damage do I get for this attack?" -Shrui "It dies, you don't need to do an attack roll." -Me Evil Dungeon Master says, And now young adventurer... you die.
Just my 2c on it,
Making called shots isn't in the rules because depending on the character, they can start to become very overpowered and allow characters to do much more than the rest of their party. 

The guy wants to blind a character, next he will want to pin him to the ground with a shot or 2, or snipe a weapon out of their arms.  Like what other people have said here, if he wants a power to blind people, then he should look into taking powers that impose the blind condition, or weapons/ammunition that do the same.  The reason you cant do this is because the game becomes unbalanced.

An enemy that's blind grants CA to everyone, and takes a -5 to all of its attacks if I believe, so with a single attack from your ranged character hes pulled off pretty much a free daily power.

If you want to rule a house rule to make called shots, the best way to do it would be something like "the attack does no damage, and its made at a -2 to impose blindness until the end of your next turn".
If you make penalties more lasting, like a permanent blindness, make it a skill check maybe?  Instead of using the monsters defense possibly use the hard dc of the monsters level (not sure if that would be higher).  Also remember that if the players start doing stuff like this, it opens it for you making called shots on your monsters.  They may regret trying to snipe out someones eyes when 2 fights down the road an enemy archer pulls the same thing on them.



Except a "Called Shot" doesn't exist in 4e. That concept comes from a different edition. 4e is a different game. Many problems I've found with a lot of players and DMs are that they bring assumptions from previous editions into 4e. No es bueno.

What the player is saying is that "I want to blind that one target." If he wants to pin him to the ground, he's saying, "I want to immobilized that one target." If he wants to remove a target's ability to attack by disarming it, he's saying, "I want to prevent that one target from taking a standard action without first taking a minor action." These are all effects that powers duplicate in the game.

Taken to its logical course, "where a skill represents the character’s ability to attempt a wide variety of related actions effectively at any time, a power represents the character’s ability to execute a specific action perfectly at specific intervals." That means you can use Spinning Sweep more than just once per encounter, but if you're not using the actual power, you need to make a skill check for it and failing that check comes with consequences. (That quote was taken from the blog I linked above. Take a look.)

For any decision or adjudication, ask yourself, "Is this going to be fun for everyone?" and "Is this going to lead to the creation of an exciting, memorable story?"

DMs: Dungeon Master 101  |  Session Zero  |  Structure First, Story Last  |  No Myth Roleplaying  |  5e Monster Index & Encounter Calculator
Players: Players 101  |  11 Ways to Be a Better Roleplayer  |  You Are Not Your Character  |  Pre-Gen D&D 5e PCs

Content I Created: Adventure Scenarios  |  Actual Play Reports  |  Tools  |  Game Transcripts

Follow me on Twitter: @is3rith

I guess it's time to add to the combat chapter of my Player's Handbook, throw in all of their tactics. By the way I said -10 penalty which is much more reasonable and makes it almost pointless to try. Plus I'll allow him to get +2 each turn if he does absolutely nothing else but aim.



A -10 penalty is just a weak way of saying "No."  

Use the skills system. If he succeeds on a hard check, he can make the RBA to blind the guy. I promise it won't break your game. 

For any decision or adjudication, ask yourself, "Is this going to be fun for everyone?" and "Is this going to lead to the creation of an exciting, memorable story?"

DMs: Dungeon Master 101  |  Session Zero  |  Structure First, Story Last  |  No Myth Roleplaying  |  5e Monster Index & Encounter Calculator
Players: Players 101  |  11 Ways to Be a Better Roleplayer  |  You Are Not Your Character  |  Pre-Gen D&D 5e PCs

Content I Created: Adventure Scenarios  |  Actual Play Reports  |  Tools  |  Game Transcripts

Follow me on Twitter: @is3rith

Okay does this sound like a good way to fix his little idea?

He can take aim at any eyes; If it's a swarm, it does nothing, if it's tiny it's a -40, if it's small it's a -30, if it's medium it's a -20, if it's large it's a -10, if it's huge it's a -5, if it's gargantuan it has no penalty.

He can also do nothing on his next turn if he chooses to get better aim, but as a result he gains a +2 bonus to the shot.

If the shot hits then the target is 1/2 blind meaning he only has a -5 penalty to perception checks and all targets have general concealment.
If the shot misses but is within 5 points to hitting he does a standard attack roll, if it is less than 5 it misses entirely.

Also, I'm very logical about this so he'll never be able to shoot the weapon out of someone's arms... that wouldn't make sense. However I imagine I could generate a system for called shots to the body and do similar effects such as 1/2 blindness.

I am Blue/Black "The Red Dragon is pulverizing your friends..." -Me "Okay so I'm up here?" -Shrui "Yeah..." -Me "Okay I want to triple backflip down from the ceiling while holding my family's katana and drive it through the Dragon's head." -Shrui "Yeah you'll take a -15 because he's moving his head." -Me "Don't care, I try it anyway." -Shrui (Acrobatics Roll Succeeds) (Attack Roll Succeeds) "How much extra damage do I get for this attack?" -Shrui "It dies, you don't need to do an attack roll." -Me Evil Dungeon Master says, And now young adventurer... you die.
You are absolutely right that downsides need to be incorporated into things like that.  I think encouraging creativity is a great thing, but you have to provide a downside for failing that creates a risk element so a wonderfully creative idea doesn't become the norm.  I say this from the perspective of a DM who allows a lot and a player who tries a lot.  An Avenger I am playing in a current campaign attempted to jump over a fruit cart as part of a move instead of taking a more standard route around it, and I will admit I did it mostly because I thought it would be cool.  I rolled a natural 1, fell prone into the fruit cart, and took damage.  Even on a regular failure, it is likely that I would have ended up prone, and as a player, I am okay with that because risky behavior is either going to have cool results or spectacularly bad results, depending how the die falls.

The problem lies when a DM doesn't find ways to impose realistic penalties for failure and simply allows everything to be true.  Give your player the opportunity to do something interesting, but lay out the bad things that happens if they fail at it.  If they still try, good for them.  It will make success sweeter, and failure may cause a player to think twice about trying something too ridiculous in the future.  For really cool ideas within the game system, you are within your rights to allow an auto-success as long as you are aware of the future ramifications of such a decision.  See the Penny Arcade 2010 game for a good example where Chris Perkins allowed an expanded usage of Prestidigitation simply because he thought it was cool.  Another part of that is that if you do allow it, keep in mind that other players may feel less heroic as a result if they do not receive similar favorable treatment, i.e. Scott Kurtz's Dwarf Warrior, or it may open up unintended results later on.
I guess it's time to add to the combat chapter of my Player's Handbook, throw in all of their tactics. By the way I said -10 penalty which is much more reasonable and makes it almost pointless to try. Plus I'll allow him to get +2 each turn if he does absolutely nothing else but aim.



A -10 penalty is just a weak way of saying "No."  

Use the skills system. If he succeeds on a hard check, he can make the RBA to blind the guy. I promise it won't break your game. 



What skill check should it be based on then, and should he still gain the general effects, but maybe a -5 / a -10.
I am Blue/Black "The Red Dragon is pulverizing your friends..." -Me "Okay so I'm up here?" -Shrui "Yeah..." -Me "Okay I want to triple backflip down from the ceiling while holding my family's katana and drive it through the Dragon's head." -Shrui "Yeah you'll take a -15 because he's moving his head." -Me "Don't care, I try it anyway." -Shrui (Acrobatics Roll Succeeds) (Attack Roll Succeeds) "How much extra damage do I get for this attack?" -Shrui "It dies, you don't need to do an attack roll." -Me Evil Dungeon Master says, And now young adventurer... you die.
What skill check should it be based on then, and should he still gain the general effects, but maybe a -5 / a -10.



Stop thinking about penalties. That's a holdover from previous editions. The "penalty" if you really want to think of it that way comes from making two rolls to instigate one action (skill check, then attack roll). That's two chances of failure. You don't need to penalize it. You make the skill check. If successful, you make the attack roll. If successful, the player get wants he wants and it's cool. If he fails the skill check, some bad stuff happens.

The skill depends on the scene. It won't necessarily be the same skill in the next encounter if he wants to try the same thing. It could be Acrobatics, Stealth, Thievery, or even Heal (to know where to strike)... anything that makes sense in context.

For any decision or adjudication, ask yourself, "Is this going to be fun for everyone?" and "Is this going to lead to the creation of an exciting, memorable story?"

DMs: Dungeon Master 101  |  Session Zero  |  Structure First, Story Last  |  No Myth Roleplaying  |  5e Monster Index & Encounter Calculator
Players: Players 101  |  11 Ways to Be a Better Roleplayer  |  You Are Not Your Character  |  Pre-Gen D&D 5e PCs

Content I Created: Adventure Scenarios  |  Actual Play Reports  |  Tools  |  Game Transcripts

Follow me on Twitter: @is3rith

What skill check should it be based on then, and should he still gain the general effects, but maybe a -5 / a -10.



Stop thinking about penalties. That's a holdover from previous editions. The "penalty" if you really want to think of it that way comes from making two rolls to instigate one action (skill check, then attack roll). That's two chances of failure. You don't need to penalize it. You make the skill check. If successful, you make the attack roll. If successful, the player get wants he wants and it's cool. If he fails the skill check, some bad stuff happens.

The skill depends on the scene. It won't necessarily be the same skill in the next encounter if he wants to try the same thing. It could be Acrobatics, Stealth, Thievery, or even Heal (to know where to strike)... anything that makes sense in context.



Awesome idea with heal for determining knowing where to strike.
Umm... I don't think any of the skills really cover what this would be under. Should I just make a Marksman skill, it's actually quite reasonable, and it wouldn't do anything else besides assist called shots...
I am Blue/Black "The Red Dragon is pulverizing your friends..." -Me "Okay so I'm up here?" -Shrui "Yeah..." -Me "Okay I want to triple backflip down from the ceiling while holding my family's katana and drive it through the Dragon's head." -Shrui "Yeah you'll take a -15 because he's moving his head." -Me "Don't care, I try it anyway." -Shrui (Acrobatics Roll Succeeds) (Attack Roll Succeeds) "How much extra damage do I get for this attack?" -Shrui "It dies, you don't need to do an attack roll." -Me Evil Dungeon Master says, And now young adventurer... you die.
I think Iserith is saying that a -10 is a weak way of saying "no" because it's such a large penalty that it is not really worth attempting.  As an example, if something is shooting at you from superior cover (an arrow slit, behind a rock but barely in line of effect), you get a -5 to hit on them.  If you're blinded, you receive a -5 to hit.  If something is completely obscured from your view but due to a perception check, you know what square they are in, you receive a -5 to hit on a target you can't even SEE.  Giving a -5 to the shot because it is harder than normal is reasonable, but -10 discourages the shot altogether.

However, consequence for failure needs to be a part of the equation.  In your situation, I would say that taking this action would enrage the dragon so much that he would key in on the Rogue/Ranger, attacking him without hindrance.  This would mean that the dragon would not be subject to mark violation rules as long as he attacked Leucis or the defender marking.  No -2 and no special effect due to mark violation.  Sure, he may be making those attacks at a -5 until he saves, granting combat advantage, but the dragon is going to come out ahead in that situation because he gets a free chance to eat a character that the mechanics normally don't allow.
We've been playing since 3E, the game works for us but considering we're a group of thinkers and storytellers in a mix we're always trying the most devastating and unique ways to take down a target. Second the Ranger/Rogue Hybrid doesn't allow a blinding effect around level 1. Third, Called Shots were originally involved in D&D, but apparently New Age gamers wouldn't try something this interesting.


Old school gamer here, and called shots never made sense to me. I mean, you're telling me that, by default, my sword wielding fighter is NOT trying to dismember the opponent and reduce his combat effectiveness? I have to specifically tell you that my fighter is trying to slice his opponent's tendons or something to that effect?

Well, in 4e, they decided fighters (or anyone else, really), weren't stupid and really were going for the vulnerable parts of their opponents. Called shots went out, as that's what every attack is. Meanwhile, you character's combat style (e.g. is he more likely to go for the eyes or throat?) is represented by your powers.

That said, your best bet is to take Herozerro's advice; they are doing something they have not specialized in, so they take some sort of penalty, and their attack does no damage, it only applies an effect.

Why does it make sense that trying to hit a dragon in the eye would do no damage, and that the dragon would be able to recover from blindness? Because of the way combat has been conceived in D&D since the very begining, your attacks do not necessarily land physical blows against your opponent. You are exhausting them, demoralizing them, throwing them off balance so that they eventually open up to a killing blow. 4e expanded on this with the bloodied condition basically representing landing one good-but-not-deadly hit. So when your player tries to blind the dragon, and he succeeds, he has not actually put his weapon into the dragon's eye. Instead, he has forced the dragon to protect his eyes by keeping them shut or averted from the action.
Awesome idea with heal for determining knowing where to strike.
Umm... I don't think any of the skills really cover what this would be under. Should I just make a Marksman skill, it's actually quite reasonable, and it wouldn't do anything else besides assist called shots...



No, you don't need to add anything else to the game to make this system work. It's all there for you. You just can't be so literal with what a skill is and what is can be used for. Think of skills as very broad. For example, Endurance can mean enduring the desert heat and enduring the jibes and insults of the King's jester. If it can be reasonably justified, it can be attempted. In a pinch, look at the character's sheet and pick a skill for the player, but do so with context in mind. "John, you want to blind the target with an arrow to the eye, but you have to lean over the edge of the wall in such a way that doing so makes it a precarious shot. Make an Acrobatics check first (hard DC) before attempting this attack." Hard DC at 1st-level is 19, meaning that your bowman likely has around a 50/50 chance of making the check if it's a Dex skill he's trained in.  And then he has to make the attack roll.

An encounter power is just the representation that once per encounter you can execute an attack perfectly. It doesn't mean you'll hit, simply that you pulled off the action. Does this mean you can't attempt a maneuver like Spinning Sweep a second time that encounter? Did you somehow forget how to spin around and knock people prone? No! You can try it again, only this time it requires a skill check first. And if you fail that check, there are consequences.

I think Iserith is saying that a -10 is a weak way of saying "no" because it's such a large penalty that it is not really worth attempting



Correct. You've got the right idea with your idea of how consequences should be applied as well... very situational and dramatic.  Remember guys, failure when it happens should be cool.

For any decision or adjudication, ask yourself, "Is this going to be fun for everyone?" and "Is this going to lead to the creation of an exciting, memorable story?"

DMs: Dungeon Master 101  |  Session Zero  |  Structure First, Story Last  |  No Myth Roleplaying  |  5e Monster Index & Encounter Calculator
Players: Players 101  |  11 Ways to Be a Better Roleplayer  |  You Are Not Your Character  |  Pre-Gen D&D 5e PCs

Content I Created: Adventure Scenarios  |  Actual Play Reports  |  Tools  |  Game Transcripts

Follow me on Twitter: @is3rith

I think Iserith is saying that a -10 is a weak way of saying "no" because it's such a large penalty that it is not really worth attempting.  As an example, if something is shooting at you from superior cover (an arrow slit, behind a rock but barely in line of effect), you get a -5 to hit on them.  If you're blinded, you receive a -5 to hit.  If something is completely obscured from your view but due to a perception check, you know what square they are in, you receive a -5 to hit on a target you can't even SEE.  Giving a -5 to the shot because it is harder than normal is reasonable, but -10 discourages the shot altogether.

However, consequence for failure needs to be a part of the equation.  In your situation, I would say that taking this action would enrage the dragon so much that he would key in on the Rogue/Ranger, attacking him without hindrance.  This would mean that the dragon would not be subject to mark violation rules as long as he attacked Leucis or the defender marking.  No -2 and no special effect due to mark violation.  Sure, he may be making those attacks at a -5 until he saves, granting combat advantage, but the dragon is going to come out ahead in that situation because he gets a free chance to eat a character that the mechanics normally don't allow.



Hmm... @CrowScape I know that he would take damage to his actual hit points, however as I've mentioned above, I want to introduce a rather special half blind status. I understand how hit points work and what not because Called Shots were originally all over the body, Leucis specifically wants to try to hit parts of the body that would actually cause effects, and I won't say that the dragon is merely going to avoid this shot because it sounds more interesting to say that his arrow actually half-blinds the dragon. ALSO I like the idea of a rage effect, that sounds quite interesting however I'm pretty sure that a -10 or -5 is reasonable because this dragon is not only moving it's head but it's whole body causing the aim to be extremely difficult THAT'S why I'm trying to allow sustained aiming to get better chances of a hit.

Also Iserith I understand the idea of using a skill, even history might work as he tries to distinctively remember how his father taught him to aim in Neverwinter. But... I still think sustained aiming sounds more reasonable plus I could add his damage roll also against the hit points to make the target both half-blind and have him take damage.
I am Blue/Black "The Red Dragon is pulverizing your friends..." -Me "Okay so I'm up here?" -Shrui "Yeah..." -Me "Okay I want to triple backflip down from the ceiling while holding my family's katana and drive it through the Dragon's head." -Shrui "Yeah you'll take a -15 because he's moving his head." -Me "Don't care, I try it anyway." -Shrui (Acrobatics Roll Succeeds) (Attack Roll Succeeds) "How much extra damage do I get for this attack?" -Shrui "It dies, you don't need to do an attack roll." -Me Evil Dungeon Master says, And now young adventurer... you die.
Also Iserith I understand the idea of using a skill, even history might work as he tries to distinctively remember how his father taught him to aim in Neverwinter. But... I still think sustained aiming sounds more reasonable plus I could add his damage roll also against the hit points to make the target both half-blind and have him take damage.



It's not aiming for a specific body part. It's applying a condition to a creature you can't normally attempt with a standard array of this particular character's powers. If you start trying to simulate reality in D&D much less 4e, you'll add layers of complexity that add nothing to the fun. Your goal should be quick resolution with no need for house rules. The skill check does that for you. "Sustained aiming" wastes actions in a game where action economy is king.

You guys were talking about how much force a sling stone has when it impacts a person in a different thread and whether or not cantrips could offset it. I could literally see people breaking out physics equations. That kind of precise thinking is just not required in this game. It brings nothing to the table, adds nothing to the story. You're going down that same path here.

Rule of Cool. Page 42 for Improvised Actions. Skill checks. And there's your solution with no needed modifications to the rules.

For any decision or adjudication, ask yourself, "Is this going to be fun for everyone?" and "Is this going to lead to the creation of an exciting, memorable story?"

DMs: Dungeon Master 101  |  Session Zero  |  Structure First, Story Last  |  No Myth Roleplaying  |  5e Monster Index & Encounter Calculator
Players: Players 101  |  11 Ways to Be a Better Roleplayer  |  You Are Not Your Character  |  Pre-Gen D&D 5e PCs

Content I Created: Adventure Scenarios  |  Actual Play Reports  |  Tools  |  Game Transcripts

Follow me on Twitter: @is3rith

Also Iserith I understand the idea of using a skill, even history might work as he tries to distinctively remember how his father taught him to aim in Neverwinter. But... I still think sustained aiming sounds more reasonable plus I could add his damage roll also against the hit points to make the target both half-blind and have him take damage.



It's not aiming for a specific body part. It's applying a condition to a creature you can't normally attempt with a standard array of this particular character's powers. If you start trying to simulate reality in D&D much less 4e, you'll add layers of complexity that add nothing to the fun. Your goal should be quick resolution with no need for house rules. The skill check does that for you. "Sustained aiming" wastes actions in a game where action economy is king.

You guys were talking about how much force a sling stone has when it impacts a person in a different thread and whether or not cantrips could offset it. I could literally see people breaking out physics equations. That kind of precise thinking is just not required in this game. It brings nothing to the table, adds nothing to the story. You're going down that same path here.

Rule of Cool. Page 42 for Improvised Actions. Skill checks. And there's your solution with no needed modifications to the rules.



XD, alright I might try the skill thing, might also try the attack thing if they disagree on it. I can't wait for them to meet Keep on the Shadowfell.
I am Blue/Black "The Red Dragon is pulverizing your friends..." -Me "Okay so I'm up here?" -Shrui "Yeah..." -Me "Okay I want to triple backflip down from the ceiling while holding my family's katana and drive it through the Dragon's head." -Shrui "Yeah you'll take a -15 because he's moving his head." -Me "Don't care, I try it anyway." -Shrui (Acrobatics Roll Succeeds) (Attack Roll Succeeds) "How much extra damage do I get for this attack?" -Shrui "It dies, you don't need to do an attack roll." -Me Evil Dungeon Master says, And now young adventurer... you die.
The sustained aiming is fine as an idea, but keep in mind that there are powers, feats, and abilities that a Ranger or Crossbow Rogue can invest in that give them similar effects to what you are proposing.  Why would a player ever invest in something like that if you grant it to them for free?

Like you said, it's a hard shot.  You're the DM and you say that because of the difficulty, he takes a -5 to attack and has a chance to enrage the dragon.  Above all, when altering the rules to accomodate something cool, keep it simple.  All this talk of making up new skills or adding sustained modes to the existing combat system gives me the impression that you are not fully aware of what is possible in 4E currently.  I don't mean that offensively; I think most DM's start out in the same way with 4E.  When I first started DMing 4E, I told my players I would allow them a little extra latitude in certain situations, only to find out that the "latitude" I was giving them was already written into the rules.

Learn the system inside and out then make changes from there.  Making changes before understanding what is possible and how things work together will lead you down a bad road.

 
The sustained aiming is fine as an idea, but keep in mind that there are powers, feats, and abilities that a Ranger or Crossbow Rogue can invest in that give them similar effects to what you are proposing.  Why would a player ever invest in something like that if you grant it to them for free?

Like you said, it's a hard shot.  You're the DM and you say that because of the difficulty, he takes a -5 to attack and has a chance to enrage the dragon.  Above all, when altering the rules to accomodate something cool, keep it simple.  All this talk of making up new skills or adding sustained modes to the existing combat system gives me the impression that you are not fully aware of what is possible in 4E currently.  I don't mean that offensively; I think most DM's start out in the same way with 4E.  When I first started DMing 4E, I told my players I would allow them a little extra latitude in certain situations, only to find out that the "latitude" I was giving them was already written into the rules.

Learn the system inside and out then make changes from there.  Making changes before understanding what is possible and how things work together will lead you down a bad road.

 



All very good advice for a new DM - don't mess with things until you've shed the coil of previous editions. After 3+ years of DMing 4e, it has become crystal clear that the system is very stable and had every tool you need written into it provided you are not extremely strict in interpretation.

Again, I would caution against penalizing any action with a negative. That is definitely a holdout from previous editions where penalties were commonly applied. (And before someone attacks me for saying you get a -5 penalty to attack an invisible creature, I'd point out that's more a benefit applied to the invisible creature than a penalty applied to the attacker.) You're basically telling the person their idea is dumb and you don't want them to do it. Don't be that kind of DM.

Don't penalize - incentivize. By asking for a skill roll, even though that's technically increasing the chance of them failing, it doesn't appear to be that way to the player. Instead, you're saying, "You can attempt do anything you want in my game because this is D&D, not a video game with limiting parameters." However, attempting to do something that has a chance of failure requires a roll and failure may come with consequences outside of just missing. What consequences? Whatever's appropriate to the scene and most interesting for the story in context.

For any decision or adjudication, ask yourself, "Is this going to be fun for everyone?" and "Is this going to lead to the creation of an exciting, memorable story?"

DMs: Dungeon Master 101  |  Session Zero  |  Structure First, Story Last  |  No Myth Roleplaying  |  5e Monster Index & Encounter Calculator
Players: Players 101  |  11 Ways to Be a Better Roleplayer  |  You Are Not Your Character  |  Pre-Gen D&D 5e PCs

Content I Created: Adventure Scenarios  |  Actual Play Reports  |  Tools  |  Game Transcripts

Follow me on Twitter: @is3rith

I definitely think there is some truth to what you say about penalizing every action with a negative.  It is not always necessary to apply additional negative consequences to a result.  When I first started DMing 4E, I added mechanical critical failure effects, which slowed combat down and made people fearful of even rolling.  Some of the critical failure effects don't really make a lot of sense, either, so I've since stopped using critical failure in combat, though in risky skill situations, it can still have a negative effect depending on the scene.

Sometimes, a miss is enough, but sometimes, the situation calls for extra bad things to happen.  If the situation calls for "extra bad things", I find it is good form to let a player know possible results from failure rather than just springing those things on them post-action.  "Sure, Bob, you can attempt to leap 20 feet across the bottomless chasm and grab onto the giant hanging icicle, but failure may result in your immediate death.  Do you want to roll Athletics?"  I think that's a lot better than saying, "Roll Athletics", have them fail, and then say, "You fall to your death."  Sometimes, players want to try ideas that ARE both dumb and risky.  I've done dumb things in D&D before as a player, and having a DM say, "Sure, roll this!" with an evil gleam in their eye, then applying a brutal penalty after the fact that kills or maims a character makes me feel like I never want to try doing anything ever again.  I'd much rather have a DM explain the risks before the attempt and feel dumb for suggesting it than feeling like the DM came up with the risks afterwards as a way of punishing me.



 
I honestly don't think you're going to get anywhere concrete if you ask us whether your ideas are going to work, especially on an issue as devisive as this kind of thing.

You're thinkers and storytellers? We all are here, so I hope you're not offering that as some personal distinction. Some of are able to and prefer to hew relatively close to the offered rules to bring about the effects our players want, but that doesn't mean we're not thoughtful and telling good stories.

Some of us, such as myself, really enjoy 4th Edition because we saw all the DM ajudication and player "creativity" as something run rampant. I had fellow players who would try to do "obvious" things like shooting enemies in the head and then complain when the DM didn't have the monster drop then and there. But, if the player's plan worked, then that would be it. The player would just do that every time. Then the DM would have to start doing it to players, and then what? I'm sure rules ajudication along those lines can work, I've just never had a good experience with it.

So, I think you should try these things at your table and let US know how it worked. Maybe you can make it work for you and your players.

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

I definitely think there is some truth to what you say about penalizing every action with a negative.  It is not always necessary to apply additional negative consequences to a result.  When I first started DMing 4E, I added mechanical critical failure effects, which slowed combat down and made people fearful of even rolling.  Some of the critical failure effects don't really make a lot of sense, either, so I've since stopped using critical failure in combat, though in risky skill situations, it can still have a negative effect depending on the scene.

Sometimes, a miss is enough, but sometimes, the situation calls for extra bad things to happen.  If the situation calls for "extra bad things", I find it is good form to let a player know possible results from failure rather than just springing those things on them post-action.  "Sure, Bob, you can attempt to leap 20 feet across the bottomless chasm and grab onto the giant hanging icicle, but failure may result in your immediate death.  Do you want to roll Athletics?"  I think that's a lot better than saying, "Roll Athletics", have them fail, and then say, "You fall to your death."  Sometimes, players want to try ideas that ARE both dumb and risky.  I've done dumb things in D&D before as a player, and having a DM say, "Sure, roll this!" with an evil gleam in their eye, then applying a brutal penalty after the fact that kills or maims a character makes me feel like I never want to try doing anything ever again.  I'd much rather have a DM explain the risks before the attempt and feel dumb for suggesting it than feeling like the DM came up with the risks afterwards as a way of punishing me.



 



Reminds me of my signature the red dragon and players fighting it were surrounded by spikes, if she failed I would've granted instantaneous impale, which I did mention however for some messed up reason she did it anyway and beat the odds, even though I may have modified the DC a little if she failed, she beat it anyway. I've finally developed a system which should work appropriately based on what you guys have given me.
I am Blue/Black "The Red Dragon is pulverizing your friends..." -Me "Okay so I'm up here?" -Shrui "Yeah..." -Me "Okay I want to triple backflip down from the ceiling while holding my family's katana and drive it through the Dragon's head." -Shrui "Yeah you'll take a -15 because he's moving his head." -Me "Don't care, I try it anyway." -Shrui (Acrobatics Roll Succeeds) (Attack Roll Succeeds) "How much extra damage do I get for this attack?" -Shrui "It dies, you don't need to do an attack roll." -Me Evil Dungeon Master says, And now young adventurer... you die.
The player can't say 'I shoot him in the eye'.
He can say 'I ATTEMPT to shoot him in the eye'.  Regardless of the die roll, he can't permanently cripple the target unless, perhaps, he reduces the target to zero HP (which means 'out of the fight' as much as 'dead').  So, he deals his HP damage and whatever other effects come off the power.  If that damage reduces the target to zero HP, narrate it as him leaving the fight as he clutches his face in pain with an arrow sticking out of it.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Sigh

Give a penalty and let him try, if it hits its blinded untill the end of his next turn, if he fails it nicks him and causes it to relatite with a breath attack or something. Make flashy moves not covered in the rules risk vs reward.

If players start getting too carried away, start passing out *hero points* encounters and dailys take a lot of effort to pull off, thats why they cant be done too often. Same concept, the flashy stuff they come up with also drains them physically and mentally and thus they spend a hero point to pull off some attempt to pull off some awesome heroish move.

DnD is not a competeive game so its not as if things have to be perfectly balanced, improvise and go at it. Ignore some of the rules lawyering types here, the rule book is thier bible, they don't want to play that way which is fine, if you and your players do, then go for it, the DnD police wont kick down your door and arrest you I promise.

EDIT: Iseriths skill check suggestion is also very reasonable and sound.

EDIT EDIT: Actually upon rereading Iseriths posts his suggestion is way better then mine, listen to him because from now on in my games I will be. I've read the DMG many times, for some reason I never thought of the section about improvisng in that way, its genius and its been in front of my face the whole time.
i know one of my DMs allows for called shots i recall he uses alot of the 2e terms however i cant typically find a situation to use them in alot of the time. but either way its nice to have the rules there for us.

i think these are some of his rules, all the attacks do normal damage. 

head: -8 to hit, with a blunt weapon knocks target unconsious until ENoT, with a sharp weapon blinds the target until ENoT if you miss with the attack, that arm is stunned from the extra force exerted until ENoT

arm: -4 to hit (i think) blunt weapon stuns the arm itself until ENoT, sharp weapon forces the enemy to drop whatever the arm is holding (cut off fingirs maybe) a fail means you grant CA because of the target dodging while you leave a wide opening

leg: -4, knocks target prone, they cannot stand up until ENoT. you grant CA because you have to drop your guard and reach at the targets legs. 

head slam: smash your head into the targets head, first roll to hit (unarmed MBA vs reflex), if you hit both PC and NPC make con checks, the loser goes unconsious (save ends) if its a tie both targets go unconsious (save ends). 
 
these have not had a huge impact on our game, the minuses to hit and the possible negatives to instill a bit of fear in us. however, they do come up from time to time.
D&D is not a competitive game, but 4E is structured and balanced in pretty specific ways for combat.  Having played previous editions, I can tell you that I like structure in combat because you have a list of things you are able to do in combat and it is really simple to get new players into the game because there isn't a lot of difficult math and most of the checks are simple roll + modifier versus defense for attack.  I submit that if you play 4E by stripping down the combat rules and creating your own version, you may as well just play a different roleplaying system that is built with that kind of combat freedom in mind.  There are a lot of options available to players and DM's to come up with great shared storytelling experiences within 4E and to create amazing combat encounters that both challenge and encourage players to try different things.  

Also, regarding the "rules lawyer" comment, I think that is absolutely uncalled for and I am not 100 percent who on this thread it refers to.  A lot of people have provided the OP with tons of things they can do without giving an outright no, and many of these suggestions do not revolve around specific rules.  Based on the double edit, I suspect you did not even read a majority of the thread before jumping to conclusions about its content.

I would also state that if some of the other DMs here are a little cautious about rewriting the rules to suit every player desire, perhaps that comes from experience with games that have gotten completely out of hand.  Just because DM's are encouraged to say "yes" whenever they can does not mean that we are required to say "yes" every time.  Most people prefer games run by DM's who can keep the story moving, provide opportunities for characters to be heroic, and who keep the game fair for everyone involved.  If a player expects a DM to cave in and say "yes" to everything, then I would suggest that player DM a game with a loose narrative, a sandbox approach, and allow the players to write the rules according to their whim.  I'd be interested to see how long a game like that lasts, because most of the DM horror stories I've read on the player's forum appear to be exactly these types of experiences.
Sign In to post comments