Called Shots?

[phydaux]

Do you guys use Called Shots in your Super Heroic campaigns?

 

I'm all for them in lower powered campaigns, and I'm totally in favor of martial artists using them. My only concern is these gits with 60 STR and +5 Combat Skills with Punch. It seems to me that will unballance things too much in favor of Bricks.

 

Or the sap with max Stealth, an APEB and +5 Combat Skills with EB. This guy will not only get the Called Shot stun multiplier but the Suprise multiplier as well.

 

Or is it either or? One or the other?

 

What have you guys found?

[Monolith]

I do not use them in superhero games, but I do not see it as being unbalanced for bricks. The average brick has a 6-7 CV, does 11-12d6, and has 2-4 Levels. The average martial artist has a 9-10 CV, does 10-11d6, and has 1-3 Levels. The chance for a martial artist to succeed with a Called Shot are thus greater than a bricks, and the damage is nearly the same.

[JmOz]

I allow them, but they are hardly used.

[Supreme Serpent]

Don't use them except in very rare instances (ie hit vampire in heart, etc).

 

As a side note since you mentioned surprise attacks, I've started trying surprise as 2xStun AFTER defenses, to allow surprise attacks but not make it as overwhelming. I don't care how surprised Hulk is by the guy with the lead pipe - he still shouldn't feel it.

[Bartman]

Originally posted by JmOz

I allow them, but they are hardly used.

Yep. They add flavor and depth to combat, both of which I find to be good things. In the campaign I am currently in, only one player has tried a called shot.

 

The biggest equalizer is how hard they are to pull off. It is what, a -8 for a head shot? My current character with skill levels can achieve a 10 OCV and that is only on about half of his attacks. He would have a 50% chance of hiting a 3 DCV character. Most villians in this campaign average about an 8 DCV. I haven't tried a called shot because I would either have no chance of hiting or the targets are normals and the extra damage isn't necessary.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Bartman

I haven't tried a called shot because I would either have no chance of hiting or the targets are normals and the extra damage isn't necessary.

If the GM is going to allow called shots he should probably also allow Special Hit Location shots, meaning the GM might allow a High Shot (-2 OCV 2d6+1 Hit Location) or a Head Shot (-4 OCV, 1d6+3 Hit Location). That gives them something to try without making it an impossible feat.

[Blue]

I like Called Shots. But as you'll see here, you may not want to include them in superheroic campaigns...

 

Most of my players are pretty much on-par with the villains as far as OCV/DCV go. This makes called shots difficult for them (and all of the villains that I've made). However, there is one PC who, in seven game sessions, has taken 3 head shots and made all 3. He's got a ton of levels though. In one case he has actually killed an agent level character.

 

This spawned a small discussion about whether he was in bounds with this action.

 

My rule is: You're heroes, Act like it! I don't mind if someone is kind of edgy and dark, but if you kill someone AND you could have avoided it, that's another thing.

 

His argument: "I don't have Code v. Killing. Why should I be penalized!"

 

If he had CVK, I would have docked all his experience and maybe had some in-game repercussions for the action. Since he didn't have it, I still gave him reduced experience (instead of none) and he will definitely have in-game repercussions when we pick the campaign back up.

 

In super-campaigns, called shots are great for limiting damage, but for boosting it, its too nasty. And against a normal... yikes.

[Chuckg]

A campaign I used to be in, they used called shots... but the DM then redacted it.

 

Our conversation went something like this...

 

 

'Chuck, you've got 8 CSLs vs. Hit Locations. You hit the Head location every time.'

 

'My character conception is that I'm Arsenal and Bullseye rolled together into one, remember? And at the start of the game I asked you, specifically, for DM's permission to go over the usual 4-level max and you said yes.'

 

'Yeah, but I didn't know that that would give you effectively double damage vs. all opponents for just 24 points.'

 

'First off, I told you that it would. Second off, have you checked the average defenses of the killer robots you're constantly throwing at us? I can't hope to even slow them down with my normal DCs, not even if I use my 12d6 Variable Power Advantage multi-blaster.'

 

'I still don't like it.'

 

'Then please send me some agents or small zippy targets I can stomp while the group tank takes on the killerbots.'

 

'The big campaign villain likes killerbots. And you need to take only 4 Levels vs. Hit locations'

 

(sigh) 'You're the DM'.

 

 

Moral of the above story -- if you're going to use HIt Locations, make sure you either nail down firmly *at the start of the campaign* how many Targeting Skill Levels you're going to allow people to buy, or take into account that players will go for the Head and Vitals whenever they need the extra damage, and do so relatively cheaply.

 

(Of course, nothing stops the DM from creating a 0-point Automaton Power called 'No Hit Locations'...)

[Bartman]

Originally posted by Monolith

If the GM is going to allow called shots he should probably also allow Special Hit Location shots, meaning the GM might allow a High Shot (-2 OCV 2d6+1 Hit Location) or a Head Shot (-4 OCV, 1d6+3 Hit Location). That gives them something to try without making it an impossible feat.

 

True but it is generally better to just take a normal shot. Looking at just normal stun, a high shot will result in:

x2 stun 17% of the time,

x1.5 stun 9% of the time,

x1 stun 33% of the time, and

x1/2 stun 42% of the time.

Rounding is why this equals 101%

 

Head Shot isn't much better. It gives:

x2 stun 33% of the time,

x1 stun 17% of the time,

x1/2 50% of the time.

 

Frankly I would rather just make a normal attack than take a minus to my OCV and have the average damage of my attacks reduced. Now in some cases like a 10d6 EB vs 40 Ed it make sense to go for broke as the average attack is going to do 0 stun anyway. This is why I don't really find called shots unbalancing. In general the average damage a hero is likely to do is lowered rather than raised.

[Houston GM]

They're allowed.

 

I allow my players to take called shots. I've only seen one or two taken by them, and none at all since FREd came out (and I implemented Rapid Fire).

 

I have had 3 NPCs who do called shots to the head. They are/were rightfully respected for their destructiveness with low-powered weapons.

 

I'll also sometimes describe hit in terms of a location (for flavor), based on the damage they do. If you have an 11DC power, and you get 85 stun on one roll, you just just scored a head shot.

[Vondy]

I allow them in superheroic games, but in 13 years of running, I have only seen one called once.

[pinecone]

When I run 4 color ...nope But when I run edgeier "street level" I use hit locations so called shots are already available for use......

[Solomon]

I use hit locations and called shots in street-level campaigns only. In supers campaigns in which realism is not a priority, I can do without the added roll-on-a-table and the added calculation.

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by Supreme Serpent

As a side note since you mentioned surprise attacks, I've started trying surprise as 2xStun AFTER defenses, to allow surprise attacks but not make it as overwhelming. I don't care how surprised Hulk is by the guy with the lead pipe - he still shouldn't feel it.

I do it this way as well.

[lemming]

I allow called shots and would use hit locations if the players wanted to, but they seem indifferent.

I also do the stun mods in a different style. Just use the Nstun rolls for all hits and the multiplier is done after defenses.

 

On surprise attacks: Only going to get a 2x bonus if there's a good plot reason for it.

[Gary]

Called shots are extremely dangerous if allowed. There are always going to be heroes or villains hit by surprise, or grabbed, entangled, flashed, paralyzed, or stuck in darkness.

[Wolf]

allow, however be realistic

 

In all of my games I use called shots, mainly because all of my players use them almost exclusively, I've even invented called shot rules for games that don't have it.

Yes it sucks sometimes, however be realistic about it. Ex Hulk vs. Wolverene, the hulk's fist is about the size of Wolvie, so how could he call a shot on hitting the groin for example, however if you have a sheild agent taking a tranq. dart at the blob, well, that's a bit easier. Just be senceable about the shot's being called.

Imho

-Wolf

[Trebuchet]

We allow them in our campaign when they are necessary for dramatic purposes, but if they are seldom used. (Only time I can recall was when a called shot strike to the arm was used to pull a villain's hand away from a normal's neck. Only my character with her 15 OCV could have made that hit with appropriate penalties in the first place.)

 

I try not to use them, even though my character would unquestionably get the most mileage out of called shots.

[ChuckB]

It'll always be a little uneven (especially in Superhero games where there can be a bigger defense vs. damage class gap) because the PCs won't like it when called shots are used against them.