|
Post by Fenway5 on Feb 26, 2013 20:30:34 GMT -5
I would rule, due to the fine manipulation required to target a specific location, it would require +1 die whether it was weapon based or magical.
There is a difference (IMHO) between making an attack/casting a spell just trying to cause damage, and targeting a specific area to cause maximum harm or to cause an effect.
|
|
|
Post by ewookie on Feb 26, 2013 20:44:55 GMT -5
I would rule, due to the fine manipulation required to target a specific location, it would require +1 die whether it was weapon based or magical. There is a difference (IMHO) between making an attack/casting a spell just trying to cause damage, and targeting a specific area to cause maximum harm or to cause an effect. that explanation doesn't really make sense to me. here's an explanation that allows the +1 die for spell-casting: the barrow dead are strangely resistant yet strangely susceptible to magic. spells thrown at them must test using an extra die. if the spell is successful, it does full damage. this characteristic has fueled much debate as to whether the condition of the barrow dead is caused by magic, disease, or both. no spells aimed at heads to cause the scratching of heads.
|
|
|
Post by ewookie on Feb 26, 2013 21:09:30 GMT -5
perhaps the disease that causes barrow dead is caused by tiny, magical parasites living in the base of the skull. the body conducts magic to the base of the skull. if it doesn't make sense, it's gotta be magic...or magnets. that's my philosophy
|
|
|
Post by Fenway5 on Feb 26, 2013 21:54:22 GMT -5
That works too ewookie, a smart fellow once said, let the wookie win, that is good advice! ;D
|
|
|
Post by ewookie on Feb 26, 2013 22:47:03 GMT -5
That works too ewookie, a smart fellow once said, let the wookie win, that is good advice! ;D i dunno. if you and derv had let the wookie win, the wookie would not have improved. i thank you for the well-meaning!
|
|
|
Post by geordieracer on Feb 27, 2013 1:17:05 GMT -5
I'd be interested in hearing Chris' take on that. Magic Fist benefits by those EN spent by being added to the damage inflicted and Magic Strike can inflict d6 on up to 3 adjacent targets (3 head shots?). I'd be inclined to use the "called shot" rule- is that in the rulebook? What's to stop a wizard from throwing a fireball at someones head or discharging a lightning bolt on someones head? To me that sounds like a critical hit. Yes, you're right. 4/IQ to headshot would be more appropriate.
|
|
|
Post by ewookie on Feb 27, 2013 16:31:03 GMT -5
Yeh, I can accept that. But I'm still not sure about the application. Chris made a contrast between regular damage and damage that is intended to do max harm or cause a specific effect. In this case we are talking about doing max harm, so it would require 4/IQ and if successful would do direct damage to ST because you have struck the burrow walkers head(not necessarily max damage). I would distinguish between this and "cause specific effects". A specific effect implies (to me anyway) max damage. (ie. explode the burrow walkers head) possibly allowing the wight an ATT save to avoid said effect. Would this still be a 4/IQ test? i feel like a barrow walker because you just made my head explode i really hate that i suggested the 4/IQ check to aim at the head to begin with because it leads to this endless loop of pondering. this is why i like my explanation for the 4/IQ check. to further expound on it, i think of it like this: magic does full/deadly damage to the barrow walker but there is some kind of thin bubble of magical force surrounding the barrow walker. it requires more concentration to punch through this bubble but once you punch through it, your magic has full effect because the body conducts the magic to the skull. i think that Chris just wanted to make the barrow walkers equally hard for magic as physical combat, so he latched onto the 4/IQ idea...but i don't think he had a good 'story-telling' explanation for why it is allowed to aim a spell at a barrow walker's head and not an orc's head. i tried to help with this chore but i guess the aiming of spells at heads genie is out of the bottle now.
|
|
|
Post by ewookie on Feb 27, 2013 18:25:28 GMT -5
ok. i see where you're coming from now. i have tried to address 'called-shots' or 'aiming' in the past where the intent was to do extra damage. you have shown me there is another side of that...to have a specific effect. i don't really dig 'specific effects' from a rules standpoint. the possibilities are endless. too many to enumerate. as a GM with the power to dynamically adapt to the situation, i dig 'specific effects'...but would try to keep it to a minimum to avoid headaches. relating to our other discussions, 'specific effects' seem to be the realm of feats/stunts, IMHO...and i am very leery of them for these reasons. i never cared much for D&D3.x. one of the reasons was the way the smorgasbord of feats and complicated skills complicated things. i think 'specific effects' is a dark road to travel haunted with many unforeseen perils. it would seem to require it's own thread due to how much discussion it would require to iron it out. 'specific effects' leads to the dark side of GURPS, IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by ewookie on Feb 28, 2013 0:38:54 GMT -5
But we're talking about "called shots"here. weird. i thought we were talking about the barrow walkers. carry on. EDIT: sorry, i got a little frustrated because i don't understand what is being asked or looked for. if you are looking for 'called shot rules', 'specific effect' rules, or 'aiming' rules, i would start another thread. i don't think Chris intended for this barrow walker stuff to set a precedent for any of those things. he's just trying to introduce a new and interesting terror. i don't consider any of this 4/DX or 4/IQ stuff relating to barrow dead to be 'called shots' or anything of the sort. here's how i look at it: you have 2 targets. the barrow dead's body and his head. pretend they aren't connected but always appear together, side-by-side. you'd have to target the body or the head floating next to it. the head is 4/DX to hit with a weapon because it is so small. if it helps strengthen the analogy, consider this terror: evil-alien-balloon-head zombie. it has the body of a zombie. where the head should be there is instead an evil, alien balloon attached by a slender string. the evil alien balloon is controlling and animating the body. you can target the body or you can target the evil, alien balloon attached to it. if you had a hostile human and a hostile hobbit standing next to each other (or better yet, the hobbit is riding on the human's shoulders), you have to decide which one to attack. the hobbit might be 4/DX to hit because he is so small. in the case of magic or why it is 4/IQ to hit, see previous posts for reasonings/explanations. the above human/hobbit analogy might work but i'm unfamiliar with any creature being hard to hit with magic due to size.
|
|
|
Post by geordieracer on Feb 28, 2013 11:34:43 GMT -5
i don't think Chris intended for this barrow walker stuff to set a precedent for any of those things. he's just trying to introduce a new and interesting terror. i don't consider any of this 4/DX or 4/IQ stuff relating to barrow dead to be 'called shots' or anything of the sort. I agree in that I think it's reasonable to say 'here's a little ruling that applies to this adventure or creature' without it being applied everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by geordieracer on Feb 28, 2013 11:47:01 GMT -5
Bubbling in the back of my mind is a massive barrow mound adventure setting. A nearby town on the edges of civilization and ancient barrow mounds littering the wilds. Chris - just a few questions: - are the undead already on the rise and threatening the vicinity ? - is it adventurers disturbing the barrows that has wrought the awakening, an NPC or an event ? - are the townsfolk for or against the Heroes mooching around the barrows?
|
|
|
Post by Fenway5 on Feb 28, 2013 21:40:51 GMT -5
You have questions, here are the answers:
-are the undead already on the rise and threatening the vicinity ? No
- is it adventurers disturbing the barrows that has wrought the awakening, an NPC or an event ? The adventurers disturbing the barrow mounds have a chance of unleashing the Barrow walkers.
- are the townsfolk for or against the Heroes mooching around the barrows? Here is how I envision it: The heroes would actually discover the barrow mounds. They come back with loot...the town folk and local militia learn about it, become envious and its barrow mound FEVAH. Then as they get deeper into it and rival groups are getting cut throat...very evil things begin to be unleashed...honestly this could lead to the Heroes being heroes and possibly creating their own "barony" or becoming villains and outcasts for unleashing long buried evil....
Anyway, its on the "to do" list...
|
|
|
Post by geordieracer on Mar 1, 2013 1:00:41 GMT -5
Good, I like how the Heroes are the agents of change in the setting, and the range of possible reprecussions.
|
|
|
Post by ewookie on Mar 1, 2013 9:44:18 GMT -5
it all sounds pretty cool.
|
|
|
Post by Fenway5 on Mar 3, 2013 23:07:04 GMT -5
Thanks, I think this could be a good "campaign book" idea...
|
|