Called Shots

[Angelalex242]

Speaking of which...

Maybe there needs to be an alternate use for swords and axes for called shots that work on every enemy. Other then Orcs and Evil Men, Sauron's forces have no weapons or shields...and don't need them.

Or just rewrite the called shot to say, "If the enemy has a weapon, he's disarmed. If he does not, he loses his next turn." "If the enemy has a shield, it breaks. If he does not, his parry is halved."

[Falenthal]

Those bonus success die are player activated. They represent the character reading a situation exceptionally well.

Called shots when the enemy rolls a gandalf rune are exactly the same as a player rolling an eye...taking advantage of the enemy's weakness when they drop their guard. Dropping one's guard is not exclusive to heroes.

I'm not against your option, and I find it makes sense and has its logic. But I just want to share why I don't consider it necessary.

When comparing heroes and adversaries, most things aren't reciprocal: they are balanced, but not equal.
Heroes do choose their Stances and TNs, foes don't. Heroes get to roll Preliminary rolls, adversaries don't. Heroes can choose when and how to use a Called Shot, creatures don't.

To me, heroes Preliminary rolls and Called shots are also not the same conceptually,but in game mechanics they result similar: get bonus dice to use. But the heroes have some advantatges.
First, by RAW the adversaries never get no bonus die to use.
Second, heroes do gain more bonus die as they increase their Battle skill.
Third, heroes can choose where to spend this dice, and can also give them from one character to another, as they see fit.

With these house rule only applying to the adversaries and not to the heroes, we get that only the foe that was targeted gets the bonus die, and it depends on the roll of the hero, not on his abilities. Also, he is forced to do a specific type of action in a specific moment (his next action) against a specific hero. And besides, remember that the reason behind house-ruling adversaries Called Shots was that they seemed too weak. If we enhance them BUT ALSO enhance those of the heroes, than we still have a (perceived) unbalance in the game.

At least, that's how I see it.

[Otaku-sempai]

Speaking of which...

Maybe there needs to be an alternate use for swords and axes for called shots that work on every enemy. Other then Orcs and Evil Men, Sauron's forces have no weapons or shields...and don't need them.

That is not entirely true. Trolls occasionally use weapons, as do the alleged troll-men (Tolkien referenced half-trolls/troll-men a couple of times in RotK, reinforcing the interpretation that he was being literal).

[Angelalex242]

Well, trolls typically just punch people. And it's more then enough. You see some depictions of them using a tree log as a club, and I suppose a swordsman might disarm that with a called shot...but I'm not sure it actually slows the troll down if he loses his tree log.

[Glorelendil]

And besides, remember that the reason behind house-ruling adversaries Called Shots was that they seemed too weak. If we enhance them BUT ALSO enhance those of the heroes, than we still have a (perceived) unbalance in the game.

Except I don't think the issue is that adversaries as a whole are weak, just that this particular mechanic isn't as..."punishing'...as it should be. So if adversaries are currently balanced and we buff this one ability, it would (in theory) make them too strong. So by also giving the same benefit to players, it would (again, in theory) restore balance.

Scrolling back, after more reflection I agree with angelalex: my preferred rules about giving both sides a single die on a called shot (with adversaries automatically taking it, and players having the option) disproportionately benefits bows and spears. Which disappoints me, because I really liked the mechanic. And for a reason I can't put words on, the idea that the rule is "A called shot that also can hit normally" doesn't sit right with me.

[Deadmanwalking]

Except I don't think the issue is that adversaries as a whole are weak, just that this particular mechanic isn't as..."punishing'...as it should be. So if adversaries are currently balanced and we buff this one ability, it would (in theory) make them too strong. So by also giving the same benefit to players, it would (again, in theory) restore balance.

Eh. Again, we've sorta been doing this the entire time in a game combining Tales from Wilderland and Darkening of Mirkwood (in which I'm a player, not the LM, for clarity), and we're at over 50 xp with zero PC deaths, and most of our close fights having been far more due to our LM's uncanny ability to roll Eyes than our own tendencies in that direction (no, seriously, he rolls a really statistically unlikely number of Eyes).

Scrolling back, after more reflection I agree with angelalex: my preferred rules about giving both sides a single die on a called shot (with adversaries automatically taking it, and players having the option) disproportionately benefits bows and spears. Which disappoints me, because I really liked the mechanic. And for a reason I can't put words on, the idea that the rule is "A called shot that also can hit normally" doesn't sit right with me.

Personally, I just tend to view it as yet another difference between PCs and Adversaries.

Like how Favored Skills are completely different between the two. NPCs can't spend Hate to add their Attribute to skills, while PCs don't automatically add their relevant attribute score to Favored Skills.

Similarly, PCs need to roll a Tengwar to make a Called Shot, while NPCs need for a PC to have just rolled an Eye. NPCs rolling a Gandalf doesn't trigger a Called Shot from PCs, and NPCs can't decide to make a Called Shot and gamble to succeed.

[Glorelendil]

Eh. Whether or not adversaries are actually over or underpowered is irrelevant to the argument I was making.

But if they are, then tweaking the called shot rule will be insufficient to make a noticeable difference.

[Falenthal]

In our last three sessions my players have failed and rolled an Eye during combat 4 times, thus triggering Called Shots from their engaged enemies. I've been using RAW, just keeping an eye to see if the adversaries Called Shot rules needed improvement. Here's my experience.

Two of those enemies were Attercops (2 dice for attack) and another one was an Uruk (also 2 dice for attack).
From those 4 Called Shots I got to roll, 3 hitted the hero with a 6. 2 of them also showed an Eye, resulting in:
Normal damage + Attribute damage (due to the 6) + Called Shot effect + Protection test against Wound.
Take a moment to see what that means with an Uruk: he can also spend a Hate Point to use his special ability and add one more time his Attribute level to damage, resulting in a total of 15 Damage points. Also, his Called Shot is Poison, which additionaly counts as a Wound. So the hero can be Wounded twice (poison+piercing blow) in the same attack.

Remember what p.178 says:

effects triggered by a
successful called shot: these effects are applied in addition
to the normal consequences of a successful attack (loss
of Endurance, Piercing blow, etc.).

Right now, my players FEAR failing with an Eye during Combat. And they fear my rolls, too.

Off-topic: I think Francesco clarified what happened if a Bow or Spear Called Shot was succesful, but also rolled an Edge. Did you get two Piercing blows? The text for those weapons says "regardless of the outcome of the Feat die", so I guess it's just one Pierce, but I'd like to be sure.

[Glorelendil]

Pretty sure the resolution on that was a single Pierce.

[Corvo]

Pretty sure the resolution on that was a single Pierce.

Yeah. But it wasn't Francesco. I think it was Andrew's answer.