localized targetting

[LucianoAr]

is there any sort of system to localize where one wants to land a blow?

say the party wants to blind a cyclops by attacking its eye. maybe make attacks at a disadvantage, but actually blinding the creature after taking 1/3 of the hitpoints?

any help in this department would be super useful as its coming up again and again on our games, as its getting a little bit more tactical that, I ATTACK

[DanyBallon]

D&D was never really into realism when it comes to attack, basically the only targeting represented is trying to hit the creature as a whole. But you could allow your PCs to target a specific, and in order to do such, they would roll their attack roll at disadvantage. Then decide what would be the incidence of hitting a particular spot would have on the victim. In all, it would be more work for you in exchange of a bit of variety in combat.

[Seruvius]

As Danny said DnD goes for a simplicity but easier to use route in this aspect. in 3.5 there were optional rules for WP/VP systems that sort of adressed some of the realism of fighting someone.
In 5e you could try with giving disadvantage or maybe if they score a crit while aiming for a particular bit, as ye baddy wont be passively standing there and will be moving around, so maybe a crit will land a hit right on the eyeball and isntead of dealing extra damage it deals normal damage and blinds the poor bugger instead.

[Seppo87]

Called shots that inflict permanent penalities are not fun for players. Ask them if they really, really -really- want to risk being criplled whenever they fight.

[Naanomi]

I let players burn Inspiration for that sort of thing

[Slipperychicken]

is there any sort of system to localize where one wants to land a blow?

Not yet. The closest thing I know of is the lingering injuries table in the DMG (pg 272), which describes some nasty effects for specific body parts.


If you ask me, I think the system is probably better off without permanent limb removal. It might be better if to have wound penalties (i.e. taking 1/4 your health in damage = disadvantage on ability checks, taking 1/2 halves your speed, taking 3/4 gives you disadvantage on attack rolls and saves) and something like a "crippled" condition for each limb which still allows basic magic to heal it.

[burninatortrog]

Player: "I want to blind the cyclops with my arrow!"

DM: "Okay, make an attack roll. If it's a crit, you hit it in the eye."

I have to say, I like the idea of using Inspiration for this too.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

Agreed on using Inspiration. I'd probably have some minor, one-round effect on the target as well. Aimed for the head, target has disadvantage on next attack. Hand, drops weapon. Legs, reduce speed, etc, etc.

[Ziegander]

So either you get a crit and expend inspiration OR you willingly accept disadvantage to your attack roll and, if you hit, expend inspiration, to get a "called shot?" Is that basically how this would go down in play? I think it works well. The effects of the called shot being dependent on the creature, on the player's description of the shot, and on the DMs interpretation of the overall situation.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

So either you get a crit and expend inspiration OR you willingly accept disadvantage to your attack roll and, if you hit, expend inspiration, to get a "called shot?" Is that basically how this would go down in play? I think it works well. The effects of the called shot being dependent on the creature, on the player's description of the shot, and on the DMs interpretation of the overall situation.

Emphasis mine. This should be added to the end of every rule in 5E. :smallbiggrin:

[Eslin]

I'm curious, what does everyone who has responded think about doing the same thing with a firebolt or shocking grasp?

[Ninjadeadbeard]

I'm curious, what does everyone who has responded think about doing the same thing with a firebolt or shocking grasp?

Exactly same, no difference. The difference between "You manage to cut his hand and he drops his sword," is nonexistent compared to "You struck his hand with a bolt of fire, forcing him to drop the sword from his slightly burnt hand". Why should magic play by different rules?

[Eslin]

Exactly same, no difference. The difference between "You manage to cut his hand and he drops his sword," is nonexistent compared to "You struck his hand with a bolt of fire, forcing him to drop the sword from his slightly burnt hand". Why should magic play by different rules?

Didn't think it should, was just curious regarding what other people thought.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

Didn't think it should, was just curious regarding what other people thought.

No harm done. And you? What would be your take? I'm curious.

[Kryx]

I've never understood the expected balance of called shots.

Unless the players want to potentially lose limbs as well then it seems silly of them to expect to be able to do it to monsters.

[Slipperychicken]

I've never understood the expected balance of called shots.

Unless the players want to potentially lose limbs as well then it seems silly of them to expect to be able to do it to monsters.

Called shots don't have to entail permanent limb-removal. You could easily have a system like the Fallout games do, where limbs just get "crippled" (and penalize stats associated with them) but never severed outright until death. They can always be healed with the healing skill, medical tools, and/or magic. That way limb damage still matters, but it isn't totally irreversible.

[Kryx]

Called shots don't have to entail permanent limb-removal. You could easily have a system like the Fallout games do, where limbs just get "crippled" (and penalize stats associated with them) but never severed outright until death. They can always be healed with the healing skill, medical tools, and/or magic. That way limb damage still matters, but it isn't totally irreversible.

Much better idea. That may work for some groups who enjoy that type of system.

[LucianoAr]

Called shots that inflict permanent penalities are not fun for players. Ask them if they really, really -really- want to risk being criplled whenever they fight.

well, what they said.

its not required to be permanent, but at least for the duration of that combat / long rest.

im thinking either disadvantage or just normal roll with a higher DC to hit

[CrusaderJoe]

Remember that just because you hit the target's AC doesn't mean that you made a solid "hit" on the creature.

Also remember that you could easily fluff it as you cut the forehead, little bit of the eyelid, and the cheek. This could lead to blindness for a round or two but not permanently blinding the creature.

Called Head Shot

As an action you may make your target blinded, silenced, or deafened for one round (end of your next turn) if you succeeds on a Athletics versus Athletics or Acrobatics contest.

[Safety Sword]

You're getting into territory where you're adding modifiers to AC for specific body parts.

Plus now spellcasters can disarm from 120ft. For all those that moan about spellcasters doing everything better than martial characters, you're helping them.

Firebolt was never intended to be able to blind, disarm or trip...

[CrusaderJoe]

Remember that just because you hit the target's AC doesn't mean that you made a solid "hit" on the creature.

Also remember that you could easily fluff it as you cut the forehead, little bit of the eyelid, and the cheek. This could lead to blindness for a round or two but not permanently blinding the creature.

Called Head Shot

As an action you may make your target blinded, silenced, or deafened for one round (end of your next turn) if you succeeds on a Athletics versus Athletics or Acrobatics contest.


You're getting into territory where you're adding modifiers to AC for specific body parts.

Plus now spellcasters can disarm from 120ft. For all those that moan about spellcasters doing everything better than martial characters, you're helping them.

Firebolt was never intended to be able to blind, disarm or trip...

I meant this...


Called Head Shot

As an action with a weapon, you may make your target blinded, silenced, or deafened for one round (end of your next turn) if you succeeds on a Athletics versus Athletics or Acrobatics contest.

[Safety Sword]

I meant this...


Called Head Shot

As an action with a weapon, you may make your target blinded, silenced, or deafened for one round (end of your next turn) if you succeeds on a Athletics versus Athletics or Acrobatics contest.

You're still adding attack options to characters that weren't intended to have them. There's a whole fighter archetype
for making things happen when you hit stuff.

If I was playing a fighter who has maneuvers as his whole schtick and suddenly the rogue can do all of my stuff with a new called shot rule, I might get a little upset.

[Bubzors]

I think that I would allow it either using an inspiration point or crit. with the inspiration Point you are using limited resources for a specific objective, which is cool with me. If you state your goal before the attack roll and crit? Rule of cool, you blind that cyclops for a turn or two, with him having to pull out the arrow, pat off the firebolt, etc. Fits both lore and having fun.

again however this is up to DM intervention. I might reconsider it as a DM if the players suddenly started trying to do this every round. Then it becomes abusable and I would stop it. However, during major fights they try something crazy to net them advantage? Go ahead. We are here to have fun telling a mutual heroic story together

[CrusaderJoe]

You're still adding attack options to characters that weren't intended to have them. There's a whole fighter archetype
for making things happen when you hit stuff.

If I was playing a fighter who has maneuvers as his whole schtick and suddenly the rogue can do all of my stuff with a new called shot rule, I might get a little upset.

Well no fricken duh.

That's pretty much what every homebrew ever really does. It gives abilities to classes which was not meant to have them.

You see maneuvers as a class specific thing, however there are plenty of maneuvers that anyone can use. The rogue/bard normally is the best at landing these due to expertise. However the fighter has other perks which gives good reason to use said maneuvers.

I've made a fighter who is actually built to use maneuvers (because the battle master is horrible and maneuvers in the PHB and DMG are fun). Still working on one issue with it but for the most part it works pretty well.

But just because someone else, say a Bard (expertise athletics), can come up and use "Climb Onto Another Creature" just as well as the fighter doesn't mean that is a bad thing. The way you play the two classes is still vastly different. It doesn't take away from what the fighter can do, just gives him a partner in crime in which to get things done.

And really, the Rogue and Fighter are the same coin just different sides. You could have just as easily made them into one class and called it a day. Actually, as I've seen with what I created, using the Rogue as a base idea (specific BA abilities) is a great way to make the Fighter more playable on a base level so you don't get the "I move and attack" syndrome but you don't have to have fiddly mechanics or magic either.

This maneuver Head Shot is just like grapple, move aside, or disarm. You do know that anyone can use them right? And yet it doesn't take away from one class that another class can decide to use them at any time.

Edit: Who said I wanted only the fighter to use Call Head Shot maneuver? I would totally use it on a strength based Cleric.

You make it sound like if there is ever any overlap then the game just isn't as good... Well you should probably take a look at the PHB because there is already a ton of overlap. If you are getting upset at your schtick being easily picked up by another class then you are in for a rude awakening once you read the classes.

[Yoroichi]

This sounds like a crit to me.

The way i see it you got 2 options, simple and complicated. Simple is you let him call the shot, and if he rolls a crit it happens (chances are so low anyways that it probably won't affect the game)
if they burn inspiration they double their chances.

The second option would be something complicated. You could let them aim for one round then make an attack roll at a disadvantage, if they hit, i would have them roll again (sort of like confirming critical hits on 3E) without disadvantage.


Oh and if you use something like this you should ban the lucky feat.