Called shot to the glasses

[FrancisBean]

I'm in world-building on an upcoming campaign I'll be running. The setting has a significant amount of Underdark/Surface interaction. Svirfneblin, Duergar, and even Drow are far from unknown on the surface, although the latter two get some hairy eyeballs. Given that this has been going on for over a thousand years, it's obvious that solutions to the sunlight sensitivity have been available for centuries. These races will be explicitly available for player use, too, so it seems silly to let players be the first to invent sunglasses after over a thousand years of the problem.

This is a low magic campaign, so spells to do the job may be awkward to get; but given the very low power level involved, I'm thinking that a spell to protect the eyes could be exactly analogous to the Darkvision spell: 2nd level, transmutation, 8 hrs with no concentration slot.

On the non-magical side, my thought is that these are smoked lenses in a wraparound goggle format. Consequently, opponents are going to be familiar with these goggles and are going to know what they are and how they work. Realistically, that means the goggles will get targeted, both by enemies and by PCs.

The spell is easy to work out, and I can figure out a price for the goggles. But has anybody come up with good mechanics for targeting someone's glasses? I've got the following ideas, and I'm casting guidance by asking all y'all. ;-)


By taking disadvantage on the attack, an enemy may target the goggles directly. Damage is unchanged, as having a dragon swipe claws through your glasses is likely to hurt your face in the process. Downsides: meta-gaming when there's already disadvantage on the attack... You might as well go for it, because it's free. Possibly some damage penalty -- half damage? -- might be appropriate? There's also the mechanical problem that high AC due to thick hide will make it hard to hit the goggles, which is unrealistic. But since the underdark races are all near human, this isn't likely to come up in practice.
The goggles may be independently attacked; AC 16 (or whatever). No damage is done to the wearer. Downsides: unrealistic when Thor hits you in the glasses with Mjollnir; unrealistic when the target has high AC due to speed. (Quicklings?) Again, the underdark races are all near human, so this isn't likely to come up in practice.
Goggles are at AC 16+DEX MOD. (Or whatever base AC value makes sense.) Downside: this leads to a lot of math and paperwork, and gives more min-maxing options to the players.

Does anybody have a better suggestion, or have you done something along this vein in your own game?

[Man_Over_Game]

My Pain homebrew (in my signature) works around using a Called Shot (which is a normal attack with a bonus action, halved damage, damage dealt is used as a DC). You could do something similar.

In my Pain example, it duplicates injuries to joints/eyes by using a temporary form of Exhaustion, but in your own you could treat it as damage to goggles or anything else of importance.

Bonus Action + Halved Damage vs HP on the goggles (maybe it takes 5 precision damage to destroy) would be enough, and the Bonus Action prevents a Fighter from just smashing through an enemy's goggles with a series of blows. To destroy the goggles, the enemy would need to deal 10 damage in a single blow and give up their Bonus Action, so I think it works out fine.

[Keravath]

It's up to you but I would have thought that if googles became a common solution to sunlight sensitivity (or to lack of darkvision in terms of goggles of the night) then ways would have been developed to securely afix the goggles to the head and make them sturdy enough that attacking the goggles directly during combat would be generally ineffective.

In addition, do you allow for called shots to the head? To the eyes? To leg/arm/ other vulnerable body part? If yes, then use your existing system and if not then why introduce if for attacking goggles? If folks could use effectively called shots on the eyes then they would have been trying to blind their opponents for years.

As a result, I would think that called shots to the head/eyes/goggles are generally very ineffective or unlikely to work otherwise called shots to vulnerable areas would have become the norm in combat in your world.

So, basically :), I am unsure that you need such a rule if the goggles are reasonably securely affixed and sturdy enough to endure some bumping which, presumably, they would have to be if they were designed with combat use in mind.

[FrancisBean]

It's up to you but I would have thought that if googles became a common solution to sunlight sensitivity (or to lack of darkvision in terms of goggles of the night) then ways would have been developed to securely afix the goggles to the head and make them sturdy enough that attacking the goggles directly during combat would be generally ineffective.

In addition, do you allow for called shots to the head? To the eyes? To leg/arm/ other vulnerable body part? If yes, then use your existing system and if not then why introduce if for attacking goggles? If folks could use effectively called shots on the eyes then they would have been trying to blind their opponents for years.

New campaign, so there are no called shot rules. But there's a difference... In the case of the body, the hit point abstraction is designed to represent varying impacts -- there's a reason why damage requires die rolls instead of being a set value. Contrariwise, these goggles aren't subject to damage at all. I'm not wedded to gritty realism over everything else, but it makes sense that a warhammer to the face has a chance of breaking the goggles. Even if it's just "goggles break on crit."

[Man_Over_Game]

New campaign, so there are no called shot rules. But there's a difference... In the case of the body, the hit point abstraction is designed to represent varying impacts -- there's a reason why damage requires die rolls instead of being a set value. Contrariwise, these goggles aren't subject to damage at all. I'm not wedded to gritty realism over everything else, but it makes sense that a warhammer to the face has a chance of breaking the goggles. Even if it's just "goggles break on crit."

That's why I halved damage to calculate the effectiveness. Intentionally attacking someone's face isn't necessarily going to make your accuracy worse, but it does mean that you're ignoring any other avenues to launch your attack. You're not taking advantage of an exposed flank or an unprotected thigh, you are honing in and attempting to strike the face. Now, we're dealing with heroes and HP is just an abstraction of minor damage and luck that gets dwindled down until you fail to dodge a fatal blow, but I feel that halved damage is simple and representative enough to reflect someone's intentional blow on an accessory or piece of equipment.

[Keravath]

That's why I halved damage to calculate the effectiveness. Intentionally attacking someone's face isn't necessarily going to make your accuracy worse, but it does mean that you're ignoring any other avenues to launch your attack. You're not taking advantage of an exposed flank or an unprotected thigh, you are honing in and attempting to strike the face. Now, we're dealing with heroes and HP is just an abstraction of minor damage and luck that gets dwindled down until you fail to dodge a fatal blow, but I feel that halved damage is simple and representative enough to reflect someone's intentional blow on an accessory or piece of equipment.

The biggest issue with halved damage in this case is that any hit will pretty much eliminate the goggles which makes them pretty much useless in combat. Unless the goggles are given a separate AC and hit points so you can determine at what point they are actually damaged sufficiently to lose their effectiveness.

Also, consider that these are presumably magic items? If so, they may be harder to damage than what we might imagine for a typical pair of goggles.

If you want some sort of rule then you could go with 25% chance of goggles eliminated on a crit since not every crit might affect the head.

Also, keep in mind that folks wearing these would be particularly aware of their vulnerability to attacks and would seek to protect them at all costs so you could impose a -1AC for creatures wearing them but then not allow them to be damaged which would reflect the extra focus the creature puts into protecting the goggles at the expense of their overall defense.

D&D 5e is pretty abstract so I am not sure if a specific rule for this one piece of equipment would really make a lot of sense.

[FrancisBean]

That's why I halved damage to calculate the effectiveness. Intentionally attacking someone's face isn't necessarily going to make your accuracy worse, but it does mean that you're ignoring any other avenues to launch your attack. You're not taking advantage of an exposed flank or an unprotected thigh, you are honing in and attempting to strike the face. Now, we're dealing with heroes and HP is just an abstraction of minor damage and luck that gets dwindled down until you fail to dodge a fatal blow, but I feel that halved damage is simple and representative enough to reflect someone's intentional blow on an accessory or piece of equipment.

Oh, I agree! I hadn't had a chance to really dig into you work, but in general I' like the idea of burning the BA for a called shot. For low-level characters without a lot of options, it means it's nearly free. That makes sense to me -- for them, it's "I swing my hammer at his face instead of his body!" Whereas for the high-level characters, it may have a much larger opportunity cost. Your stuff made me think in terms of something like this, if I can streamline the rules.


By expending your bonus action along with your action to attack, you can make a called shot to the goggles. (Only one such designated attack of an Extra Attack sequence counts as a called shot.) The opponent makes a DC 10 Dexterity Save to prevent losing the goggles. The attacker may apply as much of the damage rolled to a save penalty as desired, from 0 to the total damage. (Any damage applied to a penalty is not applied to the target.)

I hadn't responded because I hadn't worked it all out yet, but that's the sort of direction I was leaning. I don't like the complexity, but I know players love to have dials to turn (such as how much penalty to apply).

[Man_Over_Game]

The biggest issue with halved damage in this case is that any hit will pretty much eliminate the goggles which makes them pretty much useless in combat. Unless the goggles are given a separate AC and hit points so you can determine at what point they are actually damaged sufficiently to lose their effectiveness.

Also, consider that these are presumably magic items? If so, they may be harder to damage than what we might imagine for a typical pair of goggles.

If you want some sort of rule then you could go with 25% chance of goggles eliminated on a crit since not every crit might affect the head.

Also, keep in mind that folks wearing these would be particularly aware of their vulnerability to attacks and would seek to protect them at all costs so you could impose a -1AC for creatures wearing them but then not allow them to be damaged which would reflect the extra focus the creature puts into protecting the goggles at the expense of their overall defense.

D&D 5e is pretty abstract so I am not sure if a specific rule for this one piece of equipment would really make a lot of sense.

I feel like a %chance on a crit is really pushing it. A crit is already a 5% chance. That's a 1.25% chance, or 1/80 attacks.

If they are considered magical items, that inherently makes them resistant to non-magical damage.

One thing you could implement instead of HP is Hardness, meaning that a certain amount of flat damage must be inflicted in a single attack before they break. Something like Hardness = 8, meaning that less than 8 damage does nothing, and 8 or more damage breaks it.

This way, you're not tracking individual health of every item someone has, just the individual hardness of those items. I'd still use the BA to halve damage for a called shot (or a sundering strike) if only to make it an expensive tactic. The chances of someone regularly making a 16 damage attack is fairly low, and in the instance of it being high enough, the damage is still halved.

Or, in other words, you spent your bonus action, made a 20 damage attack, broke his glasses and saved him 10 HP. Still in your favor, but it may have taken a round or two of halved damage and wasted bonus actions to get there.

[FrancisBean]

Also, consider that these are presumably magic items? If so, they may be harder to damage than what we might imagine for a typical pair of goggles.

There's a 2nd-level spell, as I put in the top post. The physical thing is the fallback if you can't afford or manage the magical option. In other words, the goggles are highly unlikely to be magical.

[opaopajr]

Here's an old trick I learned from 'ye olden days before the Chronicles of the Net':

Keep the Item's HP and let it have a Hardness (basically a damage soak threshold before it gets through). I suggest Hardness value lower than a d4, so as to make them somewhat vulnerable.

Use the damage die to determine if it hits -- If max damage die (or at least one maxxed die of the damage dice) that die may "go through" and target Glasses instead. No other damage mods & widget tricks can change that spill-through damage value up, etc.

e.g. So a 2d6 Broadaxe damage rolls a 1 & 6, they may have the '6' hit the glasses instead and the one goes onto the enemy as normal.

So you see why Hardness value under a d4 is important, as most damage dice are between d4 ~ d12.

Also, I would let Grapple [edit: and Shove] target the Glasses withOUT Disadvantage. If you're that close where someone can rip off your glasses, and glasses matter that much, you done messed up and are in danger. Grapple followed by: Interact "throw glasses blindly in a direction," or Move, free action Drop Glasses, are both expect and logical tactics. [edit: Similar, Shove would knock off the glasses, and then just d10 roll -- 9 &10 have them drop within enemy's 5' sq., 1-8 clockwise scatter direction 5' away.] Make it accessible and easy for newbies to grok. :smallcool:

[Renvir]

1. By taking disadvantage on the attack, an enemy may target the goggles directly. Damage is unchanged, as having a dragon swipe claws through your glasses is likely to hurt your face in the process. Downsides: meta-gaming when there's already disadvantage on the attack... You might as well go for it, because it's free. Possibly some damage penalty -- half damage? -- might be appropriate? There's also the mechanical problem that high AC due to thick hide will make it hard to hit the goggles, which is unrealistic. But since the underdark races are all near human, this isn't likely to come up in practice.

I've come up with some home brewed rules where a player can take disadvantage in order to do something outside the normal bounds of 5e, like targeting a specific body part. The first part is always, "You cannot do it if you already have disadvantage on the action." This also applies even if you have advantage cancelling out the disadvantage from some other source. At best you either cancel out your advantage and roll normally or roll with disadvantage. For something combat related I usually reward the action with an appropriate effect on top of normal damage if I think it is situation appropriate.

As for setting a difficulty, just using the creatures AC is the simplest solution. The disadvantage is already handling the difficulty adjustment of the action, no need to muddy up the waters any more than that.

[Calimehter]

There is the concern of this being a slippery slope. If your PCs can target specific gear like this, what us to stop them from going after other useful but easy to damage items? Or having NPCs go after the PCs gear?

Rather than instituting a general purpose called shot rule against gear, I would consider making your "destruction chance" a property of the goggles themselves, to represent the extra fragility of the smoked glass that is necessary to their constructuon. Maybe force a DC 15 DEX save whenever the owner suffers a critical hit or area effect damage, with a failure representing destruction of the goggles, or at least enough damage to render them unusable until fixed (via Mending or craft checks during a rest).

[Vogie]

Why not just use the optional disarm combat option from the DMG, pg 271?

A creature make an attack, and instead of dealing damage, the monster does an acrobatics check (DC is the attack roll) to dodge the attempt?

I mean, it's not as cool as shooting it off from 300 ft away with an eldritch spear, but the rules are there.