Can a character blind an opponent by poking them in the eyes?

[Unoriginal]

I've seen a lot of talks about what people think characters should be able to do lately, so I'm curious:

Would you let a character temporarily blind an opponent by poking them in the eyes/agree with the DM if they let that happen?

[nickl_2000]

I wouldn't if I were Dming, but mostly because I didn't want to deal with it. If a DM allowed that at their table I would be fine with it as long as it was applied equally to PCs and NPCs.

Either way it gives a significant advantage to the group that has more people on combat.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

That depends on the reasoning.

In combat:
I will probably agree to a called shot table available to everyone.

I will also give the target a save for temporary effect and three for permanent effect (you need to fail three in a row for it to be permanent).


Out of combat:
If you got the target tied and helpless (no ability to resist) I will let you try and remove the eyes from the target with some skill checks that will determine the results (he may die from it after all or get brain damage or start bleeding extra).

[stoutstien]

There's always going to be disagreement on how to handle called shots or even the concept of allowing them at all.
Firstly I don't have a problem with players attempting to blind or otherwise disable an enemy rather than trying to kill it right out but I already play with a wound system.

[KorvinStarmast]

Would you let a character temporarily blind an opponent by poking them in the eyes/agree with the DM if they let that happen?

No. Poking in the eye is an attempt to do a called shot in combat.

There are a variety of things that cause the blinded condition. Combat isn't as granular as called shots.

Now, tossing sand in their face?
Ability check with disadvantage or something? Sure. One could try to temporarily inconvenience the enemy. (See also things like caltrops, ball bearings, etc).
Give up an action and a chance to succeed or fail. Duration one round max.

[Unoriginal]

Seems I mispoke.

I meant the PC shoving their fingers in the opponent's eyes to blind them for a turn or the like. Probably requiring an attack roll.

[Kyutaru]

I would certainly allow it. But I'd also ensure that I applied a sufficient level of disadvantage and disincentive to discourage using it often. It seems like more of a desperate play than something that should be done frequently with intent. If the players are adequately inconvenienced by the attempt then they will only resort to it when their options are slim. Or to put it in another way, I'd permit the tactic but not make it the most effective tactic available.

Players regularly do things like this expecting mechanical benefits. Swinging on ropes into enemies, flipping tables to hide behind, hanging from the chandelier by one's feet, any cool stunt you've seen in a movie has been tried before at the table. The worst answer you can give someone is a straight No because you're effectively telling them how their character is allowed to behave or act. If there's no impact from the action beyond flavor text then there's no incentive for the character to even risk the action.

[CheddarChampion]

If the PC is trying to get both eyes at once, then yes but:

Counts as an unarmed strike
-6 to the attack roll
Deals damage as normal
The enemy gets a Con save to resist the blinding, DC = 8 + prof bonus + (Str mod or Dex mod, whichever was used in making the attack)

[NaughtyTiger]

If the PC is trying to get both eyes at once, then yes but:

Counts as an unarmed strike
-6 to the attack roll
Deals damage as normal
The enemy gets a Con save to resist the blinding, DC = 8 + prof bonus + (Str mod or Dex mod, whichever was used in making the attack)

similar, but a much larger penalty, maybe only on crit, cuz eyes are soooo small....

Players regularly do things like this expecting mechanical benefits. Swinging on ropes into enemies, flipping tables to hide behind, hanging from the chandelier by one's feet, any cool stunt you've seen in a movie has been tried before at the table. The worst answer you can give someone is a straight No because you're effectively telling them how their character is allowed to behave or act. If there's no impact from the action beyond flavor text then there's no incentive for the character to even risk the action.

i definitely liked dnd better before i knew the rules. combat was more roleplay, less mechanical interaction

[nickl_2000]

i definitely liked dnd better before i knew the rules. combat was more roleplay, less mechanical interaction

You know you can go back to this anytime... Nothing is forcing you to follow a rule

[stoutstien]

You know you can go back to this anytime... Nothing is forcing you to follow a rule

Even the rules say don't follow the rules when they don't work.

[NorthernPhoenix]

Yes, but not in a way that's different from the Blindness spell. You can't just decide to permanently blind someone, but doing what is doing pocket sand/blindness at worse range with all the accompanying saves seems quite appropriate.

[Unoriginal]

Players regularly do things like this expecting mechanical benefits. Swinging on ropes into enemies, flipping tables to hide behind, hanging from the chandelier by one's feet, any cool stunt you've seen in a movie has been tried before at the table. The worst answer you can give someone is a straight No because you're effectively telling them how their character is allowed to behave or act. If there's no impact from the action beyond flavor text then there's no incentive for the character to even risk the action.

I mean in my personal opinion, a cool stunt is cool in itself and doesn't always require mechanical benefits. If they do give something it's great too, but often cool is its own reward.

That being said I was talking about was specifically what people thought about an action with a mechanical benefit, because if it's just fluffing an attack (ex a player describing a critical hit as "I uses my blade to reflect the sun in the boss's eyes, then skewer them on it when he's wide open"), I doubt anyone would object to it.

Even the rules say don't follow the rules when they don't work.

More precisely the rules say don't follow the rules you don't like.

[Kyutaru]

Yes, but not in a way that's different from the Blindness spell. You can't just decide to permanently blind someone, but doing what is doing pocket sand/blindness at worse range with all the accompanying saves seems quite appropriate.

Likewise, magic doesn't have to be the answer to everything. Lots of effects that magic does can be replicated through mundane moves.

Wizard: I CAST HOLD PERSON!
Fighter: I hold the person.

Wizard: I CAST KNOCK!
Fighter: I knock. Hard.

Wizard: I CAST BLINDNESS!
Fighter: I gouge out his eyes.

Wizard: Screw you fighter, I cast Fly.
Fighter: *gets in his mini-helicopter*

[loki_ragnarock]

Automatic failure if the target has one hand free to get between their middle and pointer fingers.


I'm not a big fan of called shots, in general. When I was playing Chivalry and Sorcery there was a character who exclusively targeted his opponents crotches because it constantly led to instant bleed outs. He did it once, saw how effective it was, and never did anything else for the rest of the run of the game.

Ugh.

[nickl_2000]

Automatic failure if the target has one hand free to get between their middle and pointer fingers.


I'm not a big fan of called shots, in general. When I was playing Chivalry and Sorcery there was a character who exclusively targeted his opponents crotches because it constantly led to instant bleed outs. He did it once, saw how effective it was, and never did anything else for the rest of the run of the game.

Ugh.

[Unoriginal]

Automatic failure if the target has one hand free to get between their middle and pointer fingers.


I'm not a big fan of called shots, in general. When I was playing Chivalry and Sorcery there was a character who exclusively targeted his opponents crotches because it constantly led to instant bleed outs. He did it once, saw how effective it was, and never did anything else for the rest of the run of the game.

Ugh.

"Thou have no honor, Sir Hector!"

*gets hit in the crotch*

"Well thou have no groin, Sir Gawain."

More seriously, yes called shots shouldn't be I-win buttons. There's a reason why the Vorpal Sword is a legendary weapon and not something that can be duplicated by anyone with a sharp stick.

[Yunru]

You don't even get a solid hit until they hit 0hp, so... Sure. Once you're out of combat you can poke their eyes out.

[NaughtyTiger]

You know you can go back to this anytime... Nothing is forcing you to follow a rule

I can forget the rules as well as I can believe Santa is real...

Games go faster when you know the rules.
You win encounters when you know the rules, instead of WAG and hope you made a good choice...

I could still throw sand in an opponent's eyes, but i know that 3 attacks is better than maybe giving him disadvantage for a round...

You don't even get a solid hit until they hit 0hp, so... Sure. Once you're out of combat you can poke their eyes out.

Yes, that is 1 interpretation of HP and damge.

[fbelanger]

I think monsters should do this more often!

[Joe the Rat]

I could still throw sand in an opponent's eyes, but i know that 3 attacks is better than maybe giving him disadvantage for a round...

Probably why dirty tricks fall better to the Rogue than the Fighter.

(Not that I'm likely to give you Pocket Sand as a bonus action, mind...)

[Kyutaru]

I'm not a big fan of called shots, in general. When I was playing Chivalry and Sorcery there was a character who exclusively targeted his opponents crotches because it constantly led to instant bleed outs. He did it once, saw how effective it was, and never did anything else for the rest of the run of the game.

Ugh.

Yeah, any sort of action you permit needs to be appropriately encouraged or discouraged with a boon or penalty. DMs control how battles play out according to what sort of behavior they reward or punish. I always make sure to doll out some experience points when an idea is clever enough to lead to a minor victory because I want to encourage such actions. But I also always make sure the most evil djinn in all the planes is the one that answers your Wish spells.

Called shots are dangerous because too often players will say that they are attempting to decapitate someone or stab them in the lungs or open their throat or something that just leads to an automatic win. This is okay in some circumstances, it lets the rogue continue his stealth trip through the castle by just murdering the guards he sneaks up on without rolling for initiative. But if the fight is meant to be challenged then they can risky to encourage and should be sufficiently burdened as to not be all that reliable. A Hail Mary play should be shooting for the stars like any gamble. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Mostly lose. If you only had a 5% chance to kill someone instantly you'd only use it if you're really, really desperate.

That said...

Fighter: I gouge out his eyes with my fingers.
DM: Let me see your character sheet... nope sorry, you have no ranks invested in the Eye Gouging skill. You can't figure out how to insert your fingers into someone's eye sockets.
Fighter: *sigh*

Fighter learned Eye Gouge! But Fighter has too many moves... Fighter forgot Breathe.

I hope some things can be seen as innate abilities owing to physiology.

[Kyutaru]

i definitely liked dnd better before i knew the rules. combat was more roleplay, less mechanical interaction

It still is. All that roleplay is part of the rules. Ability checks exist to simulate it and the DM exists to adjudicate it. You can do whatever you want as your character and it's up to the DM to describe what effect it has if any. The rules don't need to explicitly state that you can do a thing because they already explicitly state that you can do anything. Provided the DM permits it, of course.

[Nhorianscum]

I've seen a lot of talks about what people think characters should be able to do lately, so I'm curious:

Would you let a character temporarily blind an opponent by poking them in the eyes/agree with the DM if they let that happen?

Sure, straight up opposed roll to temp blind for 1d4-1 rounds.

Unless the enemy is big, or small, or wearing a helmet, or etc that would make being poked in the eyes impractical.

It's pretty much usable on extremely vain or stupid humanoids only, and I'm ok with that.

[KorvinStarmast]

Wizard: Screw you fighter, I cast Fly.
Fighter: *gets in his mini-helicopter*

And this is why we get gold pieces in treasure: so that we can buy that mini-helicopter.
I got a flying machine! (Warcraft II reference)

You don't even get a solid hit until they hit 0hp, so... Sure. Once you're out of combat you can poke their eyes out.

A fine way to apply this.

I think monsters should do this more often!

Which is the can of worms OP may be opening.

[Man_Over_Game]

Called shots are dangerous because too often players will say that they are attempting to decapitate someone or stab them in the lungs or open their throat or something that just leads to an automatic win. This is okay in some circumstances, it lets the rogue continue his stealth trip through the castle by just murdering the guards he sneaks up on without rolling for initiative. But if the fight is meant to be challenged then they can risky to encourage and should be sufficiently burdened as to not be all that reliable. A Hail Mary play should be shooting for the stars like any gamble. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Mostly lose. If you only had a 5% chance to kill someone instantly you'd only use it if you're really, really desperate.

That said...

Fighter: I gouge out his eyes with my fingers.
DM: Let me see your character sheet... nope sorry, you have no ranks invested in the Eye Gouging skill. You can't figure out how to insert your fingers into someone's eye sockets.
Fighter: *sigh*

Fighter learned Eye Gouge! But Fighter has too many moves... Fighter forgot Breathe.

I hope some things can be seen as innate abilities owing to physiology.

Well said.

• Circumstantially overpowered is perfect, but making something like "I blind you with my finger" isn't really circumstantial.
• There's no inherent cost, since we are allowing something in the lack of a feature, not because of one. Unless you add a resource cost, it'll be as affordable as the worst-case scenario (which is a basic attack).
• It's also more powerful than a standard Attack. Consider the value of Blindness/Deafness, and what kind of attack equivalent you should expect out of a level 2 spell slot.

So we can't really modify the circumstance. We can't really modify the benefit, outside of changing how long the effect lasts (and I'm thinking "Until the end of the creature's next turn" is the shortest you could make it).

The only thing you could really modify is the cost.

We don't want to tie it into a feature or something, which means it can't be class-specific. Universal resources are:

• Action
• Bonus Action
• Reaction
• HP
• Hit Dice
• Movement
• Attack roll
• Damage roll

The Action is already taken. Reaction doesn't make much sense, as does spending HP.

But you could do something like:
Spend a Bonus Action, a Hit Die, and an amount of movement equal to your speed, and you can attempt a Called Shot if your next attack hits the target. Target makes a DC equal to the damage of the attack + the Hit Dice spent, with the saving attribute being the same as the attack modifier for your attack, suffering a condition of your choice if they don't save until the end of the target's next turn.

Or just fine-tune it with various changes with your attack/damage rolls, with your goal to make it feel like something you wouldn't want to do every round.

That makes itmathematically circumstantial, but someone could just ignore all that by allowing some kind of environmental effect as their own means of making the effect circumstantial.

When creating content, if you can create a circumstance where your content is bad compared to the original default, you're on the right track. Start by making it too weak, and then scale it up.

Question is, does the above limitation make a Called Shot too weak?

"Is it overpowered?"

"...Maybe?"

Is the exact thought process you should be having any time you add a new mechanic.

[Chaosity]

This is bassicly a improvised attack
So attack roll, probably with disadvantage cause your aiming at something specific and small and instead of damage the blinded condition

[Pex]

I would certainly allow it. But I'd also ensure that I applied a sufficient level of disadvantage and disincentive to discourage using it often. It seems like more of a desperate play than something that should be done frequently with intent. If the players are adequately inconvenienced by the attempt then they will only resort to it when their options are slim. Or to put it in another way, I'd permit the tactic but not make it the most effective tactic available.

Players regularly do things like this expecting mechanical benefits. Swinging on ropes into enemies, flipping tables to hide behind, hanging from the chandelier by one's feet, any cool stunt you've seen in a movie has been tried before at the table. The worst answer you can give someone is a straight No because you're effectively telling them how their character is allowed to behave or act. If there's no impact from the action beyond flavor text then there's no incentive for the character to even risk the action.

Allowing it but then applying so many penalties the player wishes he hadn't bothered is not allowing it. Just say No already.

[Man_Over_Game]

Allowing it but then applying so many penalties the player wishes he hadn't bothered is not allowing it. Just say No already.

Difference between something like 'poke him in the eye' vs. 'swing on the chandelier' is that you are much less likely to run into a scenario with an accessible chandelier than an opponent's set of eyes.

Making something a default choice of action in 5% of encounters (such as Fireball in a horde of 20 goblins) is fine, making something a default choice of action in 100% of encounters is not. So it's okay to make the 'swing on the chandelier' maneuver to be strictly better than the basic Attack.


If we can't make something circumstantial based on the environment (like making a called-shot to the eyes), the only other option is to make it circumstantial based on math (like how Shove is, or choosing what spells to cast). If you choose to have no circumstantial reason to utilize the feature, then you're basically choosing to overwrite the default (which is a basic Attack).

Those are the options:

• Watch your players replace their default actions with the new flavor of "bland" (this is effectively what happened with EB Warlock builds once the Hexblade was included, and why it gets so much flak)
• Make it circumstantial, so that it occurs rarely to add a pop of color to your combat.

So how do you make Called Shots circumstantial?

• Require some kind of environmental circumstance?
• Make it circumstantially stronger than the default?
• Make it cost some kind of universal resource?

Take your pick, but something like a Called Shot doesn't exactly have many levers to pull on.

[stoutstien]

Difference between something like 'poke him in the eye' vs. 'swing on the chandelier' is that you are much less likely to run into a scenario with an accessible chandelier than an opponent's set of eyes.

"Yep. Move along. Nothing to see here."

*My artificer with the proper tools proficiencies and a bag of holding full of easy to assemble chandeliers."