D&D 5E Called Shots

[Kobold Stew]

That could be one way to rule on called shots. But then are you saying you can only called shot with a feat? Or anyone can do it, so why take the feat, its redundant?

As it is now, like it or not, you need the feat. If you make a general rule on to p of this, you water down the get (as you suggest). My point is there now is no need to speculate, only to house-rule.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I like DCC's Mighty Deeds mechanic. For those not familiar with it, the Fighter gets a die (d4 at level 1) instead of a static modifier to add to his attack rolls. Any time the fighter attacks, he can announce his intention to perform a mighty deed and if he rolls 4+ on the attack die, he succeeds.

It's simple and free-form, yet restricted enough that the fighter isn't poking out eyes every round.

Inspired by DCC's rule, I've been using a fudge die for similar effect--anyone can announce a 'stunt' (which includes called shots) as part of their attack and roll a fudge die beside their normal to-hit die--if they hit and get a plus, their stunt is successful. They will still do full damage, even if the stunt falls short of delivering the full effect.

whats a fudge die? how many plusses are on it?

 

[Psikerlord#]

As it is now, like it or not, you need the feat. If you make a general rule on to p of this, you water down the get (as you suggest). My point is there now is no need to speculate, only to house-rule.

I get where you're coming from but disagree - great weapon master feat or wahtever its called, that doesnt necessarily = called shotting. Maybe you just hit harder coz training etc.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I get where you're coming from but disagree - great weapon master feat or wahtever its called, that doesnt necessarily = called shotting. Maybe you just hit harder coz training etc.

It's in Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter. With respect, I don't think this is a matter of controversy. You take a more difficult attack (-5 to hit), in order to have greater damage (+10). Sure, "coz training"; but this is modelling called shots using the very crude measure of hit points, like it or not.

 

[Psikerlord#]

It's in Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter. With respect, I don't think this is a matter of controversy. You take a more difficult attack (-5 to hit), in order to have greater damage (+10). Sure, "coz training"; but this is modelling called shots using the very crude measure of hit points, like it or not.

I still disagree. That ruling would mean finesse weapons can't called shot. Or cantrips. Etc. Happily we can all make rulings to suit or tables.

 

[delericho]

Blind/slow/stun all have exactly the same effect

No, they really don't. Suppose the enemy, instead of insisting on fighting to the death, decides to make a run for it. In this case, his being slowed has a distinctly different effect from his having fewer hit points.

 

[Li Shenron]

How would they work in 5e? Do you give the PC disadvantage on their attack? Does the opponent have an AoO? both, other?

I don't use them, but I think this could potentially be a simple possible solution. However it has two drawbacks:

1) The game already has a plethora of sources of advantage and disadvantage. Since they don't stack but cancel each other, there will be cases where the PC already has disadvantage (or already has both, cancelling out) and therefore there is no true penalty for also using a called shot.

2) Among the many possible conditions, there will some particularly good. The players will figure it out, and will figure out also that they are very convenient for the price of disadvantage, hence they'll start using the same called shot all the time.

To me, an normal attack to deal damage is one against a vital area. Your AC is the value of how well protected those areas are.

So therefore a called shot to a vital area is a normal attack for damage.. You can't call shot against heads or torsos as that is what you are doing already.

Now I'd allow called shots againt "non vital areas" like hands and legs. But attacking one's hand is no different than the head. AC assumes ful protection. You can't called shot to the orc's shield hand to give yourself advantage to your next attack. That is whta HP is for.

So really a called shot would be only to immobilized or disarm.. In liue of damage off course.

Next already has a knock down action. That is called shot legs.

All it needs is a disarm action for called shot hands.

Good point to remind the players about available combat options that already have similarities with the effects of called shots.

But don't just say that HP cover called shots, because this is true but only under the assumption that you WANT to ignore the detailed effects of called shots! Instead, the whole point of wanting to use a called shots rules module, is because you are not satisfied with ignoring the effects under the blanket of HP!

 

[aramis erak]

whats a fudge die? how many plusses are on it?

It's a d6, marked "+", "+", " ", " ", "-", "-"

 

[delericho]

I don't use them, but I think this could potentially be a simple possible solution. However it has two drawbacks:

1) The game already has a plethora of sources of advantage and disadvantage. Since they don't stack but cancel each other, there will be cases where the PC already has disadvantage (or already has both, cancelling out) and therefore there is no true penalty for also using a called shot.

You could always say you can't use a Called Shot if you already suffer disadvantage.

I don't have an answer to #2 though!

(One alternate mechanism I might consider, though: if you score a critical hit then you can give up the extra damage and instead get an immediate extra attack for a Called Shot to apply a condition. In which case, those "particularly good" conditions could apply Disadvantage to that second roll.)

 

[Psikerlord#]

It's a d6, marked "+", "+", " ", " ", "-", "-"

oh right yeah ok I know what you mean now... i dont mind that idea, basically 33% chance you get the desired result. That's quite cool.