D&D 5E Called Shots

[mcbobbo]

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.

Of course you're right - an enemy who lost his eye may well flee. But so would that same enemy when he lost half his hit points. So the remaining difference is an ability to apply a slowed condition, and that sounds like feat/class feature turf to me.

 

[delericho]

Of course you're right - an enemy who lost his eye may well flee. But so would that same enemy when he lost half his hit points.

That's not quite what I meant. The difference isn't that one might choose to flee where the other might not, but rather in how that decision plays out. Specifically, a character who is slowed will find it harder to flee than one who has 'just' lost half his hit points.

(And, of course, that's just one example - the slowed character will also find it harder to cross the battlefield to help an ally, a dazed character may miss opportunities due to his inability to act, a prone character is likely more vulnerable to future attacks, etc...)

 

[The_Gneech]

I generally won't allow called shots to cause specific damage. But for other results (like conditions), I generally model it after the Shoving a Creature and use an opposed check of some sort. Sometimes it's an attack with a save instead. Depending on the difficulty I'd impose disadvantage, although certain class features or feats may eliminate this.

This is pretty much what I do, and then it's on a case-by-case basis. If you can inflict the "prone" or "grappled" condition with an opposed check, it doesn't seem unreasonable to be able to inflict "deafened" for a round by boxing someone's ears or "stunned" by kicking the wind out of them, etc.

My personal guidelines for ruling on this are A.) it has to be possible (you couldn't box the ears of a gelatinous cube!), B.) it does no hp damage directly, and C.) it only lasts a round or until the foe chooses to take some kind of action to remedy it (like standing up from prone).

Called shots for extra damage? No. That's called "rolling your attack."

-The Gneech

 

[Chocolategravy]

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.

If he'd had his HP lowered rather than slowed the only difference is he'd be dead 20 feet closer to where the fight started since he wouldn't have had the round to run in the first place.

 

[Mistwell]

These are both great, and well written. The "Critical" option accomplishes the goal. It also sets a good pattern for other combat maneuvers, such as disarm.

It harms the assassinate ability, and is overpowered I think. Anyone who attacks with advantage can simply move it to normal attack (advantage and disadvantage cancel each other out) and auto-crit. Since crit adds sneak attack damage again, it means the assassin sub-class is now basically useless, in addition to some other issues with some other classes (like anyone with hex or hunter's mark).

 

[Dausuul]

Blind/slow/stun all have exactly the same effect, make the target die more easily/quickly. This is already represented by HP. Having less HP is a condition where by the target will die more easily/quickly. You're just trying to add completely unhelpful complexity.

This is like saying every move in chess has exactly the same effect: Make the enemy king easier to checkmate. So why have different pieces, or moves, or a board? Why not just flip a coin and whoever wins the flip wins the game?

 

[delericho]

If he'd had his HP lowered rather than slowed the only difference is he'd be dead 20 feet closer to where the fight started since he wouldn't have had the round to run in the first place.

That rather depends on how many hit points he has and at what point he elects to flee. Since the game already includes the various conditions, the designers clearly believe they represent beneficial complexity that not every attack form simply strips hit points.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

So after looking through things a bit more thoroughly (including the 1st Ed Combat & Tactics, 2nd, and 3rd ed rules), here's what I've settled on:

Called Shot (Disarm, Groin, Sap, Staple, Sunder, or Trip):
Attack with disadvantage (AC varies by DC) Target saves (type varies) or is dazed, prone, incapacitated, or restrained until start of your next turn.
Sunder causes damage to item not creature.
Cannot cause extra damage or bypass AC.

The AC to hit is determined in the same manner as DC for other actions. In most cases I'd probably rule an AC of 15 or 20.
The specific condition caused depends on the attack. For example, a groin attack would cause the target to be incapacitated, where a sap would cause the target to be dazed (Oh, I added Dazed - attacks, saves and ability checks with disadvantage). A target stapled to a wall by arrows would be restrained.

I have other conditions (knockout and stunned) as potential conditions caused by a critical hit, but not for a called shot. They are too severe to allow for just an attack with a penalty to hit.

Randy

 

[Kobold Stew]

It harms the assassinate ability, and is overpowered I think. Anyone who attacks with advantage can simply move it to normal attack (advantage and disadvantage cancel each other out) and auto-crit. Since crit adds sneak attack damage again, it means the assassin sub-class is now basically useless, in addition to some other issues with some other classes (like anyone with hex or hunter's mark).

You're quoting something that was written in February; that it doesn't work with the PHB, released xixx months after this, shouldn't surprise anyone. It doesn't surprise me. This is the problem with necro'd threads.

 

[Viking Bastard]

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.

I haven't used it in 5e yet, but I used it for good effect in the last ten sessions or so of my 4e game. So far (three sessions in) I've felt 5e combat to play "looser" and we haven't felt the need for it, but that may just be because people aren't used to the new system and haven't formed their routines yet.