D&D 5E Called Shots

[Sadras]

I remember 2e had 'called shots' as an optional rule I believe in the Fighters Handbook. Do you allow them now? If yes - What are the repercussions of allowing them, i.e. can NPC make 'called shots' against PCs? Do you as DM exercise that right?

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

I'm merely asking because in desperate circumstances where the party is facing a possible TPK, the players using their imagination may start trying/asking anything to avoid character death - and one of those ideas might be to call for a 'called shot' action (such as a dragon's eye, or a humanoid's hand..etc). From your experiences, what do you answer, how do you handle it?

I suppose I could have made this a D&D general question even though I'm asking regarding how it would be implemented within 5e. Anyways, I do not mind if this is moved into the General D&D discussion forum.

 

[delericho]

I remember 2e had 'called shots' as an optional rule I believe in the Fighters Handbook. Do you allow them now?

I never found that system terribly useful - it was too fiddly, it didn't work terribly well with non-humanoid opponents (of which there were many), and it was too hard to actually do enough damage to hit the 'numbed' or 'useless' numbers. So while it was nominally allowed in my campaigns for many years, it very very rarely actually saw use.

IMO, 3e (actually d20) handled this topic much better in "The Book of Iron Might" (by one M. Mearls) which allowed the use of all sorts of combat maneuvers which would apply conditions of various sorts. That's definitely worth at least checking out.

If yes - What are the repercussions of allowing them, i.e. can NPC make 'called shots' against PCs? Do you as DM exercise that right?

In my games, I frequently narrate a specific hit against a monster that might have a lasting effect - it loses an attack mode, or can no longer fly, or... This adds a bit of versimiltude to combat without any loss (since the monster will probably be dead in 4 rounds anyway). I don't do the same for PCs, who don't generally suffer any lasting wounds unless and until slain.

However, where any sort of "called shot" system is in use, it is symmetrical - if the PCs can use it, so too can the NPCs. The only reason I generally wouldn't is that my dice hate me, so there's little point.

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

Either/or. I think the "Book of Iron Might" system would probably adapt quite nicely - those maneuvers that provoke an AoO would still do so, those that apply a penalty would instead impose disadvantage, and most of the conditions probably port over fairly well. (The only thing is that I'd be wary about using disadvantage, or indeed big negative penalties, too liberally - doing so makes such tactics vastly suboptimal, which strongly discourages their use, which may or may not be what you want.)

 

[Nagol]

Called shots are terrible when they are used to circumvent hit point totals.

The simplest way to add called shots without undermining the hit point system is to allow a "called shot" to inflict a condition rather than cause damage. In effect, it becomes a way for martial users to widen somewhat their choices in combat.

So you want to shoot the wand out of his hand? Called shot at -4 and if you hit, he drops the wand. Want to blind the dragon? Called shot at -8 and he takes a -4 to hit for 1-6 rounds. A second success converts that to blindness for the duration.

Typically, it is better to just damage the opponent, but circumstantially it can be valuable to change the situation is plausible ways. The balancing acts come in trying to offer conditions that are useful, but not so powerful they become the automatic first choice.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Ahem.

Edition has changed; logic has not.

 

[delericho]

Ahem.

Edition has changed; logic has not.

The hole in the logic of that argument is that called shots typically do things other than damage. It's not unreasonable that a character might want to target the eyes to temporarily blind an opponent or target the legs to slow him down (perhaps as a precurser to a hasty retreat). The 2nd Ed system referenced (from "The Complete Fighter's Handbook") actually supports these, as does the system from "The Book of Iron Might".

If it were about pure damage and/or bypassing armour where the target wasn't wearing a complete set, then I'd agree. But that's not the sole motivation.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

The hole in the logic of that argument is that called shots typically do things other than damage.

You missed the line that said "'More damage' also includes special effects that most people associate with critical hits: blindness, stunning, crippling, tripping, instant kills, etc."

I'll just echo the conclusion:

D&D does have a system for handling especially well-placed hits against enemies: the critical hit. ... So there's already stuff built into the game to handle the effects of called shots without having to introduce the complexity or the problems of actually requiring specific called shots.

If you want called shots, whether they do additional damage or additional effects, then by all means house rule away. But I think Sean still makes a pretty compelling argument as to why they are overly complex and self-defeating as a D&D mechanic.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

 

[Halivar]

Called shots is one of the many ways in which people try to cobble fiddly bits of combat sim onto an otherwise completely abstract combat system. It doesn't improve the game.

 

[delericho]

You missed the line that said "'More damage' also includes special effects that most people associate with critical hits: blindness, stunning, crippling, tripping, instant kills, etc."

I didn't miss it; I think it's wrong.

In his rant, SKR gets hung up on the bit of his argument about attacking "vulnerable areas" and about doing "more damage". What he neglects is that the desire may well not be "more damage" or even "easier damage" (that is, bypassing armour), but rather "different damage" - instead of attacking for X hit points, the desire is instead to temporarily blind the opponent by throwing dirt in his eye, or slowing his pursuit by going for the legs, or what-have-you. And the frustrating thing is that 3.5e already supports most of what is needed - it already includes rules for a small number of specific combat maneuvers (disarm, trip, sunder, overrun), and already includes rules for a longer list of conditions (blinded, stunned, dazzled). All that's needed is a mechanism for putting the two bits together.

His argument that a critical hit already does what is desired is also wrong - a critical hit just does more damage - 16 hit points instead of 8, or whatever. But if the goal was to temporarily blind/slow/stun the opponent then that critical hit does nothing to get you closer to that goal.

 

[dd.stevenson]

You missed the line that said "'More damage' also includes special effects that most people associate with critical hits: blindness, stunning, crippling, tripping, instant kills, etc."

As far as I can see, Sean's argument doesn't address status effects except by pointing out that a called shot which inflicts them is redundant with several 3.x feats.