When a players says "Okay, I'm going to shoot an arrow at his hand and knock the vial from his clutches," how do you do it? Do you have a system for it, or do you kind of feel out the roll? I'm really fishing for ideas here. I hate denying my players the ability to do something interesting, but this is sometimes hard to deal with.
Attack the vial (AC 14, due to its size, +Dexterity modifier of the wielder). Disadvantage on the attack roll.
If you're shooting the bad guy in the hand, to make him drop the thing, then that's an attack roll against normal AC. Also made with disadvantage.
Wrylis wrote:
As with Iserith's guidelines.
If I thought it was supercool, then I might just let it happen without a roll.
Otherwise happy for it to be a normal attack (vs AC of target for simplicity) but with the option to do something cool instead of HP damage.
I'd be wary of anything that makes it better than the Fighter's Disarming Attack maneuver on Page 74, that involves the target making a Strength saving throw after a successful attack but the target also takes normal damage + extra damage form the superiority dice
Not massively fussed by applying disadvantage, smacks a bit of 3E "Well.... you could do that... but you suck at it if you don't have the right Feat"
And if a player has a cool idea, then I'd rather see it happen.
I suppose you could have:
"Make the attack and force target to drop object rather than inflict damage"
or
"Attack with disadvantage to force target to drop object and take damage"
The only real source of abuse I can imagine is players trying to disarm targets that they can't harm, but eh, kinda cool with that.
Most of my difficulties come from times where the player says "I'm going to shoot an arrow in his eye." Then they roll a solid hit, even with disadvantage. How am I supposed to downplay the significance of getting hit in the eye with an arrow, say if the target has 200 hp and that would effectively neuder the fight.
Most of my difficulties come from times where the player says "I'm going to shoot an arrow in his eye." Then they roll a solid hit, even with disadvantage. How am I supposed to downplay the significance of getting hit in the eye with an arrow, say if the target has 200 hp and that would effectively neuder the fight.
Eh... tbh, I kinda assume that all attacks are aimed for the most vital locations, that's how fighting works...
The rules just abstract it to HP damage.
Cause blindness for a turn if needed... but still seems a bit too good myself.
If they try spamming that sort of stuff... just explain that it's not how the game works and you don't want to neuder the fight.
Or just run your game in that way, and accept it's not Rules as Written and is in the player's favour
Or have enermies do the same to them,...
Having enemies fight back like that would be mean, but fair. Thing is, I don't want to stop my players from doing whatever they want to do. Why shouldn't they fight as smart as possible? If you were slashing at someone would you constantly go for limb/body shots instead of thrusting it through their throat/face?
Illithidbix wrote:
Wrylis wrote:
I would consider the attack a disarm, which fighters can do as a maneuver. in order to preserve the value of that maneuver, I would allow the attack with disadvantage to hit and do normal damage, then give the NPC the same save that the fighter maneuver uses.
So the fighter is still best at disarming, but others can try it, usually less successfully.
Wrylis wrote:
I don't...
I assume that characters are always trying to hit unarmed or vital spots. Their attack roll, and how many hit points their opponent has, represents how effective they were at it. A fighter swinging a sword at an orc is alway trying hit the orc in some critical spot. If he rolls a 4, the orc easily blocks it. If he rolls a 16, the orc barely avoids being stabbed in the neck and takes a nasty gash across his shoulder. If the fighter rolls a 20, the orc gets stabbed in the throat -- possibly dying.
If any player tells me they are not aiming for vital parts -- then I'll give them a disadvantage. The fighter can swing at the orc's shield, arms, breast plate, etc.
If an opponent is fairly helpless, again we assume the PC it trying to hit something critical and we give him an advantage.
D&D doesn't use critial hit tables and hit points are an insane abstraction of physical health.
Having a PC say they are trying to hit something citical and giving them special rules to do so.. is pointless. Can we then have special rules for creatures to take actions to avoid being hit in critical areas? Does the orc get to say "I hold my shield up to protect my neck and head."? Does the rogue get to say "I keep my head down when moving across the roof." And in the end... what do we get. Some bonus for attacking some specific area, followed by some penalty for defending a certain area... followed by complex rules for misses, debates about how much damage being hit in the eye actually does, etc.?
Or... we could assume you are trying to hit a vital area and your opponent is actively trying to prevent people from hitting him in a vital area... and we roll a d20 + modifiers... and compare it against their AC... and let the dice tell you if you were successful in hitting a vital area.
Wrylis wrote:
Gungolphus wrote:
Here's how I would run it:
The Arrow in the Eye Scenario
Player: I shoot an arrow into his eye.
Me: OK, roll the attack.
Player (rolls): A hit, and maximum damage!
Me (sees the damage doesn't kill or significantly injur the creature): Alright, your arrow slices across his cheekbone and eyebrow, leaving a streak of blood across his face. If he survives this, that will surely scar.
Player: But I hit.
Me: Yes, you hit the target, but he was able to dodge enough to keep it from killing him. If you can reduce him to 0 hit points with your arrow, that will be the one that goes into his eye socket.
The Disarming Scenario
Player: I want to hit the vial out of his hand.
Me: OK, roll an attack.
Player (rolls): 24.
Me: OK, that hits his AC, so your attack connects. He'll make a Dex saving throw. What's your Strength or Dex modifier, whichever you used on the attack?
Player: +3
Me (Rolls): And he fails to hit DC 13, so he drops the vial.
Player: Do I roll damage?
Me: No, you weren't trying to hurt him, just disarm him. A fighter can do both at once.
Wrylis wrote:
iserith wrote:
Novacat wrote:
With iserith.
Part of the issue with introducing Called shots is... well D&D just isn't about it, it's about abstract AC and hitpoints. The game already assumes you already are aiming for weakspots. That's why higher level characters have a higher chance, they're better at hitting the weakspots in armour etc.
If you want a RPG about called shots and detailed injury rules, D&D isn't a good place to start. It's focus is on abstracted heroic combat against ever bigger monsters and taking their stuff!
The big issue is: either Called Shots are outright better than just attacking normally or they're not worth the effort.
It's very very hard to get a sweet spot that makes them an attractive option that you don't want to do all the time, and is very circumstantial.
Causing blindness for a turn instead of damage is cool against a goblin, but it's also insanely powerful against a single “solo monster” (e.g a dragon) if it's constantly applied.
Perhaps have it a limited thing they can do.
Or perhaps players can use their inspiration dice to pull it off?
Personally I like players being awesome, but I've found the easiest way isn't lots of little fiddly houserules that alter the balance but just occasionally letting players do stuff if it's cool without a roll or just asking them “to describe their awesome” when they hit/reduce a enemy to 0HP etc.
Wrylis wrote:
I long ago got rid of the idea of called shots. I realised long ago that it was pointless. In any combat, you're ALWAYS trying to hit the target in the best possible, most damaging location. This is what crits represent. And even then, in 5e there is no guarantee of massive damage with a crit. So whilst you may have hit the most vulnerable location, there's no assurance that you hit it well or with much force.
In the OP's instance, I wouldn't call it a called shot simply because it's not about trying to hit a vital part, which traditionally is what called shots are about. For his example I'd probably just give the roll disadvantage and say that any hit wasn't actually damaging the opponent but the vial instead.
I like to give small benefits to players for called shots. The arrow grazes his brow and blinds him with the blood for a round etc.
The main reason I do this is to incentivise narrative combats. If one of my players says, "I attack" then fine, it's straight damage. If one of them says, "I drop to one knee and slice my chakram across the back of his leg"* I'm happy to hobble that enemy in addition to damage as a reward for creative and engaging play.
*Almost word for word quote from our rogue.
I think...
For shots at the eye.... normally fighters will take the shot at the open location, usuallly center of mass. A shot to the eye means he is forgoing any 'easier' shots in the hopes of getting one prime hit, this means it should be *much* harder to hit. He is expecting to do something 'critical' to the target, so it should require a critical hit, but he *is* concentrating on it.
I would probably give him advantage on the roll, but it would require a critical to hit (So natural 20 in most cases) Depending on his Attack bonus and the target armor class, I *may* allow it to do normal damage on a 19.
Wrylis wrote:
Novacat wrote:
I would tell the player to get his to-hit die ready, and explain that he will be aiming at a Very Small target. No HP damage will happen, BBEG will drop the vial if the hit succeeds. Are you ready? 
Use the target's base AC and the modifier for size.
If the player hits the tiny target, then he gets to decide side-effects (drop vial, does it break, &c.)
If he hits the base AC but not the size modifier, he shoots the target somewhere else; flip coins for side-effects.
If he misses entirely, well it WAS a cool idea and maybe he should take the Legolas' Accuracy feat and can try another time.
If he crits ... 
If he rolls a 1 ... 
well, I would apply the cover rule here, because when the creature have cover, you are trying to hit a smaller zone of the target not cover by the obstacle. A called shot you are trying to aim for the smaller zone of the target, so conceptually they are very similar, except if you miss because of the cover, you hit the obstacle, on the called shot if you miss the called shot you might still hit the target (aiming for the eye, but missing by a little and you still get the forehead or you might barely touch the tip of the ear)
When you want to target half the size of the creature, he get +2AC, if you miss by 2 reroll, if you hit the regular AC you still hit the target, but you fail your called shot.
If you want to target a zone 25% the size of the creature, he get +5AC, and again if you miss reroll and if you hit regular AC you hit the target, but fail your called shot
To shoot a zone super small (like an eye) then I would houserull a +7AC bonus or something like that
I would never allow a called shot to do anything that another character could do due to the benefit of unique powers. As such, I'd never allow a called shot to do anything akin to disarming an attacker, hitting an eye or other vital point, or anything of the sort.
That said, I would allow a player to attempt to shoot a held glass vial with a sling stone or arrow in order to shatter it (with disadvantage, of course), as that's fundamentally no different from attempting to do the same to a vial sitting on a wizard's desk.
Illithidbix wrote:
There are some good suggestions in this thread on how to handle the old called shots problem.
Personally, taking some of the suggestions here, I'm thinking that if it's a situation where the called shot would apply some kind of condition on an enemy (blindness because of shooting someone in the eye, or an attack penalty due to shooting the weapon out of someone's hand) I'd call for a normal attack roll, with both the condition and normal damage happening only on a critical hit, otherwise, normal damage and no condition on a regular hit, and nothing at all on a miss.
I'm not sure how many ways there are in 5e to generate auto-crits, but this would be another way to make those abilities even more advantageous. Critical hits ... they're not just for damage anymore!
For a situation where you want to do something with a called shot that is more narrative, and doesn't apply a direct effect or condition to an enemy (like knocking the macguffin out of the BBEG's hand, or hitting the weak spot of some item or hitting a very tiny or hard to hit item) I'd just call for a regular attack with any normal penalties due to range/cover/size, etc. and have it succeed on a normal hit, no critical hit necessary.
It lets the player give it a try with a chance of success, but the player has to get a little lucky to have a big effect, and still can get a consolation prize even if he fails in making the called shot.
Regardless of what you use, as others said, the key is to work it out with the player before the dice start rolling so everyone understands the stakes in advance.
Huntsman57 wrote:
I usually just remind my players that if they want to introduce called shots into the game, "If they can make Called Shots, So can I". I find it's easier to make them situational. That way you don't have the rogue in the back shooting the bad guys in the eye. Its important that you keep the element of fear in The game, haha. When it is a cool situation though, I usually just make it that they have to roll over a 15. Keeps it easy.
I like the idea of you attack at disadvantage and on a hit you inflict disadvantage on the enemy's attack until the end of its next turn. Perfectly balanced and simple.
abs1nth wrote:
Illithidbix wrote:
Wrylis wrote:
MechaPilot wrote: