Sure, or you could have the Player snap the form's neck and force it back into Draconic form, much like you see with forms created by the Polymorph spell, which wouldn't actually kill it, if the Player made the roll. You're seem to be making a DM ruling that the human form has the resilience of the Dragon's bone structure. Nothing wrong with that interpretation - but it's an interpretation - so open to re-interpretation in other games...
It's not really a DM ruling, that's how many hitpoints the morphed dragon has, and hitpoints are this game's representation of resilience. It is a different mechanism than the Polymorph spell, both the dragon's forms share the same hp pool. A creature with 546 hitpoints survives attacks that do less damage than that. The instakill threshold for that creature when it is at full health would be a 1093 damage attack. Even the wildest world-breaking spells imaginable don't do anywhere near that much damage. I think it is reasonable to rule that no amount of sudden neck twisting can achieve that damage level either.
I'm not going to get into an argument on this - it's clear we disagree on a fundamental philosophical level about what the game is, and that's fine, and I don't think either of us needs to try and covert the other - but I've always found positions ( not arguments ;) ), of this type bemusing.
So this response isn't meant as an argument, just an explanation of how I see the game. Make sense? We can part with differing viewpoints - hopefully amicably :)
From my perspective, of course it's a DM ruling. It's all DM ruling, all the time, everywhere - subject only to the limitations of whether you're making your Players unhappy, and destroying the kind of game that they want to play ( and even then you can likely find a Player group to fit pretty much any DM interpretation or recasting of rules and mechanics, since we can play as distributed groups online ). Chris Perkins and Mike Mearls are very talented designers, but they didn't come down off the mountain with holy writ in hand.
To me, it sounds like you're defending an objective reality of how things are. This is a fictional, make believe world. There just isn't any objective reality here, so from my perspective categorical statements like "that's how many hitpoints the morphed dragon has" and "It is a different mechanism than the Polymorph spell" are nonsensical. Not only do I think you don't know that for sure, (since I doubt you are personally a doctoral-level expert on the magical mechanisms of transformation or the biological makeup of Dragons) I don't think the information as to whether or not that's true exists. The questions as to whether those statements are accurate are non-questions; they're not objectively decidable. Declaring them as objective facts doesn't make it so.
I think the best we can state here is that it appears ( to me ) that you are going to stick as close to a literal interpretation of the rules are you can - and that's completely fine. I'm going to stick to interpretations that I think are plausible, and are consistent with my basic assumptions about how the internal logic of my fictional world works. I'm asimulationistwho believes that his fictional world should behave in a manner as close as it can to how the "real" world works, with some notable changes in the basic facts of the world: there are natural forces and mechanisms which expand the natural laws of our universe with "magic"; there are non-human intelligence in the world, some of them civilized; there are trans-human powers that exist in the larger universe which call themselves Gods and interfere in the "mortal realm"; etc.
There are actions which one can perform in our own reality, and for which I can see no compelling reason why in the pseudo-reality of the game world they could not be performed, which cannot be modeled in the game rules. To say "no, this completely plausible action is just not possible because the rules don't account for it" doesn't work for me. To me, that's not a good enough reason to declare it impossible. To my mind then, the game rules need to change and bend to match this discrepancy.
When I alter RAW, the danger here that I need to guard against is: what are the implications of this ruling in the larger game if this becomes a feature of the rules? Do I open up unintended loopholes that Players can exploit? If the Opponents also use this mechanism, can the Players accept that? In short - if I make this change, do I destroy the game balance?
I believe we would both agree destroying the game balance is a bad thing. I find the mechanism laid out in the AngryDM article to be interesting one, as it allows an off-the-cuff DM mechanic to be spun off, and to be relatively sure that the game balance is being preserved.
When the Player says "hey, I've stealthed up behind the Bandit Captain, and I've got a pistol to his head, can I take him out?", that's a situation which a) would totally make sense in our world, and b) there's no mechanism within the rules for it - in fact the rules might actually indicate you can't do that since maximum pistol damage exceeds the HP of the Creature. There's a disconnect between what the rules say, and what seems plausible within the pseudo-reality of the game world. To me, the rules need to adapt, so long as game balance is preserved. You may disagree :)
I guess I'm Chaotic with regards to the Rules :)
The case of "neck snapping a Dragon" is a little more complicated. As I've already said, I complexly agree that it's not reasonable to ask "can I one shot kill the Dragon". Even by my summation of the AngryDM's adjudication technique, the answer is "no" - I don't think that's something that should be possible from within the internal logic of the world. But it brings up an interesting wrinkle in that technique - sometimes what the Player is trying to do ( what they think the risks/rewards/probabilities of the situation are ), is not what's really going on. They will be really pissing off the Dragon and making themselves a target in the upcoming combat, and they may only be possibly gaining a damage multiplier in their attack - which is not what they thought they were risking and gaining.
And that brings up the idea of the GM trying to address game balance in the other direction ( to a certain extent ). If the Player tried to do this, they're incurring a huge risk. The Dragon is likely to be pissed, and target that Character. To inflict that - reasonable - consequence on them, and not give them any possibility of benefit even if they succeed in a roll ( let's say, a natural 20 ), is to skew the game balance against the Player. I think you're still constrained by plausibility. I would never have them one shot the Dragon, even on a natural 20 - but I'd give them something. Heroic successes deserve heroic rewards - hence I might give them a damage multiplier to the attack, and knock the Dragon back to its Draconic form, if they made that die roll. It's a plausible benefit they could gain - even if it's not the one they intended.
But - again, as I said - with a Creature where they actually have a plausible chance to "one shot kill" with a neck twist, and the risk/reward/probability combination did not unfairly favor the Player's balance, and the Player is making a reasonably informed consent - I'd probably allow it.
Rules must adapt to the plausible outcomes of the world.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Sure, or you could have the Player snap the form's neck and force it back into Draconic form, much like you see with forms created by the Polymorph spell, which wouldn't actually kill it, if the Player made the roll. You're seem to be making a DM ruling that the human form has the resilience of the Dragon's bone structure. Nothing wrong with that interpretation - but it's an interpretation - so open to re-interpretation in other games...
It's not really a DM ruling, that's how many hitpoints the morphed dragon has, and hitpoints are this game's representation of resilience. It is a different mechanism than the Polymorph spell, both the dragon's forms share the same hp pool. A creature with 546 hitpoints survives attacks that do less damage than that. The instakill threshold for that creature when it is at full health would be a 1093 damage attack. Even the wildest world-breaking spells imaginable don't do anywhere near that much damage. I think it is reasonable to rule that no amount of sudden neck twisting can achieve that damage level either.
To me, it sounds like you're defending an objective reality of how things are. This is a fictional, make believe world. There just isn't any objective reality here, so from my perspective categorical statements like "that's how many hitpoints the morphed dragon has" and "It is a different mechanism than the Polymorph spell" are nonsensical. Not only do I think you don't know that for sure, (since I doubt you are personally a doctoral-level expert on the magical mechanisms of transformation or the biological makeup of Dragons) I don't think the information as to whether or not that's true exists. The questions as to whether those statements are accurate are non-questions; they're not objectively decidable. Declaring them as objective facts doesn't make it so...
I'm not arguing with your central method of deciding whether a thing is possible/risky - that seems fine. But when I state about the different mechanisms of the two morphings that is not me plucking mystical knowledge from the aether, it is because they are literally written very differently in the actual rulebooks. The Polymorph spell gives you temporary hp representing the resilience of the new form, and when that form is killed you revert to your old form with the hp you had before the transformation; thus you morph into an actual feeble peasant and you die easily from stuff but then come back just like you were before. A Dragon's shape change is very different in that both forms share the same hp, and killing the new form kills the whole dragon. This is relevant because many people in the thread have been talking like this human-form dragon is easyish to kill but then could turn into an angry dragon after the human neck is snapped. In fact that peasant possesses a huge pile of hitpoints, plus the legendary resistance of a dragon.
I would probably not bother developing an actual repeatable rule for how a neck might get snapped, but if a strong pc got the jump on a weak guard or other easily killable thing then I'd call for some dice roll and allow easy murder success. In the case of the actual situation in this post - a shape-changed dragon - that does not apply because that peasant is still an invulnerable behemoth.
I'm not arguing with your central method of deciding whether a thing is possible/risky - that seems fine. But when I state about the different mechanisms of the two morphings that is not me plucking mystical knowledge from the aether, it is because they are literally written very differently in the actual rulebooks.
Let me stop you right there. That's the central difference to how we're approaching things.
You seem to be basing everything on the rulebooks, and making the reality of the situation fit the rules.
I'm basing everything on what I think the consistent internal logic of my interpretation of the game world would be, constrained by game balance, and I'm perfectly happy violating and bending the rules into pretzels to match that internal logic ( which is not the same as violating the written rules on a whim for no reason, mind you - there is still governing principles and codes, they're just not rooted in the rules ), while trying to keep the game balanced.
To you, the guiding principle seems to be the rules. To me, the guiding principle is the logic and outcome within the game world.
A more clear example of a Lawful approach, and a Chaotic approach, I might be hard pressed to find! :D
I don't believe either of us right or wrong - we just have a different starting points, so we end up in very different conclusions. I can see your point. I think your arguments and conclusions are sound, given your assumptions and approach. I just don't share your assumptions and approach :)
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
No - your answer is "no: you can't make called shots" - and that's fine. I've detailed a means by which you - as a DM - can introduce that possibility, if you so wish, without unbalancing the game.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
No - your answer is "no: you can't make called shots" - and that's fine. I've detailed a means by which you - as a DM - can introduce that possibility, if you so wish, without unbalancing the game.
Technically "no: you can't make called shots" is the answer of the D&D rules, while my answer was yes (using an easy, balanced option). Your method seems balanced enough, but very lengthy.
In order to snap a neck, you should be using this mechanic. Target needs to be grappled, unconscious, or rendered unable to move.
Coup de Grace
As an action, you attempt to finish a helpless opponent, one that is unconscious, paralyzed, or otherwise rendered unable to take actions or use movement (the incapacitated condition is necessary but not sufficient). Expend a hit die and deal an automatic critical hit with a melee attack (no attack roll needed). If the creature survives the damage, it must succeed on a Constitution saving throw against a DC equal to 10 or half your damage roll, whichever is higher. On a failure, it dies. A rogue applies sneak attack damage when delivering a coup de grace.
Delivering a coup de grace provokes opportunity attacks from creatures within 5 feet of you and reduces your speed to 0 until the end of the turn.
Hi Fresh-Water! I can tell from your post count you are pretty new here. This thread is 2 years old. While there is nothing wrong with necro-ing an old thread anymore (it used to be against the rules), it's not necessarily the best thing.
Also, I'm not aware of this mechanic being an official rule. If it is, please forgive my ignorance, but if it is homebrew, you should label it as such. This is the Rules and Game mechanics forum, and a lot of people come here looking for interpretations of real rules, so introducing a homebrew rule, while fine, should be identified so you don't confuse anyone.
It's an action you can make by expending a hit dice. It's not homebrew. And thanks for letting me know about the thread rule. I am a bit new here.
Hello Fresh Water, the martial prowess homebrew by rsquared is not official. It even says "homebrew" right on the cover, the 3rd word in the document. And it was not published by WotC.
It's not unbalanced but it's largely redundant. The reason 5e doesn't have an explicit coup de grace option is that the paralyzed and unconscious conditions already give critical hits, critical hits give 2 death save failures, and the DMG has optional rules for massive damage and lingering injuries. The core books already give you everything you need for that.
My bad. I thought it was legit. Well, the rules seem balanced enough, and it is adapted from previous rules.
I'd honestly argue it's insanely overpowered. While it has pretty onerous activation requirements (conditions, etc), the ability to insta-kill something on a failed save is only slightly worse than a 9th level spell like power word kill. The only way to balance this IMO would be for it to 1) drop the creature to 0 hp instead of killing them, and 2) only be available at high tier play. The closest analogue to this is the Open Hand Monks Quivering Palm, which is a 17th level ability, only drops the creature to 0, and requires a "standard" class based save DC not based on potential damage.
My bad. I thought it was legit. Well, the rules seem balanced enough, and it is adapted from previous rules.
I'd honestly argue it's insanely overpowered. While it has pretty onerous activation requirements (conditions, etc), the ability to insta-kill something on a failed save is only slightly worse than a 9th level spell like power word kill. The only way to balance this IMO would be for it to 1) drop the creature to 0 hp instead of killing them, and 2) only be available at high tier play. The closest analogue to this is the Open Hand Monks Quivering Palm, which is a 17th level ability, only drops the creature to 0, and requires a "standard" class based save DC not based on potential damage.
Looking at it, it really isn't that bad. It requires the target to be incapacitated and unable to move.
The auto hit, auto crit, and sneak attack parts aren't bad because you will probably have advantage and auto crit anyway.
The instant death clause has a low save, so anything that you would want to survive probably will. Honestly, this is more dangerous to players.
Like Coder said, it is more redundant than overpowered.
My bad. I thought it was legit. Well, the rules seem balanced enough, and it is adapted from previous rules.
I'd honestly argue it's insanely overpowered. While it has pretty onerous activation requirements (conditions, etc), the ability to insta-kill something on a failed save is only slightly worse than a 9th level spell like power word kill. The only way to balance this IMO would be for it to 1) drop the creature to 0 hp instead of killing them, and 2) only be available at high tier play. The closest analogue to this is the Open Hand Monks Quivering Palm, which is a 17th level ability, only drops the creature to 0, and requires a "standard" class based save DC not based on potential damage.
Looking at it, it really isn't that bad. It requires the target to be incapacitated and unable to move.
The auto hit, auto crit, and sneak attack parts aren't bad because you will probably have advantage and auto crit anyway.
The instant death clause has a low save, so anything that you would want to survive probably will. Honestly, this is more dangerous to players.
Like Coder said, it is more redundant that overpowered.
The save is 10 or half of the damage (critted). that means that your rogue at level 5 is doing 6d6 + 2d8 + mod, avg 34-35 (assuming +4/5 mod) and a CON Save at DC 17 to avoid instant death. At level 10 its avg 48/49 and a CON Save of 24. And the only resource spent is an action and a single hit die? At level 15 its practically an insta-kill for anything without a legendary resistance (avg 69 and a CON of 34). paladins who add divine strike can get up there too. The issue isn't the crit though, its the insta-death ability for practically no resources and no limitations other than the amount of hit dice you can spend. Even the quivering palm has a limit of 5 uses (and only one at a time) per short rest at level 17 (assuming no other allocations of the ki resource). At level 17, this ability potentially has 17 uses per long rest, with no other loss of resources other than potential healing during short rests (itself mitigated by healing magics, potions, etc)
paired with a caster casting hold person and this basically renders combat moot against single opponents and small groups in a lot of cases by level 10.
I agree the DC calculation is awful and jumping straight to instant death is a hilariously bad idea, but in practice if you meet all the conditions I highly doubt the target will walk away from this alive no matter which set of rules you're using.
Admittedly hit dice is a weird cost that I don't care for. It should be limited to one per encounter in some way.
And I forgot about the DC being half the damage (which does make sneak attack OP with it). Maybe DC should just be 8+attacker proficiency bonus?
I still don't think it is likely to change the outcome of any encounter though (not even in resources used).
The only thing I even partly liked about it is that I don't think creatures that get stabbed in the heart or have their throat slit while sleeping should survive because they had a ton of hit points. I didn't like the idea of using this in combat at all.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Each GM can choose and develop their own rules for it -part of what makes RPGs great.
But in my game I don't think instakill mechanics like a neck snap should work on any dragon in any form. Just because.
Maybe that's short sighted or "non-realistic" or not being flexible. I'm not going to explore it or consider it, it's just a full stop no.
I'd say the same about the PCs unless they were at 0 hp.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
I'm not going to get into an argument on this - it's clear we disagree on a fundamental philosophical level about what the game is, and that's fine, and I don't think either of us needs to try and covert the other - but I've always found positions ( not arguments ;) ), of this type bemusing.
So this response isn't meant as an argument, just an explanation of how I see the game. Make sense? We can part with differing viewpoints - hopefully amicably :)
From my perspective, of course it's a DM ruling. It's all DM ruling, all the time, everywhere - subject only to the limitations of whether you're making your Players unhappy, and destroying the kind of game that they want to play ( and even then you can likely find a Player group to fit pretty much any DM interpretation or recasting of rules and mechanics, since we can play as distributed groups online ). Chris Perkins and Mike Mearls are very talented designers, but they didn't come down off the mountain with holy writ in hand.
To me, it sounds like you're defending an objective reality of how things are. This is a fictional, make believe world. There just isn't any objective reality here, so from my perspective categorical statements like "that's how many hitpoints the morphed dragon has" and "It is a different mechanism than the Polymorph spell" are nonsensical. Not only do I think you don't know that for sure, (since I doubt you are personally a doctoral-level expert on the magical mechanisms of transformation or the biological makeup of Dragons) I don't think the information as to whether or not that's true exists. The questions as to whether those statements are accurate are non-questions; they're not objectively decidable. Declaring them as objective facts doesn't make it so.
I think the best we can state here is that it appears ( to me ) that you are going to stick as close to a literal interpretation of the rules are you can - and that's completely fine. I'm going to stick to interpretations that I think are plausible, and are consistent with my basic assumptions about how the internal logic of my fictional world works. I'm a simulationist who believes that his fictional world should behave in a manner as close as it can to how the "real" world works, with some notable changes in the basic facts of the world: there are natural forces and mechanisms which expand the natural laws of our universe with "magic"; there are non-human intelligence in the world, some of them civilized; there are trans-human powers that exist in the larger universe which call themselves Gods and interfere in the "mortal realm"; etc.
There are actions which one can perform in our own reality, and for which I can see no compelling reason why in the pseudo-reality of the game world they could not be performed, which cannot be modeled in the game rules. To say "no, this completely plausible action is just not possible because the rules don't account for it" doesn't work for me. To me, that's not a good enough reason to declare it impossible. To my mind then, the game rules need to change and bend to match this discrepancy.
When I alter RAW, the danger here that I need to guard against is: what are the implications of this ruling in the larger game if this becomes a feature of the rules? Do I open up unintended loopholes that Players can exploit? If the Opponents also use this mechanism, can the Players accept that? In short - if I make this change, do I destroy the game balance?
I believe we would both agree destroying the game balance is a bad thing. I find the mechanism laid out in the AngryDM article to be interesting one, as it allows an off-the-cuff DM mechanic to be spun off, and to be relatively sure that the game balance is being preserved.
When the Player says "hey, I've stealthed up behind the Bandit Captain, and I've got a pistol to his head, can I take him out?", that's a situation which a) would totally make sense in our world, and b) there's no mechanism within the rules for it - in fact the rules might actually indicate you can't do that since maximum pistol damage exceeds the HP of the Creature. There's a disconnect between what the rules say, and what seems plausible within the pseudo-reality of the game world. To me, the rules need to adapt, so long as game balance is preserved. You may disagree :)
I guess I'm Chaotic with regards to the Rules :)
The case of "neck snapping a Dragon" is a little more complicated. As I've already said, I complexly agree that it's not reasonable to ask "can I one shot kill the Dragon". Even by my summation of the AngryDM's adjudication technique, the answer is "no" - I don't think that's something that should be possible from within the internal logic of the world. But it brings up an interesting wrinkle in that technique - sometimes what the Player is trying to do ( what they think the risks/rewards/probabilities of the situation are ), is not what's really going on. They will be really pissing off the Dragon and making themselves a target in the upcoming combat, and they may only be possibly gaining a damage multiplier in their attack - which is not what they thought they were risking and gaining.
And that brings up the idea of the GM trying to address game balance in the other direction ( to a certain extent ). If the Player tried to do this, they're incurring a huge risk. The Dragon is likely to be pissed, and target that Character. To inflict that - reasonable - consequence on them, and not give them any possibility of benefit even if they succeed in a roll ( let's say, a natural 20 ), is to skew the game balance against the Player. I think you're still constrained by plausibility. I would never have them one shot the Dragon, even on a natural 20 - but I'd give them something. Heroic successes deserve heroic rewards - hence I might give them a damage multiplier to the attack, and knock the Dragon back to its Draconic form, if they made that die roll. It's a plausible benefit they could gain - even if it's not the one they intended.
But - again, as I said - with a Creature where they actually have a plausible chance to "one shot kill" with a neck twist, and the risk/reward/probability combination did not unfairly favor the Player's balance, and the Player is making a reasonably informed consent - I'd probably allow it.
Rules must adapt to the plausible outcomes of the world.
You may disagree :)
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I'm not arguing with your central method of deciding whether a thing is possible/risky - that seems fine. But when I state about the different mechanisms of the two morphings that is not me plucking mystical knowledge from the aether, it is because they are literally written very differently in the actual rulebooks. The Polymorph spell gives you temporary hp representing the resilience of the new form, and when that form is killed you revert to your old form with the hp you had before the transformation; thus you morph into an actual feeble peasant and you die easily from stuff but then come back just like you were before. A Dragon's shape change is very different in that both forms share the same hp, and killing the new form kills the whole dragon. This is relevant because many people in the thread have been talking like this human-form dragon is easyish to kill but then could turn into an angry dragon after the human neck is snapped. In fact that peasant possesses a huge pile of hitpoints, plus the legendary resistance of a dragon.
I would probably not bother developing an actual repeatable rule for how a neck might get snapped, but if a strong pc got the jump on a weak guard or other easily killable thing then I'd call for some dice roll and allow easy murder success. In the case of the actual situation in this post - a shape-changed dragon - that does not apply because that peasant is still an invulnerable behemoth.
Let me stop you right there. That's the central difference to how we're approaching things.
You seem to be basing everything on the rulebooks, and making the reality of the situation fit the rules.
I'm basing everything on what I think the consistent internal logic of my interpretation of the game world would be, constrained by game balance, and I'm perfectly happy violating and bending the rules into pretzels to match that internal logic ( which is not the same as violating the written rules on a whim for no reason, mind you - there is still governing principles and codes, they're just not rooted in the rules ), while trying to keep the game balanced.
To you, the guiding principle seems to be the rules. To me, the guiding principle is the logic and outcome within the game world.
A more clear example of a Lawful approach, and a Chaotic approach, I might be hard pressed to find! :D
I don't believe either of us right or wrong - we just have a different starting points, so we end up in very different conclusions. I can see your point. I think your arguments and conclusions are sound, given your assumptions and approach. I just don't share your assumptions and approach :)
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
This is the same as if a player asks if head-shots, decapitation, arrow-to-the-eye, etc. are possible in D&D.
The answer is no: you can't make called shots.
But yes: if you kill something, you can describe it however you want
No - your answer is "no: you can't make called shots" - and that's fine. I've detailed a means by which you - as a DM - can introduce that possibility, if you so wish, without unbalancing the game.
Whether you want to use it, or not - up to you.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I usually don't do anything other than change the narrative when a called shot is made.
"I shoot the guy in the head!" *roll* "hit!"
"OK, roll damage."
"Ugh...1"
"You shoot his ear off in a tiny splish of blood."
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Technically "no: you can't make called shots" is the answer of the D&D rules, while my answer was yes (using an easy, balanced option). Your method seems balanced enough, but very lengthy.
In order to snap a neck, you should be using this mechanic. Target needs to be grappled, unconscious, or rendered unable to move.
Coup de Grace
As an action, you attempt to finish a helpless opponent, one that is unconscious, paralyzed, or otherwise rendered unable to take actions or use movement (the incapacitated condition is necessary but not sufficient). Expend a hit die and deal an automatic critical hit with a melee attack (no attack roll needed). If the creature survives the damage, it must succeed on a Constitution saving throw against a DC equal to 10 or half your damage roll, whichever is higher. On a failure, it dies. A rogue applies sneak attack damage when delivering a coup de grace.
Delivering a coup de grace provokes opportunity attacks from creatures within 5 feet of you and reduces your speed to 0 until the end of the turn.
Hi Fresh-Water! I can tell from your post count you are pretty new here. This thread is 2 years old. While there is nothing wrong with necro-ing an old thread anymore (it used to be against the rules), it's not necessarily the best thing.
Also, I'm not aware of this mechanic being an official rule. If it is, please forgive my ignorance, but if it is homebrew, you should label it as such. This is the Rules and Game mechanics forum, and a lot of people come here looking for interpretations of real rules, so introducing a homebrew rule, while fine, should be identified so you don't confuse anyone.
Hello iconrising! It's from the official rules in the Martial Prowress Handbook. Martial Prowess: A 5E Tome of Battle | GM Binder
It's an action you can make by expending a hit dice. It's not homebrew. And thanks for letting me know about the thread rule. I am a bit new here.
That is not an official rulebook. It's literally homebrew :)
Hello Fresh Water, the martial prowess homebrew by rsquared is not official. It even says "homebrew" right on the cover, the 3rd word in the document. And it was not published by WotC.
My bad. I thought it was legit. Well, the rules seem balanced enough, and it is adapted from previous rules.
It's not unbalanced but it's largely redundant. The reason 5e doesn't have an explicit coup de grace option is that the paralyzed and unconscious conditions already give critical hits, critical hits give 2 death save failures, and the DMG has optional rules for massive damage and lingering injuries. The core books already give you everything you need for that.
I'd honestly argue it's insanely overpowered. While it has pretty onerous activation requirements (conditions, etc), the ability to insta-kill something on a failed save is only slightly worse than a 9th level spell like power word kill. The only way to balance this IMO would be for it to 1) drop the creature to 0 hp instead of killing them, and 2) only be available at high tier play. The closest analogue to this is the Open Hand Monks Quivering Palm, which is a 17th level ability, only drops the creature to 0, and requires a "standard" class based save DC not based on potential damage.
Looking at it, it really isn't that bad. It requires the target to be incapacitated and unable to move.
The auto hit, auto crit, and sneak attack parts aren't bad because you will probably have advantage and auto crit anyway.
The instant death clause has a low save, so anything that you would want to survive probably will. Honestly, this is more dangerous to players.
Like Coder said, it is more redundant than overpowered.
The save is 10 or half of the damage (critted). that means that your rogue at level 5 is doing 6d6 + 2d8 + mod, avg 34-35 (assuming +4/5 mod) and a CON Save at DC 17 to avoid instant death. At level 10 its avg 48/49 and a CON Save of 24. And the only resource spent is an action and a single hit die? At level 15 its practically an insta-kill for anything without a legendary resistance (avg 69 and a CON of 34). paladins who add divine strike can get up there too. The issue isn't the crit though, its the insta-death ability for practically no resources and no limitations other than the amount of hit dice you can spend. Even the quivering palm has a limit of 5 uses (and only one at a time) per short rest at level 17 (assuming no other allocations of the ki resource). At level 17, this ability potentially has 17 uses per long rest, with no other loss of resources other than potential healing during short rests (itself mitigated by healing magics, potions, etc)
paired with a caster casting hold person and this basically renders combat moot against single opponents and small groups in a lot of cases by level 10.
I agree the DC calculation is awful and jumping straight to instant death is a hilariously bad idea, but in practice if you meet all the conditions I highly doubt the target will walk away from this alive no matter which set of rules you're using.
Admittedly hit dice is a weird cost that I don't care for. It should be limited to one per encounter in some way.
And I forgot about the DC being half the damage (which does make sneak attack OP with it). Maybe DC should just be 8+attacker proficiency bonus?
I still don't think it is likely to change the outcome of any encounter though (not even in resources used).
The only thing I even partly liked about it is that I don't think creatures that get stabbed in the heart or have their throat slit while sleeping should survive because they had a ton of hit points. I didn't like the idea of using this in combat at all.