So it was my understanding that aiming at a specific body part during combat was considered disadvantage. But according to my group an dm they all say it's not. I could of sworn I saw it in the players handbook/dm guide. But I can't seem to find it. Can somebody please find it or let me know.
There are no rules for this in any of the core rulebooks. Some DMs might allow it, some might not. D&D's combat system is very abstract and assumes most damage doesn't result in a serious injury until someone's HP has been reduced to 0, so being able to inflict injuries at will runs counter to that design.
The DMG does have some optional rules for injuries but leave it up to the DM to decide when to inflict them. Those rules suggest being reduced to 0 HP, receiving critical hits, or failing death saves by 5 as good circumstances to roll for injuries.
I like called shots, I think they're great narrative tools, but I also know that aiming for a specific body part can be very challenging so I figure that into the AC.
As InquisitiveCoder pointed out; most damage is considered to be less than serious, so it can be assumed the armor, shield, weapon, or skillful movement mitigates the serious nature of being struck by an attack. I also consider that the attacks are going "center mass" as that is the easiest target to aim for, from there I impose a + to AC based on the body part aimed at.
Arms and legs get a +3 Everything else gets +5
From there I look at the base AC and work from there. AC = 16, called shot to the eye = AC 21.
Melee: The player rolls an 18 to hit. This is a successful hit however, it's not enough to catch the eye. I would narrate that the attack grazes the major body part, in this case the head, and lands somewhere on the "center mass", in this case the chest. As it's a glancing hit, I would reduce the damage as well, the blow failing to hit it's actual mark.
Ranged: There is a much higher need for accuracy. In this situation I would not consider it a hit, only a graze, the opponent being able to avoid the missile. I would allow a damage roll but it would be reduced due to the missile being so small and missing it's mark.
It's a lot more book work for me, but I enjoy telling the story so I don't mind. For others, this approach may seem very convoluted and won't work, it's entirely up to you.
So it was my understanding that aiming at a specific body part during combat was considered disadvantage. But according to my group an dm they all say it's not. I could of sworn I saw it in the players handbook/dm guide. But I can't seem to find it. Can somebody please find it or let me know.
There aren't really rules for aiming at body parts in D&D: hits just do damage. One exception being the cover rules (i.e. if you have parts of your body covered, the attacker must aim for the uncovered parts, which means you have a higher AC).
Note: you're still generally free to describe the hits as desired, as long as you don't expect any mechanical benefit from doing so. Example: if you defeat an enemy by knocking them to 0 HP, you can usually describe it as a Headshot (or crippled limb) if desired.
Several people have mentioned the idea of Called Shots. I also allow Called Shots. How I do it is:
First, the player specifies what they are attempting to hit, for instance a foot, the head, something the target is holding. This is individual for each attack roll.
Second, the player takes Disadvantage on the attack roll.
Third, something happens based on what they hit. Some examples of what I do... If it was the head, throat, or heart it is an automatic Critical Hit. If it was something the target was holding, the target drops it and that thing takes damage. If it was a leg the target takes damage and has their Movement Speed halved.
So it was my understanding that aiming at a specific body part during combat was considered disadvantage. But according to my group an dm they all say it's not. I could of sworn I saw it in the players handbook/dm guide. But I can't seem to find it. Can somebody please find it or let me know.
I dont think there are any rules in 5e for targeting specific body parts. It is up to DM if it amounts to more than extra detail.
There are no rules for this in any of the core rulebooks. Some DMs might allow it, some might not. D&D's combat system is very abstract and assumes most damage doesn't result in a serious injury until someone's HP has been reduced to 0, so being able to inflict injuries at will runs counter to that design.
The DMG does have some optional rules for injuries but leave it up to the DM to decide when to inflict them. Those rules suggest being reduced to 0 HP, receiving critical hits, or failing death saves by 5 as good circumstances to roll for injuries.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I allow called shots in my game and just have the players make a normal roll. The effect is easier to narrate depending on how much damage is rolled.
I aim for his head! a 17, I hit!
Yes, roll damage.
*rolls 1*
You knick his cheek, now he's really angry.
"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 like called shots, I think they're great narrative tools, but I also know that aiming for a specific body part can be very challenging so I figure that into the AC.
As InquisitiveCoder pointed out; most damage is considered to be less than serious, so it can be assumed the armor, shield, weapon, or skillful movement mitigates the serious nature of being struck by an attack. I also consider that the attacks are going "center mass" as that is the easiest target to aim for, from there I impose a + to AC based on the body part aimed at.
Arms and legs get a +3
Everything else gets +5
From there I look at the base AC and work from there. AC = 16, called shot to the eye = AC 21.
Melee: The player rolls an 18 to hit. This is a successful hit however, it's not enough to catch the eye. I would narrate that the attack grazes the major body part, in this case the head, and lands somewhere on the "center mass", in this case the chest. As it's a glancing hit, I would reduce the damage as well, the blow failing to hit it's actual mark.
Ranged: There is a much higher need for accuracy. In this situation I would not consider it a hit, only a graze, the opponent being able to avoid the missile. I would allow a damage roll but it would be reduced due to the missile being so small and missing it's mark.
It's a lot more book work for me, but I enjoy telling the story so I don't mind. For others, this approach may seem very convoluted and won't work, it's entirely up to you.
There aren't really rules for aiming at body parts in D&D: hits just do damage. One exception being the cover rules (i.e. if you have parts of your body covered, the attacker must aim for the uncovered parts, which means you have a higher AC).
Note: you're still generally free to describe the hits as desired, as long as you don't expect any mechanical benefit from doing so. Example: if you defeat an enemy by knocking them to 0 HP, you can usually describe it as a Headshot (or crippled limb) if desired.
Several people have mentioned the idea of Called Shots. I also allow Called Shots. How I do it is:
First, the player specifies what they are attempting to hit, for instance a foot, the head, something the target is holding. This is individual for each attack roll.
Second, the player takes Disadvantage on the attack roll.
Third, something happens based on what they hit. Some examples of what I do... If it was the head, throat, or heart it is an automatic Critical Hit. If it was something the target was holding, the target drops it and that thing takes damage. If it was a leg the target takes damage and has their Movement Speed halved.
When did D&D institute body parts instead of hit points? Did they get it from Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975)?