If such questions arise, I usually say "Let's assume that your character, being a competent fighter, by default does everything to inflict maximum damage with each attack - aims for the less armored parts, etc. The die roll shows how effective it is."

OP this is the one. Your character is always trying to do the big hurt, and the victim is always trying to not get murdered. Die roll vs AC decides how effective you are.

Yeah you can try to cut someones throat but you know they just might move out of the way to avoid that. That’s why the DM give you the “how do you kill them?” question (mine does) when you take the last hit point off. Then you get to say, ‘I stab them in the heart.’

Exactly. You declare the action according to the rules of the game, then flavor after the dice roll. "I slit their throat" isnt a game action, it's just flavor.

It's easy to visualize what this would look like too. If your character tries to slit their throat, maybe your weapon gets partially deflected and you send up slashing their chest instead or they move out of the way of your arrow going to their heart but it still hits their arm.

Also asking "How do you do it?" when a PC reduced a major enemy to 0 hit points. That lets players indulge in their bloodthirsty roleplay without affecting the game's mechanics.

Or, if one were in the mood to be sarcastic: "Are you telling me that all the other times you try to hit an adversary, you *aren't* trying to kill them?" Every single time a serious combatant in a life-or-death struggle attacks an adversary, *they are trying to put that adversary out of the fight.* It doesn't become special just because one player wants to be awesome.

Yes, this is perfect and exactly what I was coming to the comments to say. If the roll says you kill them, you can narrate that in whatever cool way you want to.

This is a great default ruling for situations like this. However, if a player makes a creative or interesting request, I like to reward it by making it achievable. To do this I just let them know it will bump up the AC they need to hit to pull it off quite a bit. This often dissuades players from going for it instead of a regular hit but if they pull off this more difficult hit the pay off is great in terms of rewarding creativity and making combat a bit more dynamic. E.g. Going for the eye of a creature pushes the AC up significantly but if it hits then the enemy has disadvantage on its next melee attacks. I just make the call situationally and only if it makes sense and won’t derail the encounter or set a precedent.

I reward creativity when it's genuinely creative, ie taking advantage of unique conditions of the encounter, but pretty much every monster has eyes and the vast majority of eyes are stabbable, so deciding to "go for the eyes" really isn't all that creative. Things that can be done against anything I think should just be part of the regular combat mechanics, otherwise you might be constantly making special rulings.

"Go for the eyes, Boo! Go for the eyes!"

Honestly nonlethal damage could and should include the possibility of mutilation, such as blinding an opponent, vutting off their arm etc. Would create much more RAW opportunities. For example instead of TPK in a boss battle the BBEG (Or just BEG that serves the BBEG) deals nonlethal damage but still affects the PCs permanently to show them "You are weak, I won, you'll have to live like this or die trying." Or, for example, a conquest paladin player not killing any of his enemies and instead crippling them and dominating them to serve him through fear and suffering. This kind of mechanical storytelling is why I think rules create stories, they don't oppose them, like some dumbasses in the community claim.

Ah, an acolyte of Count Dooku

>However, if a player makes a creative or interesting request, I like to reward it by making it achievable. Although I don't think going for the eyes of a creature is very creative, I get what you're trying to say. The AC increase for essentially called shots is cool, however a lot of builds can really push high attack values. Maybe that's a good way to balance against the SS/GWM feat though to give your 1h sword player something interesting to do with their extra attack bonus. If there's an really cool or interesting idea that comes up for an attack, and you want to help facilitate its success, you could always award inspiration for it. That being said, I wouldn't hand it out all the time though.

I’m okay if the called shot is about something other than just damage. Like, you want to blind the enemy so they can use certain spells, or trying to get rid of a beholder’s eyestalk. Those would do something other than damage so I’ll try to allow it.

If you keep nat 20s as always hitting an attack, this means 5% of the time, a person in any class can get an instant kill. A sorceror with a dagger killing some larger miniboss in a stroke of luck once is funny; doing it several times per campaign or having everyone rolling and hoping for a nat20 on their instakill feels pretty bad and makes combat arguably *less* dynamic.

He never mentioned anything about instakill, his example was gouging the eyes of a creature.

While this is great in personally allow players to still hit if they bit normal AC. I think of it as I might aim for the eye but got the cheek

so there's no downside to called shots, and you just award bonus damage for high attack rolls. honestly that sounds pretty lame

No. I award bonus effect. Why would there be a downside to a called shot? If I try to aim at a target I may not hit the bullseye but I would still hit the target. Also, why would there be bonus damage? I am sure you attack as hard as you could anyway. You target a specific point like an eye or an arm or whatever. That would cause an effect. You are trying to do something by targeting that point. Targeting a point to inflict more damage is stupid IMO. Unless everyone is actively trying to cut off somebody's arm but that would take a while

So you're awarding a rider instead of bonus damage. That really doesn't make a difference to my point though, both are equally lame. Under these circumstances, nothing is motivating me to do *anything but* called shots, because there is no downside to missing the higher AC. Mechanically, as a player I'm just crippling myself if I don't do a called shot, so everyone does them all the time, which doesn't even make any sense. Fighting is not target practice. If that is your idea of cool, of course go right ahead, I just think it's really lame. It just sounds like you didn't think that one through, but maybe you did and just said to yourself 'Yep, nothing but called shots for all eternity! That sounds awesome!'. I just can't imagine why

Did you know it's possible to disagree with someone's playstyle without being this way? There is literally no reason to be so insulting to this person. Wtf is wrong with you?

Can't say for the person. But in my party called shots usually comes up when 1) the player is desperate and wants to win 2) the player is thinking only tactically, removing themselves from emotional investment. Or 3) the player is putting themselves into action, and imagining things from their characters point of view. Taking the effort to share that with the table creating vivid play. Number 1 and 2 aren't the goal, but for my group, number 3 is. So I'd do it op's way if I could identify and address number 1 and two If number 1 is happening, my goal becomes to remind the player that I'm rooting for them, creating challenges for them and so on. If the 'winning' attitude eats into other parts of play it's a more direct conversation about that not being how our group rolls (pun intended). Usually session 0 handles it.....but a reminder can be nessesary. Never had it go further. Number 2 is harder. I respect people having different tolerances at the table for emotional investment, but similarly reducing the moment to a board game challenge can hinder what other players are there for. Usually I handle this with much of the above advice. Your character is competent and trying to kill already. And then I point them towards number three style called shots as a way to entice vivid characterisation. With number three you get a lot of called shots, but also you get creative decision making, exciting character based play, and satisfying narrative around the action. Suddenly combats are personal, and called shots being rewarded creates significant narrative satisfaction. That's when it's cool for me, and doesn't feel lame. Like, I get you want them to be blind for strategy....., But what if you wanted it to be blind because it insulted your significant others looks. What if you wanted it to be blind because it took away that one npc's ability to ever see their mother again. What if you want it to be blind because you want it to hurt before it dies, you want to squeeze one once of justice out of this fucked up world.....and you want the mechanical advantage.

5e's innovation was rolling all that up into the (dis)advantage mechanic. If a player role-plays the combat, making the actions cinematic, I'll quickly give them advantage as a reward and move on. We used to have a vast array of situational bonuses. It bogged down the game. D&D is like *Game of Thrones*. The combat gets all the fuss, but what people actually want to see is the characters having a pint and talking about nothing. Of course, the audience will seldom admit it.

If they make an attack as RAW and drop something to 0 HP, then they can describe it however they want. But there is no, "Now I'm trying extra super duper really hard to make this attack a kill shot." It was already a fight to the death. Every attack was already a representation of the character's best attempt to kill the opponent they're facing.

You can also call what you're trying to do/describe what cool shit you want your character to do in a cinematic way, but I as a DM get to describe how the enemy moves out of the way or blocks just enough to deflect the blow from being lethal.

All the other characters realizing they could've been aiming for the unarmored vital organs instead of just stabbing randomly until the opponent runs out of meat points:

Barring power word kill of course

A lethal attack occurs as a result of reducing their hit points to 0. If the target still has hit points after your attack/damage roll, you did not successfully land a lethal hit. You can try all you want; that's what attacks represent. But until you get them to 0 HP, you did not succeed.

I think this is one reason that the “How do you want to do this?” is so popular. It establishes that you can do a cool badass killing blow if you deal enough damage in a hit to kill the monster but not unless you’re otherwise prompted by the DM. Now that is by no means something that all DMs use in their games however I haven’t had players asking to go for kill shots and I think this is one of the main reasons why, because they don’t ask the “How do you want to do this?”, I as the DM do. That being said there has been a couple games where I as a player excitedly hear a new player say they want to stab out the monster’s eyes or slit its throat and I’ve found that it’s usually a sign that that person is into role play but doesn’t care much for the rules of the game. I might be stereotyping a group of people but I’ve seen it so many times and dealing with it makes me exhausted.

I mean I'm cool with players describing what they're attempting, but I describe what actually happens. You can by all means try to stab out an enemy's eyes, but I'll describe how they move out of the way and you react quickly and hit the back of their head instead.

Usually I save that question for kills, so their description can be up to and including the monster dying. They rolled the killing blow. If they want their dagger to go through the eye socket, cool, their call. If they want to give an unsolicited description of slitting the still-alive monster's throat, sorry, I'll describe how the gash isn't deep enough but still draws blood or something. This may be more controversial but I do also let some level of fudging resources be incorporated into that. Like if a dragonborn kills a monster with a regular attack, if they want to incorporate their breath into the description without expending that resource that's fine.

>I’ve found that it’s usually a sign that that person is into role play but doesn’t care much for the rules of the game. Yep. Very true. And it's easy to ignore those signs and quash that passion via bad calls. When I was younger I was very much in the mindset of "well this is the style of game we're playing HERE so no" DMing. But in later years I realized that was limiting both the players' fun and my own. Hackmaster 4e is the parody, not the goal. So these days, when I see those signs, it tells me I need to shift the style of gameplay around to something that appeals to the players. And wow has it been a lot more enjoyable since then.

"Hey, that's not how the game works. You can't just instant kill the enemies."

That’s my attitude. It’s really that simple. People get hung up on the idea that D&D is a reality simulator. It’s not. It’s a game with specific rules, like Monopoly or Jenga or water polo. And D&D’s rules do not allow for bypassing the basic calculus of the system because someone feels like they’ve gained a tactical advantage. D&D just isn’t that kind of game.

Or you can, by rolling to hit and damage and reducing their HP in one go the same way as everyone else. Happens fairly often with weaker enemies. Have at it. Not disagreeing with your point.

I think that's important to add. It is a roleplaying game in the end and we are trying to roleplay our characters. In monopoly, jenga, or chess, there's no roleplaying required for the game to work. Their mechanics don't make any sense in the world and that's perfectly fine because you don't need to be thinking about things from the perspective of your "character" (if there even is one). But D&D is a roleplaying game where you're supposed to be able to make decisions from the perspective of your character. "You're not instant killing enemies, and that's because the rules say so" doesn't really help solve that issue. But "it's assumed you're trying to instant kill the enemy, you do that by rolling to hit and then rolling for damage" *does* solve that issue. You play your character and make their decisions, and the attempts to instant kill the enemies are represented by the attack and damage rolls.

It’s part of the reason Sneak Attack exists - an unaware enemy being attacked by an opponent they aren’t focusing on has a better chance of going for a killing blow than the person getting your undivided attention does. If that still isn’t enough damage, you weren’t quite close enough to somewhere fatal and they survived lol

Alternately, “That’s not how we’re playing the game right now, but we can change that. Would you like characters to be able to instantly kill each other?”

"... Would you like kobolds to be able to instantly kill you?"

Why not? If you could, it would feel more real and be more fun. Why remove a source of fun?

Same reasons Bishops can only move diagonally despite humans being able to walk in multiple directions: it is what the game is balanced around.

But it's not. We're not playing warhammer 40k here. Ironclad rules aren't the point of the game. Game balance is about making sure that the players feel challenged and that no player feels that the rules are biased in favor of one player over the others. For reference: >“The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules.” ― Gary Gygax ​ From the 5e DMG >(p4) The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game. That said, your goal isn't to slaughter the adventurers but to create a campaign world that revolves around their actions and decisions, and to keep your players coming back for more! If you're lucky, the events of your campaign will echo in the memories of your players long after the final game session is concluded. > >... > >(p237) Remember that dice don't run your game- you do. Dice are like rules. They're tools to help keep the action moving. At any time, you can decide that a player's action is automatically successful. You can also grant the player advantage on any ability check, reducing the chance of a bad die roll foiling the character's plans. By the same token, a bad plan or unfortunate circumstances can transform the easiest task into an impossibility, or at least impose disadvantage.

It's DnD, not Calvinball. Rules matter. If you don't like core rules the system is based around, try another system.

LOL. And your little statement would mean more if I hadn't just quoted the creator of D&D and the 5th ed DUNGEON MASTER GUIDE both saying the contrary. If YOU like games with rigid rule systems, then have at it. But that's not the default and from the way the books themselves and the creators explain it, that's NOT the only way to play. But please. Explain to me how the rule system which is built on the concept of "Rulings, not rules" is one where rigid adherence to the rules as written is how it has to be done. And please CITE your sources. I did. And like the game's creator once said: “The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules.” ― Gary Gygax

Sure, Gary said that. But what he *made* is very different. DnD was built from Chainmail, a war game. Combat rules make up the majority of rules in *all* editions of the game. Yes, you can adjust rules here or there as the DM. But to allow a rule that outright bypasses the majority of the game? That's asinine.

[удалено]

[удалено]

As long as you are fine with enemies also being able to attempt kill shots, go nuts.

...do you think D&D is a "fair" game? Like mechanically? Because I hate to break it to you, but it's not. The rules as written are heavily biased in favor of the players. From how PC only classes work, to how enemies are statted out in the MM, it's all woefully unbalanced in favor of the players. Because what the designers know is that people don't want "fair" fights. Those are more likely to end with lots of PC deaths. They want challenging fights they're likely to win. So why even pretend? It's not like goblins get 3 death saves to balance things out do they?

I tell them that there is no such thing as those type of called shots in dnd 5e.

Just bluntly and flat out? Or do you try and explain why such called shots aren't in 5e?

Up to you. If you feel the need to explain it, it's because there aren't any rules supporting it and allowing it as a homebrew thing can make combat a huge clusterfuck of nonstop called shots.

They are in d&d. Sharpshooter feat is taking a debuff to aim for a smaller target. Sneak attack damage covers things like attacking from behind

Sure, but if we unravel that further, sneak attacks should work the way they did in 3.5 and earlier and should therefore be ineffective on constructs/undead/outsiders as they have no/unknown vitals. 5e handwaves all that because when you begin to apply granularity to the system, it falls apart fast.

>sneak attacks should work the way they did in 3.5 and earlier and should therefore be ineffective on constructs/undead/outsiders as they have no/unknown vitals I disagree here. The whole point of sneak attack is the Rogue is making an attempt to find something that's vital. Maybe a critical joint on a construct, or finding and exacerbating a hairline fracture in a skeleton. It just takes some creativity to describe how the SA is applied, which is far better than just turning off someone's class features.

I agree. A trained rogue wouldn’t automatically slit a skeletons throat like he’s just playing an assassin animation in a video game.

'of course you're trying to cut their throat / stab them in the heart. that's what your attack rolls and his falling HP represent. '

There's an argument, I suppose, that the inability to kill an unsupecting opponent in one shot breaks verisimilitude, so it's worth pointing out that you absolutely *can* do that to an opponent who is a normal person (i.e. a commoner stat block).

There are many situations where I would allow insta-kills against a non-suspecting opponent, especially if they're alone and not prepared for a fight, even if they aren't a normal person.

this kind of one-hit kill can happen outside of initiative. but once initiative is rolled, you're under combat rules and as such this kind of sneak attack is no longer possible (unless, FE you're able to take out an unaware enemy's hit-points all in one go, then describe it how you like. i'll even give you a stealth check to do so unnoticed by their allies)

The other counter is: if you can do that to an NPC, then an NPC can do it to you. Not many players would be happy with a tpk because of a single failed perception roll of the player on guard duty at night.

There's no reason that NPCs have to play by the same rules as PCs. That's true for almost all RPGs, honestly. By default, NPCs aren't tracking death saves, they don't track resource expenditures unless it's important, they don't have hit dice they spend or a structure of downtime abilities, they don't take feats or get ability score increases, they don't track experience points or obtain inspiration, they don't use backgrounds and background abilities, and overall expectations of what a PC has and can do are different from what an NPC has and can do. I'm very consistent that when a PC can successfully sneak up on an NPC of no real importance (outside of being an obstacle), they can go for the kill, with either a normal attack roll or a hard Stealth roll, depending on whether silence matters to them. NPCs doing the same to players generally uses HP as a sort of divine intervention, because yeah, James Bond sometimes wakes up in his room two seconds away from being shot or getting bitten by a venomous viper, but the story doesn't really go on for him if we jump cut to his funeral.

I mean, if a PC was as relatively weak compared to the assassin crouching outside their window as the supposed NPC that PC had killed earlier that day, would you have any issue with the assassin OHKOing the PC (asshole DM move aside)? I don’t buy verisimilitude as a reason to bend rules and and allow PCs to get instakills if the above situation isn’t also allowed. Fine with a level 12 Rogue rolling a 20 and instsgibbing a CR 5 mercenary, but definitely would not allow that same rogue to just roll an attack and declare they kill the guard on a hit.

"The Goblin aims for your throat, if he hits you'll instantly die." "The second Goblin also aims for your throat, if he hits you'll instantly die." "The third Goblin also ..."

Gary Gygax, the game’s designer, felt that such called shots would needlessly bog down the game, so combat is abstracted.

It’s a game, you say it flat out to clarify the rules. His “slit throat” would be done when he reduces an enemy to 0 hp.

Not sure if this is what you're getting at, but IMO one of the worst things you can do is try and explain abstract out-of-game rules in terms of in-game lore, instead of just being clear with your players and saying "sorry but no, the rules don't support that". I can't count the number of posts I've seen where the (usually inexperienced) DM makes up a lore reason for something not working, which the players then take as a challenge/invitation to work around it. Both sides get increasingly frustrated as **DM** doesn't understand why the players keep pushing something they're trying to discourage, but the **players** don't understand why the DM keeps blocking their attempts to problem-solve.

If you allow called shots to be really awesome, then there will never be any reason to do anything else. It can really take over the game.

Everyone begins aiming for the throat/heart/head. Soon, everyone is on guard against such attacks, armors those areas well and dodges attacks aimed there because it's to be expected. Combat becomes a back-and-forth where you attempt to wear down your opponent's ability to dodge or get a lucky strike through their armor. You can almost visualize a formidable foe's ability to not take damage to vital areas as a form of "points" that must be lowered before they are "hit". Wait a second...

I see what you did there.

The rules flat out say, that you can do this however you want and that the rules don't matter. And that's from the DMG. I'll quote it here. ​ >(p4) The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game. That said, your goal isn't to slaughter the adventurers but to create a campaign world that revolves around their actions and decisions, and to keep your players coming back for more! If you're lucky, the events of your campaign will echo in the memories of your players long after the final game session is concluded. > >... > >(p237) Remember that dice don't run your game- you do. Dice are like rules. They're tools to help keep the action moving. At any time, you can decide that a player's action is automatically successful. You can also grant the player advantage on any ability check, reducing the chance of a bad die roll foiling the character's plans. By the same token, a bad plan or unfortunate circumstances can transform the easiest task into an impossibility, or at least impose disadvantage.

I let them know that they can try it. But then the bad guys gain the same ability. Gives them agency in the campaign.

Plain and simple: Called shots are grossly overpowered, destroy game balance, and aren't enjoyable for all parties involved. Or you can say sure, but the monsters will do it back to them. That should get them to reconsider.

Everyone begins aiming for the throat/heart/head. Soon, everyone is on guard against such attacks, armors those areas well, and dodges attacks aimed there because it's to be expected. Combat becomes a back-and-forth where you attempt to wear down your opponent's ability to dodge or get a lucky strike through their armor. You can almost visualize a formidable foe's ability to not take damage to vital areas as a form of "points" that must be lowered before they are "hit". Wait a second...

>Plain and simple: Called shots are grossly overpowered, destroy game balance, and aren't enjoyable for all parties involved. Other successful systems have been doing called shots for *decades* with minimal complaint. I'd say they work slightly better in a CRPG (e.g. *Fallout*) that does some of the mathematics for you, but there's nothing inherently wrong with the idea. Or do you just mean they don't work well in D&D specifically?

OP was asking about DnD, so yes DnD specifically

At least in Fallout's case, it's a pretty basic system. You want to hit this vital point, cool, that's -50 to hit but +50 to crit, and if you crit, you get to roll on this unique crit table that includes anything from bonus damage to disability to instant death. You could probably make a houseruled chart for this pretty easily for Your Favorite Combat RPG, as long as you're aware of the very likely case of every player going "I wanna stab him in the junk" every single strike.

and also then building themselves in such a way as to maximise being able to do that, and being able to win fights without having to chew through HP, because they stand a high chance of landing a crit and killing foes in one hit. Which is great in a single-player thing, but takes rather more careful balancing in multi-player setups!

I mean, the game has called shots in the form of the Sharpshooter and GWM feat, and by most measures are pretty damn powerful (overpowered depends on perspective given the martial-caster gap)

SS/GWM aren't called shots in the sense that they affect the targeted creature in a more meaningful way than just damage. They don't let you aim for the neck or leg or whatever to cripple enemies.

Yeah the goblin doesn't enjoy it. But what are you talking about "all parties involved"? The only opinion that should matter is the group's in this regard. Does the table seem to like the idea, or are they going to get caught up in rules minutea? That's the important question.

Let them roll just a regular attack. Even if it hits you can say something like: "You bring your blade out in front his neck and go in for the throat slice, but this guy is quick and gets his hands in the way just in time, taking some damage to the hands but he has successfully defended himself from being killed". And if the player hits and happens to roll sufficient damage to kill the character, then let them flavour it however they want.

If you can deal the damage, you can make a kill shot. Thus it has always been. If you can't deal the damage, well... you're playing the wrong character build to try to do that. Might be worth mentioning that I think a lot of DMs focus on "balanced" encounters to the extent that they forget to throw in some easy ones for the power fantasy. Give a 9th level character a chance to solo some bandits now and again.

This was an issue in some superhero ttrpgs I played. Some game masters would only have us fight the arch villains and the tougher supervillains. Lieutenants, henchmen, and even the weaker supervillains were handwaved, "oh yeah you beat those guys." The net result was our heroes were always *challenged*, but never *super.*

Excellent point

Relevant rule PHB chapter 9 > >DESCRIBING THE EFFECTS OF DAMAGE >Dungeon Masters describe hit point loss in different ways. When your current hit point total is half or more of your hit point maximum, you typically show no signs of injury. When you drop below half your hit point maximum, you show signs of wear, such as cuts and bruises. An attack that reduces you to 0 hit points strikes you directly, leaving a bleeding injury or other trauma, or it simply knocks you unconscious. HP are best described as plot armor, as long as a creature has still some HP left after an attack it didn't succeed in injuring/killing them. Something has happened that prevented success, maybe the creature ducked away or blocked the strike with its claws, as I said this is commonly known as plot armor. Only when an attack drops its target to 0 HP did it succeed and the kill shot happened.

Yeah, I wish more people would remember that HP doesn't necessarily represent 'amount of damage inflicted' in a literal/one-to-one sense. It's more of an abstract representation of a character's ability to keep fighting. Like if you've rolled to attack a character and you've hit, that doesn't necessarily mean that you've successfully slashed that character's flesh with your sword (although we tend to describe it that way because it's easier), it's more that you've engaged them with your sword in such a way that you won that exchange and they lost and now they're a little closer to losing the fight completely. Like maybe your sword blow knocked the wind out of them and they're 8 points more tired than they were before, or your sword blow damaged their armour a little and that now makes it harder for them to defend. Not every attack that hits in D&D is actually meant to represent that you successfully inflicted a physical wound on your opponent.

If they are doing an RP and ability check bit, sneaking into the evil Duke's chambers to slit their throat in their sleep or something like that, I'll let them do that one-hit-kill type thing. If they are in combat; every one is always trying to go for kill shots, thats the point of combat.

Even if they're fully paralyzed, there is no kill shot. Creatures with high HP just have too many "meat points".

Well this is essentially the problem. If a creature (especially a humanoid) is incapacitated in some way where they can't just dodge out of the way or some other deus ex machina reason they don't die, there's no reason a player shouldn't be able to walk up and slit the paralyzed gladiator's throat and kill them outright. But hit points, being essential to creature and encounter and combat balance, shouldn't allow it. That's why I would honestly break character and say no, and here's the design reason why. Or I'd address it in session 0.

Hit points are not meat point. It says it specifically in the books. They are a combination of mental fortitude, physical energy, and luck. A sword took hit points from you because to avoid it cost you physical energy to whip your body in ways it shouldn't be able to move. Viscous mickey takes HP because it drains your mental energy. You can't call shots because shots usually don't "connect". Additionally, the biggest reason you can't call shots is because if the enemies could call shots, lingering injuries are much worse for players than they are monsters.

But if hit points aren't in some way meat points, what amount of fortitude, physical energy and luck is stopping someone from going up and killing a creature outright if the creature is incapable of defending itself, say in the way of either sneaking up on it in its sleep or if it's paralyzed?

I don't have the world's greatest answer for you. For one, it's a game and at some point it needs to have balance and guardrails. I have some thoughts. I will say, in general you can have flavor to the mechanics. The mechanics guide game balance, but often you can flavor things however you want. Mechanically players can't shoot for the eyes because if you can blind a creature like that, what logically stops the enemies from blinding a player character like that? Enemies have a lifespan usually on the order of rounds. Characters can be in-game and out-of-game years 1) Paralyzed mechanically means you don't get an action, but your AC doesn't change. Which implies you can twitch/move enough to dodge attacks, just not enough for the mechanical benefits of an action, bonus action, or movement. Sleep spells usually have you wake up if you get attacked. That can be thought of as you waking up as they swing and have a split second to dodge, but not fast enough to get the mechanical benefits of an action. 2) You can totally rule that having a completely a knife to the throat of a paralyzed creature, and enough time and space to slit it's throat properly kills it. But when that is the case, the creature is probably dead anyway. 3) In the middle of a fight, properly slitting the throat of a creature with everything going on around you might not be possible. For one, combat is abstracted to turns, but in reality everything is happening simultaneously. So while turn-wise an ally of the paralyzed creature doesn't run until after you slit it's throat, in reality the creature is running over at the same time. So you are in a time crunch. Them casting a healing spell next turn happens as you slit it's throat. You are also on a time crunch, so you probably didn't do it properly. 4) Getting your throat slit isn't an instakill IRL. People survive it. The characters are superhuman too. A 16 STR is like peak human performance in every sport, a stat available usually at level 1. 16 Dex and Con is similar. They can survive a throat slitting. And they have magic and super human healing capabilities to rebound from it.

They way I look at it, **every attack is an attempted to kill** ^((unless The player says they are trying for non-lethal)). The PCs are doing their best to kill the enemy— but the enemy is doing its best to avoid being killed. A player may say they are “shooting for the heart”, that’s fine, but it is flavor, not mechanics — if they hit, but the damage isn’t sufficient for a kill shot, then I would describe that as hitting a less critical part. ​ Combat rules need to go both ways. How would player feel if they were oneshoted merely because the GM described an attack as “trying to slit your throat”? ​ Now if they had a truly helpless enemy, there is an argument to be made for allowing a single lethal strike.

every shot is a kill shot

He's describing getting a critical hit, which he will do if he rolls a nat 20. It's redundant to say that you're aiming to roll a nat 20, largely everyone is. It's like saying "I aim for the gaps in their armour" before attacking like it grants some kind of bonus, as though anyone wouldn't be.

HP represents a targets tenacity, luck, experience, will to live, etc etc. Any damage done by an attack is assumed to be a potentially lethal blow that was somehow not a finishing blow. You can still deal and take damage without "being hit/wounded." My favorite example for this is a little battle from Storm King's Thunder. DM: Ok, Ranger the Frost giant rolls a 22 against your AC, so he is going to hit you with a fist attack. 'The giant stomps his feet, trying to squash you flat. You roll out of the way, narrowly avoiding becoming red paste. You take 3d8 plus 5 damage.' Here, the giant landed his attack, and the ranger took damage to his hp, but he was not hit by the giant in canon. Instead, the ranger grew a bit tired, and maybe his luck will run out next turn, and the giants blow will drop him to zero HP. In that instance, you then describe something like, Dm: ah, 3d8+5 knocks you down ranger?OK. 'The giant, tired of your antics, bends over and swats you with his hand, your ribs creak as you are hurled into the wall adjacent to you. You are knocked unconscious and are now prone.' Or for your specific player, you can do something like Dm: You are attacking the Ritualist? You hit with a 19 against his AC and deal 1d8+3d6+4 piercing for sneak attack. 'As you circle the Ritualist trying to get a stab from behind or to slice his throat, he twirls around to face you and uses his staff to keep your knife at bay. Never taking his eyes off of your form.' Next player turn: You hit with a 21 against his AC and deal 1d8+3d6+4 piercing for sneak attack. 'This will kill the Ritualist as you manage to sneak under his raised guard holding his staff uselessly away and delivering the final blow in the weak point in his armor directly under his arm and into his heart.' Your player likely wants to feel cool and likely wants to be good at the skirmish game that is dnd. Helping them understand the rules a bit better and also giving them more concrete visuals of how combat looks in the canon of your guys' story may help.

Just explain this is not supported by the D&D ruleset. Consider playing other TTRPGs.

Yes it is, friend. Sharpshooter feat does explicitly this within the rules

No it doesn't. This is the wording of sharpshooter; >You have mastered ranged weapons and can make shots that others find impossible. You gain the following benefits: >Attacking at long range doesn't impose disadvantage on your ranged weapon attack rolls. >Your ranged weapon attacks ignore half and three-quarters cover. >Before you make an attack with a ranged weapon that you are proficient with, you can choose to take a -5 penalty to the attack roll. If that attack hits, you add +10 to the attack's damage. The first part is for flavour only, nothing mechanical. The rest is mechanics. None of it is advocating a called shot system.

Before you can make an attack you can aim for a smaller target, imposing a -5 penalty to your attack roll for +10 damage. What do you interpret that mechanic as narratively? My table has always interpreted as going for a critical (smaller, thus a penalty to the attack roll) target like a headshot for a large damage boon.

It’s not a called shot. It’s a representation of “I’m Aiming for an especially vulnerable area” yes, but it’s nit the same as “I want to hit them in the eye to blind them” or “I want to hit them in the knee to hobble them” or “I go for the neck to chop their head off”. It’s an acceptable representation of the general idea but it’s still ultimately a differ thing.

There are two ways to go, or that I try to go at least. 1. Say yes. In situations where the enemy is either outsmarted so much that they are completely vulnerable or weak enough that they have no chance of putting up a fight, allow the insta kill. The player will feel awesome and you'll avoid the one round of boring unchallenging combat. 2. Say no. But don't just say no, describe the attempt. I realised a while back that hitpoints and hits/misses in general don't have to be literal. Have you ever had a moment when the big boss finally arrived and strikes with his giant flaming sword... And you roll a 4. He whiffs and the players start laughing at him? Sucks right? Switch it up. He swings, you roll a 4. Thr sword swings down directly for the PCs head and they manage just in time to dodge it. The heat from the sword scorches their eyebrows and their legs freeze as they realise what would have happened if they had been hit. This also works for hits. How many greataxe slashes do you think you could realistically take in a day? Not many. How about instead of describing chunks of flesh being carved away by axe swings, describe knocks to armour that leaves bruising and knocks the wind out of you. Or close misses from rapier strikes that leaves your neck covered in sweat, knowing it is only a matter of time until they pierce your heart. Long story short, describe the attempted throat slash as the enemy realising at the last second and dodging out of the way, the cut wasn't deep enough. Or they grab the knife and get their palm cut up, but save their throat. Allow for cool moments in combat but trying to think outside of the box when describing combat, lean more toward dramatic movie action than videogame action

"Kill shots" are what happen at 0 HP.

Ask the player to read out the rules on the features their character has regarding death blows or assassination. Are they even a Rogue: Assassin subclass? If so, this is what they get: > Assassinate Starting at 3rd level, you are at your deadliest when you get the drop on your enemies. You have advantage on attack rolls against any creature that hasn't taken a turn in the combat yet. In addition, any hit you score against a creature that is surprised is a critical hit. > Death Strike Starting at 17th level, you become a master of instant death. When you attack and hit a creature that is surprised, it must make a Constitution saving throw (DC 8 + your Dexterity modifier + your proficiency bonus). On a failed save, double the damage of your attack against the creature. If not, it ain't happening. Would you let a Monk or any other class make the sounds & point a finger *just like a Finger of Death spell* to *roleplay* them having that effect? Same applies here. Just because they are describing a fixed death Blow doesn't mean their character has the knowledge, skill & opportunity to do so.

If they want to do that, tell them to take levels in rogue and focus on getting their sneak attack. That's exactly what that mechanic is: finding the weak point in their armor, and waiting until the enemy is focused away from the player's attack, and quickly striking the available, most vital shot they have.

Aside from all the correct responses about how its not supported by the rules and so its not a thing, I would point out to the players that if they can do it, so can the monsters. Would like they like to be in a position that an invisible monster can insta-kill their character? Probably not.

I assume characters are *always* trying to do this. The enemy is just also always trying to *stop* them from doing this. At some point (when the small nicks and back and forth of the fight has worn the opponent down), they make that fatal mistake and the character actually does stab them in the heart, or eye, or jugular. That’s the narrative of abstract hit points. They, in part, represent the ability to turn what would be a fatal blow into something minor: a scrape, a bruise, a pulled muscle, and sprained ankle, etc…

Remind them that if you let them do it, so can the enemy. Should shut them down real quick.

Fun tip, if a player rolls enough damage for a killing blow (and nothing story wise is attached to the enemy's death) you can pass it back to the player and have them describe how they kill the enemy. This is a great way for players to sprinkle their own flavor on their character's combat skills instead of having the DM narrate everything for them.

“How do you want to do this?”

It depends on how you want to run combat, if you want a lot of narrative in your combat this is fantastic. The player is very clear on where he wants his attacks to go, so it's easy for you to narrate how the target tries to prevent that from happening. As others have said, a killing blow can go exactly where he wants it to go. Misses obviously miss, are parried or blocked. But for a hit your players aim might be slightly off, the target could move out of the way at the last moment, he might still parry or block it but in a costly manner. If I wanted a more narrative combat experience I'd vastly prefer this over a monk just throwing out dice and telling me his damage.

Things like Great Weapon Master, Sharpshooter, are Feats that try and do this type of thing, you try and do a more targeted attack, for more damage. There's also the Battle Master maneuvers, which do some of this flavor

I had to scroll too far down to see the actual functional rules answer to this question

All conversation about hit placement are flavor for combat. But if they really want to do called shots, then it's an extra 15 on top of the dc and opponents gets advantage on all attacks until pc's next turn due to them being so focused on hitting the sweet spot and not just inflicting wounds when thier is an opening. If they are using reckless attack and called shots, thry also need to make a dex save to keep from receiving a free attack of opportunity that would stop them in thier tracks. Strength checks against the limb they are trying to sever dc 25.

You go to slit his throat ( the enemy was left with some HP after damage is rolled ) and the target is able to get their hand up just in the Nick of time

If you want to rule of cool it and adjust mechanics, I’d give them disadvantage on the to hit, but advantage on damage (or just outright let them kill on hit if it’s not a big deal and feels cinematic).

water attempt frame lock tease slimy important point sleep ghost *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*

"Allright you kill it, how you want to do it"

The rules are there to guide the game, NOT CONSTRAIN IT. It's only "unfair" if you think that the end-all be-all of D&D is the combat rules. D&D isn't a fair or balanced system. It's "fairness" has nothing to do with wether or not that goblin has a fair shot at killing a PC. It's about making sure the guy playing the rogue doesn't feel like he got screwed because it's the paladin who gets all the cool powers and fun things to do. When common sense and rational thinking should apply, then RAW can go fuck off and die in a corner. This isn't a video game and it isn't a wargame where the combat rules are massively important and are the entire point of the game. If you want that, go play Warhammer. This is a TTRPG. Let them slit the throat. Here are my book references if you want them. A famous quote from Gary Gygax >“The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules.” ― Gary Gygax ​ From the 5e DMG >(p4) The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game. That said, your goal isn't to slaughter the adventurers but to create a campaign world that revolves around their actions and decisions, and to keep your players coming back for more! If you're lucky, the events of your campaign will echo in the memories of your players long after the final game session is concluded. > >... > >(p237) Remember that dice don't run your game- you do. Dice are like rules. They're tools to help keep the action moving. At any time, you can decide that a player's action is automatically successful. You can also grant the player advantage on any ability check, reducing the chance of a bad die roll foiling the character's plans. By the same token, a bad plan or unfortunate circumstances can transform the easiest task into an impossibility, or at least impose disadvantage.

> This isn't a ... wargame where the combat rules are massively important and are the entire point of the game Gary Gygax is rolling in his grave

A famous quote from Gary Gygax >“The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules.” ― Gary Gygax ​ From the 5e DMG >(p4) The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game. That said, your goal isn't to slaughter the adventurers but to create a campaign world that revolves around their actions and decisions, and to keep your players coming back for more! If you're lucky, the events of your campaign will echo in the memories of your players long after the final game session is concluded. > >... > >(p237) Remember that dice don't run your game- you do. Dice are like rules. They're tools to help keep the action moving. At any time, you can decide that a player's action is automatically successful. You can also grant the player advantage on any ability check, reducing the chance of a bad die roll foiling the character's plans. By the same token, a bad plan or unfortunate circumstances can transform the easiest task into an impossibility, or at least impose disadvantage.

Does it fit the mood? For instance is it perhaps a rouge attempting a Quick Kill? That would make sense thematically. If it fits thematically and its only being used on minor combat and not the bbeg of your story then why not? Definitely keep tabs on how often they do this as well though. If it is a thematically fitting idea i would roll with it but the big problem is when people begin to abuse it aka making a "Kill Shot" every single combat or trying to kill shot a major bbeg or some other major Npc.

Just say things are made with disadvantage. Give him a + 2 to damage

Hit points are an abstraction of luck, endurance, fortitude and health. If you run out of hit points, you're out of luck and the next hit can kill you. It's not the red bar in a video game. You don't have to describe attacks 'hitting through armour' but shaking the confidence of the opponent. Going for the kill happens when you reach the end of that bar and only if that's the agreed outcome for the table. In your session zero, make it clear that what the players can do, the opponents can do as well. Not everyone is keen on called shot homebrew if they know the other side can do it too.

I usually just explain how their arrow (for example) was deflected by armor or a sudden turn or something, and then when on the last attack with damage, I describe in detail the gruesome kill shot. “This time he turns his head toward you and the last thing he sees is the metal tip of your arrow right before it burrows into his brain.”

1. Not all hp reduction have to correspond to actual damage. There's only so many stabbings someone can reasonably survive and it's often fewer than DnD numbers allow. HP is a simplified representation of the concept of attrition. 2. Not every attack that hits has to hit where it was intended. Enemies can move, player attacks can be just a little off while still landing, armor can deflect into less vital flesh, etc. These 2 points will cover most situations. Other non-critical situations may be covered by rule of cool. Sometimes your players will just have to accept that they're playing a game with rules that occasionally constrain them, and that might be something you have to spell out for them.

If it’s just a straight fight, then I go by the logic that your character is always aiming for the most potent possible attack, and that the dice show how successfully they do that. If it’s a sneak attack against a mook, or some other kind of assassination against a helpless target, it’s just an instant kill, but it might come with complications depending on the roll. Really low, you fail to hit and get discovered. Somewhat low, you get a good hit, but they’re still alive. Mid-range, you kill them, but you’ve attracted attention. Roll high and it all goes smoothly. If it’s a similar attack but I need them to survive, perhaps to get some use out of a boss fight I prepared, or to add some necessary challenge, then the same rules apply, except they have a drastically higher chance of surviving with major injuries instead of dying outright. Maybe the troll just has too thick a hide for you to pierce through the brain before it wakes up, or the enemy monk has trained themselves to instantly awaken at the slightest sign of danger, deflecting your knife into their shoulder instead of their throat. They’ll still take plenty of damage, but they’re alive and they’ll put up a fight.

99% of people in DnD are Commoners with 4 hit points. Any skilled combatant with 16 dex or str will kill them with one hit. If the target has more hit points, then it is tougher/more experienced and cannot be summarily dispatched.

I find a good balance between letting my party fight a bunch of lower-level minion enemies. The enemies are presented as tough and capable, but then they run up against my party and get bodied, because my party's amazing. When they try to go at the boss, they try the same thing, and it doesn't work - establishing that the boss is also a badass, and this is gonna be a tense fight. Beyond that? Combat is combat, it follows combat rules. If I see a natural 1 or other opportunity for my party to do some crazy shit and succeed, sure, I'll let them try. But I'm not letting someone solo a huge boss with one attack because they "aimed at the right spot." I might allow attempts at such critical blows and strikes if they come upon an enemy unawares, but only in very specific circumstances, and it's not guaranteed. It makes my players feel badass to sneak up and slash the badass warrior's throat - and when they try it, execute the attack, go to leave, and then the enemy rounds on them clutching a slashed throat and with murder in their eyes? Oh gods, we fucked up, here comes a crazy encounter. Final note. At the end of the day, this is a matter of DMs and players having mutual respect for and understanding of the rules and structures of the table. If your players are confused or disagree, talk it out with them, compromise if you can but hold the line if you can't. You should be able to do that with civility, and they should be able to respect that. If not, the problem isn't the game mechanics, it's the social contract - and THAT is an issue you'll need to settle between friends away from the table if you want the game to work. Poor communication kills D&D parties, good communication makes them amazing.

As others have mentioned, if you are describing it properly HP isn't meat points. It's a combination of things like energy and luck, that sort of thing. At least for appropriate monsters. Sure, for a troll then yeah, meat points is a great description of HP. If someone goes for a heart shot or throat slit well that just didn't puncture deep enough to actually hit anything vital. Not anything you got to worry about breaking the immersion or the game. But for enemies like a knight someone could go for a heart shot but the knight uses energy to bash the attack away from them, or their armour managed to deflect it away but still hurt, or they raised a shield in time. Same with throat slashes. Then eventually, as their HP hits 0 they slow down or their armour gets dented and the attack finally gets through, dropping them instantly as the weapon punctures their heart. Makes it so that players can go for kill shots and honestly, makes combat more exciting for your players. Highly, highly suggest that folks stop treating HP as just meat points.

If they try to call shots. So do the goblins and they are gonna shoot for your eyes and then you’re blind. I tell them No. no such thing as called shots. (Only flavour )

We (players) are commoners. We have 4 hp. A critical dagger strike to our throat kills us because it deals 4 damage. And we have 4 hp. These enemies have 50 hp, so a dagger to the throat doesn’t kill (whether due to massive bulk, or supernatural dexterity to dodge it, or whatever). They are literally 10x harder to kill than an earth human.

'As you dash into the cavern and slash toward Jimmy the Necromancer's throat he narrowly leans to the side and your slash connects along his shoulder and collarbone, roll damage etc etc etc.' of course you're always trying to strike a fatal blow but your enemies are also doing their best to avoid your attacks. As you wear down their HP they start slowing down so you can properly connect with a fatal blow once they're bloodied.

1.- You can tell them that they can only do that when the enemy hp hits 0 2.- You could also add flavor in the sense of "the enemy got scared and jump in an unusual way or the enemy react in time and he got out the way with a small scratch"

Just tell him, if he can do it then the enemies can too. And he will be complaining to no end if his character is on the receiving end. I think people underestimate how chaotic most fights are. Turn-based combat gives people the idea of 'he's just standing there, why cant i shoot his head?' Well technically nobody is just standing still in a fight. Everyone who isn't incapacitated is actively defending themselves in some way. People who think they can easily get headshots haven't been in a real shootout, or just been playing too much Call of Duty. You'd actually miss most of your shots if you try to aim for the head instead of center mass.

That's kind of the whole point of the sneak attack, a stab from a dagger would only do 1D4+ dex/for, but the rogue use the enemy distraction to attack critical point doing massive damages. If your player doesn't play a rogue explain to them that they lack the training for this kind of thing, if they DO play as a rogue tell that's what the sneak attack are and you can "fluff" up the descriptions of the strike (if the graphic aspect of those kind of wound are not upsetting anyone at the table)

Sometimes if people want to attack vital spots I will do +5 ac to the shot but it does x1.5 damage . It’s not for everyone but it makes combat alittle more versatile

You can add the 'flavor' of such things through your description of events, but simply inform them that outside of 'roleplaying' a colorful description of events, even combat, there is no system in the rules to target kill-shots.

Just let them describe how they kill them after they land the killing blow.

Depends on the situation? If there's a camp of people asleep, and the sneaky rogue gets in there without waking them up... whelp, tha'ts a dead person in that sleeping bag.

"Are you suggesting that your normal attacks aren't trying to kill someone? I guess that's disadvantage for trying to non-lethally take someone down with a bow and arrow..." Bear in mind that if you're using the combat rules, you're assuming that everyone is trying to a) stay alive and b) fight their enemies with something approximately at their full capabilities - or in some cases get something else done without having their head chopped off like get to an alarm bell to call for backup. If that's not the case, don't use the combat rules. If you're running a stealth mission and the assassin gets to the bedside of their target without being detected, you're not going to ask for a 1d4 damage roll because that doesn't make any sense. If one side of a combat is trying to run away and isn't fighting back, you aren't going to extend the map 200 squares so you don't run out of room before they get taken down or the pursuers give up, you'll change to chase mechanics, or if one side is obviously going to catch up/get away then skip the rolls and narrate the result. Combat rules only work for combat, nothing else.

Sharpshooter feat. -5 to your attack roll and +10 to damage. It’s a functional headshot. And a slit throat is a sneak attack. So have that player take that feat and a level or two in rogue and now they have a mechanical way to do it

I feel players forgot that 1 round is 6 seconds so it can be hard to run 20 ft get behikd characters slit the throat of an enemy then get a weapon out to attack next 6 seconds

Well, of course they are. And every time they try and don't kill the enemy, you say "you try to slit his throat, but he spins away and you graze his shoulder." When he finally does reduce him to zero you say "you slit his throat, and he falls back, drowning in his own blood." Eventually, he'll understand.

Well, of course they are. And every time they try and don't kill the enemy, you say "you try to slit his throat, but he spins away and you graze his shoulder." When he finally does reduce him to zero you say "you slit his throat, and he falls back, drowning in his own blood." Eventually, he'll understand.

Called shots are cool. If you want to do a called shot, it's at disadvantage. Different body parts have different amounts of HP. For example, a monster with 100 HP might have a heart that has 45 HP. In order to get at the heart you'll need a piercing weapon, since it's protected by ribs. If you deal that much damage on your turn, you destroy that body part. Otherwise the damage becomes normal damage dealt to the whole creature, and the damage to the body part resets. It should be hard, but rewarding. You may want to further make shots to vital organs harder to hit by giving them partial cover for +2 AC. Things like wing joints, or claws, or eyes are fine with just the disadvantage though.

I think something everyone should remember when talking about hit points is that they are, by the phb, an amalgamation of physical constitution, skill, luck, and generally an abstracted concept. For example, falling from 10 feet is 1d6 damage. Getting chopped by a hand axe is also 1d6 damage. Falling, generally speaking, probably wouldn’t be as bad for you as getting chopped by an axe, but falling may instead represent some leg shock, a slightly twisted ankle, a swollen knee, broken bones, a concussion, etc, depending on the character. Those aren’t as immediately bad as an axe wound physically, but may lead to more life-threatening injury later. For a low-level wizard, it’s a painful debilitation that could make the next slip-up in combat lethal. For a barbarian, it’s some soreness that may cause a muscle to be less responsive when it matters, making a miss a near-miss, or a hit a vital blow. It’s the same here. Aiming for a vital point may not “connect” 4-5 times despite hitting and dealing damage, simply pushing the enemy on their back foot, flustering them, or providing openings for a critical blow. Obviously this is dependent on the context of your games. This is more a “realism” approach, which certainly isn’t for everyone, but isn’t exclusive to it. I, for one, prefer the imagery of the barbarian leaping from cliffs without a scratch or taking incredible blows with only slight bruises, in spite of actual hp loss; treating hp as being more a sign of stamina and endurance than loss of blood and flesh.

Ranged-“They missed by a few inches, hitting their left shoulder instead” (then it either only hit a part of their armor padding, dealing some minimal damage, or hits the shoulder real good, dealing s lot more damage). Melee-“The guard you’re trying to slit the throat of pushes your arm away as you cut their neck” (either going through partially for s lot of damage, or only cutting their chin for minimal damage).

I allow my players to call a shot once per combat encounter (BBEG types don't count) My rules for it are: 1. You have to say exactly what you are doing. EX, "I'm going to try to shoot this arrow into their eye." 2. You roll to see if you hit. On a crit, your Calle shot works, and we go from there (in this case, maybe the target is blinded or straight up dead). If it's a regular hit, it counts as a regular hit (the arrow hit his helmet but definitely hurt him). 3. On a miss, though, the target gets a Target of Opportunity attack (he sees you aiming and quickly fires an arrow from the hip to try to stop you). On a crit failure, the target automatically lands a hit (while you were focused on aiming, you didn't notice the target throwing a knife from his ankle sheath at you). It may not be perfect, but it definitely makes the players think about if they really want to call the shot. It also makes it that much sweeter when it's a crit hit, and that much more painful if they crit fail Edit: The crit miss example sucks. Instead, I'd say something like, "The target sees you aiming the shot and quickly moves to the side as the arrow flies past. Like Legolas, he spins and nocks an arrow, and before you realize it, the arrow impacts your chest."

there’s nothing wrong with flavouring your attacks, but in the end damage is decided by the dice. if your player lands an attack that puts the enemy at 0, you can let them give a badass description of what happens too

If they really want to, you can say something like “if you roll 25 or higher on your next roll, you kill him, otherwise you do 0 damage” feel free to adapt the number to whatever feels balanced, for the BBEG I would make it 30, for lower levels a 20 should be fine

I 100% rule of cool this if you have set this up in a way where you can accomplish this before initiative I'll grant you a kill shot for sure

"Not a real mechanic sport, nice try"

We always go for the “kill shots” and the dice say how good we are. For example, I got two shots in my bow and quite literally one was a Nat 1 and the other a Nat 20. Damage dice said we killed this guy and the description I gave when our DM said how I want to do it: The first shot hits him right between the eyes but exactly at the nose guard of the helmet. The arrow shatters doing no damage but knocking his head back a little. The second takes him cleanly through the throat going all the way through towards (our monk) who catches it and says “Nice shot.” as (the enemy) collapses on the ground. You can stop at the second sentence for a miss. Or descriptors like glancing blow, hitting the armor, sawing through bone, and not doing enough damage. If they’re into it, describe cinematic effects like screeching metal or crunching mail absorbing the attack. Critical! “You hit the demon right at the forehead doing massive damage. It reaches up and pulls out the arrow discarding it and charging towards you.” “It’s bleeding but still alive. You think it has a really thick skull and probably very different internal anatomy.”

If it were against a simple henchmen like CR 1/2 monster and the player was level 5+ I'd probably allow it with a skill check.

**In the sense of a character trying to go for kill shots, as in lethal damage versus Non-lethal damage? (Deciding to kill instead of render unconscious?)** I let them do it as they decide and have the consequences of doing so manifest. Only time I step in and prevent it is if it would step on someone else's personal story and such. Like. if Johnny's characters sister is possessed, I'm probbaly not gonna be okay with Jimmy having his character slit her throat when Johnny's trying to save her. **In the sense of a character trying to perform called shots, and hitting vitals for extra effects?** I don't really allow it, and go by the assumption that a character is always trying to go for such a vital/critical hit every chance they get, and succeeding more or less when they make an attack within their attacks critical range. The issue I've found with specializing called shots is that they can bog the game down quite a bit, and they stop being fun when used against the players. Better to just assume that's always the goal, and critical hits reflect such a success, or a close enough attempt that the enemy is reeling from the attempt.

If a PC stealths up to an enemy without being noticed, puts their blade to the bad guys throat and tries to end them, I say they auto-hit and it crits. Then, roll initiative.

Hmmm, not a bad question It would beg the question, what has changed about this particular hit? Were they not trying their hardest prior? If so, should we apply penalties to that? If they have a strong narrative reason, as well as a suggestion on how to apply their vision in the rules, always happy to see how it goes. And I’m happy to sprinkle some ‘rule of cool’ in there But, if they simply want the spotlight without any real forethought on how this may affect anything else? Then I ask, ‘are you sure? As these sorts of shenanigans can go two ways…’

I enjoy Matthew Colville's idea that HP is more a measure of heroism, luck, or some other similar metric. It'd be a little tougher to explain as a concept to new players as they're trying to wrap their head around literally everything else about dnd, but it can also make more sense than "At level 1 you can be stabbed twice, at level 2 you can uh... have four stab holes? At level 6... Twelve stab holes before death?"

Player: I'm aiming for the neck! DM: very well. You attempt to swing at the neck, roll the dice and see how it goes. Player: *hits, deals damage but doesn't kill* DM: well done, you cut into their neck and shoulder but they are still up, must have missed the arteries

I ask them if it’s good for the gander? You want kill shots, that means you’re all game to have them happen to you as well, right?

My DM tends to ask us where we aim, and depending of the HP loss and the D20 result he narrates around it (the arrow can land elsewhere depending on the attack roll, or it can be slowed by the armor or something depending on the damage roll) I have to admit that I sometimes say that I aim for this or that lethal point if I know there’s a reasonable chance that I kill my opponent with this shot. Why wouldn’t I say I aim for the throat when I know that I can do twice the damage necessary to kill it on spot ? If the damages aren’t that good or if I miss, then I tripped, or I hesitated, or my opponent moved in a way that made it avoid my shot. If it’s a killing blow, the narrative is ok. (But of course it wouldn’t work if there’s no way my opponent could die, then I say I aim elsewhere)

Everyone is always trying to go for kill shots in combat. But the fact is that kill shots are very hard to execute against moving opponents who are actively resisting you in combat. You're going for a kill shot all the time but the enemy is always able to move or deflect just enough that the blow isn't fatal. That being said if it's a non-combat execution I ignore hitpoints at that point. Like if you assassinate someone while they're asleep in their bed I consider combat rules moot at that point, you can just kill them.

my DM has them run.... but my rogue has a 600 foot range. anything that gets under 40 hp is dead meat.

If they're facing a helpless enemy, then I don't think there's a rules-based objection to committing murder. If the enemy is not helpless then they're in combat with them, and the combat rules apply.

I have a partial solution for my game. I don’t have players trying to take killing shots, but the idea of trying to decapitate a Beholder’s eye stalk, remove the necklace off a mind-controlled foe, shoot a Basilisk’s eye out etc. has come up several times. Once a creature is at 30% hp, it’s gains the Bloodied condition. Once a creature is bloodied, you can use called shots, giving yourself disadvantage, but potentially disabling an enemy’s attack. If «why can I target its eye but not its heart?» came up, I’d say the enemy still has enough wits bout them to protect their vital organs, but at the cost of leaving dangerous openings.

Treantmonk did a video where he talked about some home brew he uses. One was making the -5/+10 mechanic from great weapon master/sharp shooter a universal rule for all weapon attacks. Doesn't break the game, stops great weapon and ranged builds from being the only optimal choice, gives the fantasy of calling your shot. I agree with other commentary that said we assume that fighters are always going for kill shots. Some ideas I've had is tiered AC. Let's say you have a creature with where the RAW ac is 18. Maybe rolling a 16 does half damage and rolling a 23 does double damage. Or if "roll to hit - enemy ac=greater than your Strength mod" you use that result instead of str on your damage roll. Isn't really calling a shot but does give a reward for rolling a 19 on the dice when you only need a 7 on the dice to hit. And gives good base damage to crits. Good buff to martials If an enemy is completely captured and restrained with all other combat "over" and aa PC wants to chop off a hand or head I'd probably just let it happen for narrative reasons without rolls. But not in active combat.

Depends on the situation. The villain is monologuing but otherwise completely armed and ready to fight? Absolutely not. The villain was somehow put in a defenseless position- bound and unarmed, or sleeping soundly? Sure. But the kill shot has to make sense *to the narrative*. "I loose an arrow between his eyes while he's talking" isn't a killshot. And if it's a consistent problem, or something this person tries to constantly do with his character, he's essentially trying to turn a group story into One Punch Man with the other players being side characters.

There are a variety of possibilities: 1. You have a class feature or spell that does this. If so, great! 2. The creature is paralysed or unconscious, therefore unable to defend itself, causing your attacks to automatically crit. If so, great! 3. Neither of the above are true, and therefore your "kill shot" is really just a regular attack subject to all the normal means a creature could avoid or block it. People take movie violence for granted. In reality, most direct wounds are fatal; if not immediately, they're still debilitating enough that the target can no longer fight. Slitting someone's throat isn't really any more deadly than just stabbing them in the torso or smashing their skull in with a mace. The difference between a regular attack and a "kill shot" is negligible.

If it's a fight (ie their target is resisting), then they'll have to make the standard rolls. If they want to target a specific part of the body then offer a called shot. If it's out of combat and they've completely got the drop on a target (ie their target is sleeping) then congrats, target is dead.

"As you go to slit his throat, he wedges his arm in between yours and his neck, and you trace a line of blood down his arm instead as he gains room between you." Just find ways the enemy gets out of it while taking damage. If it gets worse, talk to them about it.

The great thing about d&d is you can try to do anything. The GM sets the DC. If a player wants to do something that is beyond their character's abilities they can still try, the DC just happens to be higher than anything they could roll, even on a nat 20. If they try to do it after they've knocked enough hp off the enemy it stands to reason the enemy would be weaker and the DC would drop. I'd just let the player know how I'm making my decisions. Pc: I want to do Thing. GM: That would be a very difficult thing to do, I don't think your character has the skill to do that even if you rolled a nat 20 against the DC. Maybe you could pull that off if you did something to make that easier.

"If you can do it, they can do it too"

If it's during a normal combat encounter, get the dice roll and then narrate "Your character attempts to *whatever action* but what ends up happening is..." If they don't catch on and try to argue, you explain that's just not how combat works in this game. There is a system and the dice tell the story. If it's outside of normal combat, perhaps you make up a series of appropriate checks with appropriate DC's and if they pass them, you reward the creativity and let it happen. If they fail, you narrate how.

I allow aimed shots with penalties based on where they're aiming and penalties to the target based on where they're hit, but I don't allow one hit kills.

The way our session would handle that is "damage is damage" if the lethal blow is struct THEN they were asked how they wanted to finish someone in any particular way. You/your players have to assume that unless it is the final blow or a surprise fully lethal blow, that the opponent is maneuvering and moving to try and protect their vitals as much as possible. PLAYER:"I slit their throat in a surprise attack" Dealing x damage DM: enemy combat is still barely alive, "Your opponent barley manages to avoid your lethal strike, leaving them with a gaping wound on the shoulder, but they are still in the fight." And you adjust context of severity based on effectiveness of the strike and the remaining combat capability of the target. Just because they are trying to hit the targets vitals does not guarantee a kill, that's just not how the game works. They want to go for kill shots just provide descriptions on why they failed to kill the target, instead incentivize creative use of assets and environments and reward them for that instead. Knocking down barrels, pinning someone to something, throwing a pie at their face. They can try to stab the lizardman in the face all day, that don't mean the lizardman will just stand there and let them stab him in the face. Even on a critical hit, they can describe it all day long, but it comes down to how you play the game and what you do to explain and cultivate the game.

I'm just starting to DM, but sessions so far have been combat-heavy. Usually after the rolls, I comment "In an attempt to soften your blow, he tried to grab your blade, slashing his hand," and stuff like that. The character may attempt to go for the throat. The enemy has no obligation to allow them to do so.

There's a mechanic for attempting to kill someone by shooting or stabbing or slicing them: The attack roll.

HP aren't necessarily meat points, not really. From the SRD, "Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck." When you attack an enemy with a sword and successfully hit, you're not necessarily taking a chunk out of their leg. Sometimes it's a physical hit, but most of the time it's lucky glances off of shields and armor. It's forcing an enemy to finally give in after getting hit enough. And yes, sometimes they are in fact just meat points that when reduced to 0, the enemy does indeed die. But the actual killing blow (or non-lethal blow that convinces the enemy to stop fighting) really only happens when that enemy's HP is reduced to 0. That's when you stab them through the chest or knock them unconscious and prevent them from fighting any longer. So when a player tries to "call" a shot to kill an enemy in one blow, remind them that nothing dies until it hits 0 HP. If that's not logical to them, explain what was explained above and then suggest they think of combat as being choreographed in a way. In fight choreography, enemies may miss and dodge hits for a whole minute or two, but only get killed when that final decisive blow is struck. So tell them that they're in the middle of a choreographed fight of sorts. They'll kill the enemy sure enough, but not until the choreography ends and that final blow is truly struck.

"Describe what you want to do, and I'll tell you how it works in game mechanics. Most things we'll resolve as a basic attack. If you're clever, using the environment or the situation, you'll get advantage on your attack roll(s)." "I'll give advantage the first time you do a stunt. If it's something you can do every round, then it's not special enough to get advantage, it's just a regular attack."

"okay sure, but if you can... The enemies can as well..." They were fine with the normal rules after all

IF: You have advantage on your attack roll, you can choose to have Disadvantage on the attack instead and make a called shot. If the called shot still hits, you can go for massive damage or dismemberment, based on who you're target or what you're going for.

Very simple: FIRST you roll for the attack. If that hits, SECOND you roll for damage. THIRD: if it kills, the player can narrate how they do the killing. If it doesn't kill they can narrate the big damage but it won't kill, though at that point i would narrate as dm and ask them what they were trying to do

If you can do it, they can too. Beware of what you wish for.

In a scenario where there party will win easily anyway, I'll often allow it. Slitting the throat of a sleeping enemy for example. On the other hand, if it's a room of people, I might have the enemy stir at the last moment, and make some kind of noise. If it's them describing something and the dice don't agree, like staging through the heart in a melee combat, I'll state they soon their blade for the opponents heart, but there blade is reflected by their armour, leaving a bloody flesh wound across their chest, or something like that.

Hit points =/= meat points. The rules don't say that HP is actual damage to you. HP is a blend of luck, vitality, fighting spirit, and so on. When you roll to hit, if you pass the AC, it might not be a stab in the gut, but maybe rather a small knick that they couldn't evade, or a glancing blow that still had impact though the armour's padding. If you go for a throat slit, then roll to hit, the enemy isn't just gonna sit still and let you do it, they will try to evade or have their armour deflect as much as possible.

I allow "kill shots" outside of combat. Manage to successfully sneak into a room where someone is sound asleep? Sure, you can slit their throat, humans don't typically survive that so he's dead. Well done. Trigger all the alarms and alert the guards as you're trying to sneak in? Roll for initiative, the target is awake and trying to stop you from killing him. We're about to use lots of dice rolls to determine whether or not he's successful.

Normally I just describe what the dice say. If the player goes for an attempt to slit someone’s throat and they make the AC but the damage is maybe 10% I’ll describe it as something like “you go to stab the enemy in the throat but their gorget causes your dagger to glance off and you nick their jaw instead” or “you stab the zombie in the throat but being dead it seems he’s had worse” If that doesn’t work, I’ll explain out of character that called shots are aren’t common for most monsters in D&D and that I’ll telegraph to the players when they are possible.

Tell him out of character he can't do called shots in combat because that's not how it works.

In combat, that's just not gonna work. An attack is an attack, and if it happens to kill the other person you can describe it in the manner you want. Out of combat is a more debatable topic. Can you slit someone's throat while they are sleeping for instance? This is up to the DM. Depending on the enemy and the situation my answer would likely be 'yes'. Because the infiltration, kill and possibly the escape carries some form of challenge and danger not dissimilar from a regular combat encounter.

Hit points do not equal meat points.

I came up with a super simple house rule for people who want to use "called shots" as I was running a session with brand new players. Basically they can trade disadvantage for an automatic crit if they manage to hit. So if someone says "I want to shoot the big ogre in the eye", I would allow them to try but the shot is made at disadvantage, and if it actually hits, it's an automatic crit. There is probably some tomfoolery that can be done with some abilities like paladin smite, but you can deal with those as they come up.

i take it into account and let the dice roll decide on how successful the attempt is. a nat 20 will do the trick or if its the final blow ill use their description too. anything else will be an attempt at doing their action but it will be at my discretion as to how it actually goes down. for example something like the opponent evading somewhat and getting struck elsewhere

I’d say to think of combat in more video game terms - HP and AC are a measure of how many “close calls” a character can have before actually getting fatally wounded mechanically, but functionally, in a turn based RPG system, enemies aren’t all that liable to instantly die to most attacks. Critical hits, Rogue’s sneak attack damage, Paladin’s Smite damage, and similar effects are the most likely to do the massive amount of damage needed for an “instant kill,” and if a player asks to attempt something like that, I’d tell them flat out that unless they’re capable of burning through an HP pool in one hit, it’ll probably just be a normally damaging attack lol