Touch attacks...

[jhilahd]

Ok. I need some help with the basic idea of a touch attack that one of my pc's has been attempting to do.

He wants to be able to basically jab his thumb(s) in a person's eye socket to blind/damage/irrate them in combat. (he's an oathsworn in the Arcana Unearthed, a sort of monk-like warrior)

I'm not entirely sure how to rule on this. Could it be considered to be a touch attack, thus being able to ignore ac and only use the touch attack ac? Or is it a normal attack and thus subject to regular ac conditions?

For dramatic effects I've allowed it as a touch attack. I think I may have erred.

 

[Nac_Mac_Feegle]

Well depends on if the target wear a helm or not, so I would go with regular attack, with or without armour bonus depending on if the guys wears a helmet, and if that helmet offersany eye protection, in other words, if your wearing the full plate armour, and the huge helmet with visor, it either going ot be full AC or almost impossible, if its no helmet or a skull cap, then theres no Armour for the eyes.

I would still add a negative penalty for a called shot, provided that if he does it, there are negatives for the recipient (IE -4 to hit, but if successful, target is partially sighted, -2 dex, and anoyne on his now blind side gets flank bonus, if both eyes are hit, he fights as blinded for a duration)

If he just wants to say he hit him in the eye, with no other game affects, then just let him, it matters not

Feegle Out

 

[Li Shenron]

A touch attack is actually easier than a normal attack. It cannot be easier to do this than to generally hurt the target IMO, even if it makes sense to bypass armor.

At the very least, you should rule that he's attacking a "target" (the eye) of fine size, which has a huge size bonus to AC. Of course all other AC bonuses (Dex, deflection, even natural armor) should count, only armor and shield probably should not.

Then the player will surely complain that at least if he misses the eye, he must have hit another part of the body anyway (unless the roll was lower than the normal AC of the opponent). It's hard to come up with good house rules, and in fact it's one reason why these sort-of called shot are not part of the core.

 

[Infiniti2000]

He can't do it at all. There's no called shots and for good reason. Here's a rant by SKR on called shots.

 

[Li Shenron]

...you could also just assume that the PC is always targetting the eye. When it happens that he scores a critical hit, instead of multiplied damage, deal only normal damage and an extra penalty for being half-blind (somewhere in the DMG).

 

[dcollins]

D&D has an "abstract nature of combat" -- you're not supposed to be able to select where you hit somebody.

If you really feel it's desirable, see DMG, "Variant: Damage to Specific Areas", which gives -2 to given skill checks as result. You need to make up your own rule for hitting; touch attacks are definitely too generous (touch assumes you just need to lay a hand anywhere on the opponent).

 

[dshai527]

Call it flavor and tell him that's what his stunning attacks are. Like the others have already said its an "abstract nature of combat".

 

[Black Pharaoh]

Malhavoc's Book of Iron MIght has a system that may work for this kind of stuff.

 

[Garnfellow]

D&D has an "abstract nature of combat" -- you're not supposed to be able to select where you hit somebody.

D&D does have abstract combat, but there are also several provisions built into the rules for specific actions, like sundering items or coup de graces. It would not be too hard to extend some of these principles to create a new special action -- "blinding attack." Mike Mearls's Book of Iron Might has a nice system for creating (and balancing!) such new actions. I don't have IM in front of me right now, but it's not hard to imagine coming up with something like this:

Blinding Attack (special action): As a full attack action that draws an attack of opportunity, the character can make a single attack roll that does not damage her opponent. If the character hits her opponent, the foe must make a Fortitude saving throw (DC 10 + half her level + Wisdom bonus). Should the opponent fail the save, he becomes blinded for 1 full round.

And so forth. Or one could take this concept and make it a Feat.

 

[billd91]

D&D does have abstract combat, but there are also several provisions built into the rules for specific actions, like sundering items or coup de draces. It would not be too hard to extend some of these principles to create a new special action -- "blinding attack." Mike Mearls's Book of Iron Might has a nice system for creating (and balancing!) such new actions. I don't have IM in front of me right now, but it's not hard to imagine coming up with something like this:

Blinding Attack (special action): As a full attack action that draws an attack of opportunity, the character can make a single attack roll that does not damage her opponent. If the character hits her opponent, the foe must make a Fortitude saving throw (DC 10 + half her level + Wisdom bonus). Should the opponent fail the save, he becomes blinded for 1 full round.

And so forth. Or one could take this concept and make it a Feat.

I think this is definitely the way you should be thinking about jabbing someone in the eye for specific effect. Make it a special combat action with significant penalties and then allow them to take a feat to negate the penalties should they so choose (like improved disarm, etc). I'd make a feat to negate the AoO and add +2 to the save DC, for example.

I think making it based on a touch attack is a definite mistake. Touch ACs are very weak for anything with any form of armor, shield, natural armor. Take a look at the touch AC of most dragons and you'll start to see the problem.