D&D 5E Can a Critical Hit miss?

[iserith]

The Basic Rules state: "If the target isn’t in the location you targeted, you automatically miss, but the DM typically just says that the attack missed, not whether you guessed the target’s location correctly."

Based on the surrounding context in this section, I think it's inferred here that the player made an attack roll, even though his or her character had no chance of hitting. But that becomes an issue if the player has rolled high enough that it would almost certainly have been a hit against any creature (especially if a critical hit). The player can figure it out fairly easily that the monster was not in the spot that was targeted. So I think it's best to just skip the charade and call for no attack roll once the player has committed to the action, and just let him or her know the creature wasn't in the spot that was targeted. The player has just "wasted" an attack. I think a decent consolation prize is knowing with certainty that the monster isn't in that spot. I don't see that there's much to be gained by being coy about it.

 

[Sadras]

The Basic Rules state: "If the target isn’t in the location you targeted, you automatically miss, but the DM typically just says that the attack missed, not whether you guessed the target’s location correctly."

Based on the surrounding context in this section, I think it's inferred here that the player made an attack roll, even though his or her character had no chance of hitting. But that becomes an issue if the player has rolled high enough that it would almost certainly have been a hit against any creature (especially if a critical hit). The player can figure it out fairly easily that the monster was not in the spot that was targeted. So I think it's best to just skip the charade and call for no attack roll once the player has committed to the action, and just let him or her know the creature wasn't in the spot that was targeted. The player has just "wasted" an attack. I think a decent consolation prize is knowing with certainty that the monster isn't in that spot. I don't see that there's much to be gained by being coy about it.

I find myself in conflict with this advice. By negating the roll you're informing everyone else at the table that the target is not in that location. That is information they should not necessarily have.

 

[iserith]

I find myself in conflict with this advice. By negating the roll you're informing everyone else at the table that the target is not in that location. That is information they should not necessarily have.

What is actually gained by deciding that they should not have that information?

 

[Sadras]

What is actually gained by deciding that they should not have that information?

Attrition of PC resources (this might be important at some tables) and creating a more challenging encounter by have an increasing number of unknowns.

If the PC had rolled low, the party would have been unsure if someone was there or not - perhaps using up additional attacks/spells. The natural 20 provided the PC and his/her allies the knowledge that the enemy was no longer in that location. It wasn't a complete waste.

 

[iserith]

Attrition of PC resources (this might be important at some tables) and creating a more challenging encounter by have an increasing number of unknowns.

If the PC had rolled low, the party would have been unsure if someone was there or not - perhaps using up additional attacks/spells. The natural 20 provided the PC and his/her allies the knowledge that the enemy was no longer in that location. It wasn't a complete waste.

Let's think about this for a minute.

On a grid in the wilderness, assuming conservatively that the monsters are able to safely move and hide in a 90-degree cone away from the square the PC attacked, that's something like 48 squares left to target (less any blocking terrain). If it's difficult terrain, it's more like 15 squares - still quite a few choices will be wrong. It's substantially more squares if they can move and hide in a wider area.

It's even more murky if the table uses theater of the mind.

So I'm still left wondering whether there's any upside to being coy about it.

 

[Sadras]

Let's think about this for a minute.

On a grid in the wilderness, assuming conservatively that the monsters are able to safely move and hide in a 90-degree cone away from the square the PC attacked, that's something like 48 squares left to target (less any blocking terrain). If it's difficult terrain, it's more like 15 squares - still quite a few choices will be wrong. It's substantially more squares if they can move and hide in a wider area.

It's even more murky if the table uses theater of the mind.

So I'm still left wondering whether there's any upside to being coy about it.

I could see myself ruling one way or another - hence my initial comment being that I was conflicted over your post.
Despite whether there are many unknowns or not, that location was the last known location of the enemy. The PCs are likely to take the opportunity to shoot blindly (whether by missile fire or area spell).

What do you believe is the upside by telling the PC?
Off the top of my head, I would think speeding up of the overall combat.

 

[iserith]

I could see myself ruling one way or another - hence my initial comment being that I was conflicted over your post.
Despite whether there are many unknowns or not, that location was the last known location of the enemy. The PCs are likely to take the opportunity to shoot blindly (whether by missile fire or area spell).

What do you believe is the upside by telling the PC?
Off the top of my head, I would think speeding up of the overall combat.

I think getting information in exchange for a "wasted" attack is at least some consolation. Also, it prevents a situation like in the OP where there is a mismatch between what the player expects to achieve as a result of the roll (a critical hit) and what he or she actually achieves (nothing).

 

[Pauper]

(1) referring to the first round as the "surprise round" which risks confusing this game with other editions and the methods of resolution therein;

You're right, in 5E there isn't a 'surprise round' that functions differently than any other round of combat. In fact, the 5E rules for surprise explicitly allow individual creatures on each side of a combat to be surprised in the opening round, so the mechanics are pretty significantly different.

Still, the term is used fairly commonly, so I doubt most players will be confused by it, particularly since, in this specific instance, the mechanics of the first round of combat do effectively mimic the 'surprise round' of previous editions. A good thing to keep in mind, though.

(2) the resolution of PC2's action is, I think, covered under noticing creatures that are hidden which doesn't necessarily require sight.

Yes, I think this is Mistwell's point; the idea is that you know where a creature is if it "gives away its position". But I see two issues with that line of argument, which I'm guessing you'd agree with:

First, a creature only "gives away its position" at the time it makes a disqualifying action (attacking, making noise, etc.). In the given example, the goblins easily could have attempted a Stealth (Dexterity) roll while moving after attacking to avoid giving away its movement; I'd argue that this is exactly what the DM in the example intended.

Second, that a creature "gives away its position" still doesn't automatically mean you can see it. Given that the goblin in this situation was still in heavy concealment after making its attack means that, even though the PC knows where the goblin was, she still can't perceive the goblin using sight, so even if she can make an attack, she's still attacking with disadvantage for being unable to see the target.

How this might exactly be resolved comes down to what the player described which is why, in part, questions absolutely suck in my opinion and should never be considered action declarations!

Agreed. At the very least, the DM should ask, "Are you searching for the goblin? That will use your action." If the PC doesn't wish to use her action, then she should not be upset if she doesn't get more information.

--
Pauper

 

[iserith]

You're right, in 5E there isn't a 'surprise round' that functions differently than any other round of combat. In fact, the 5E rules for surprise explicitly allow individual creatures on each side of a combat to be surprised in the opening round, so the mechanics are pretty significantly different.

Still, the term is used fairly commonly, so I doubt most players will be confused by it, particularly since, in this specific instance, the mechanics of the first round of combat do effectively mimic the 'surprise round' of previous editions. A good thing to keep in mind, though.

I've seen a lot of confusion over this in actual play under other DMs who called it a "surprise round" and ended up treating it like some other game, so I'm particularly sensitive to it.

Yes, I think this is Mistwell's point; the idea is that you know where a creature is if it "gives away its position". But I see two issues with that line of argument, which I'm guessing you'd agree with:

First, a creature only "gives away its position" at the time it makes a disqualifying action (attacking, making noise, etc.). In the given example, the goblins easily could have attempted a Stealth (Dexterity) roll while moving after attacking to avoid giving away its movement; I'd argue that this is exactly what the DM in the example intended.

Second, that a creature "gives away its position" still doesn't automatically mean you can see it. Given that the goblin in this situation was still in heavy concealment after making its attack means that, even though the PC knows where the goblin was, she still can't perceive the goblin using sight, so even if she can make an attack, she's still attacking with disadvantage for being unable to see the target.

Yes, I agree, though we don't know what the DM intended with certainty.

 

[Oofta]

I think getting information in exchange for a "wasted" attack is at least some consolation. Also, it prevents a situation like in the OP where there is a mismatch between what the player expects to achieve as a result of the roll (a critical hit) and what he or she actually achieves (nothing).

In my games I try to keep meta-game information to a minimum. The player knows they rolled a critical, and that it should have hit, the PC does not. I may even write down damage on my piece of paper. It's not my job as a DM to communicate or relay anything the PCs would not know.

There's nothing wrong with letting the player know nothing was hit of course.