D&D 5E Can a Critical Hit miss?

[iserith]

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.

If there is no expectation that the character or other characters must act like the NPC or monster is in that square, then again, I wonder why anyone would bother playing coy about it.

 

[Oofta]

If there is no expectation that the character or other characters must act like the NPC or monster is in that square, then again, I wonder why anyone would bother playing coy about it.

Maybe I don't understand what you're getting at.

To me it's a question of the role of the DM. I'm not there to make sure my players "win" or have all of the information I have. The PC shot an arrow at something they could not see. That's all. They happened to be incorrect about whether or not there was a valid target where they shot.

It's my job to set the scene, have monsters react in the most realistic way practical, relay all pertinent information the PCs should know and so on. The attack was not effective. So what? The PC does not magically know how much damage they did or did not do.

If they could have seen the target and the attack was innefective because it was immune to non-magical weapons, that's something I would have conveyed by saying something like "the arrow hits the creature solidly in the chest but it doesn't even flinch and there is no sign of blood."

Or a different example. The group is trying to bluff the king. He seems to believe them, but did he really? Maybe he's just pretending. In this scenario I'd compare the group's passive insight to the king's bluff check. It doesn't matter if the bard just rolled a 20 on their bluff check if the king unbeknownst to the group already knows the truth or for some other reason cannot be bluffed.

In my games the PCs only know what the PCs know.

 

[iserith]

Maybe I don't understand what you're getting at.

To me it's a question of the role of the DM. I'm not there to make sure my players "win" or have all of the information I have. The PC shot an arrow at something they could not see. That's all. They happened to be incorrect about whether or not there was a valid target where they shot.

It's my job to set the scene, have monsters react in the most realistic way practical, relay all pertinent information the PCs should know and so on. The attack was not effective. So what? The PC does not magically know how much damage they did or did not do.

If they could have seen the target and the attack was innefective because it was immune to non-magical weapons, that's something I would have conveyed by saying something like "the arrow hits the creature solidly in the chest but it doesn't even flinch and there is no sign of blood."

Or a different example. The group is trying to bluff the king. He seems to believe them, but did he really? Maybe he's just pretending. In this scenario I'd compare the group's passive insight to the king's bluff check. It doesn't matter if the bard just rolled a 20 on their bluff check if the king unbeknownst to the group already knows the truth or for some other reason cannot be bluffed.

In my games the PCs only know what the PCs know.

You could just as easily decide that they DO know the target is not in the square they targeted though. The fiction is quite mutable in that way. So it's a wonder why you don't just tell them.

 

[Oofta]

You could just as easily decide that they DO know the target is not in the square they targeted though. The fiction is quite mutable in that way. So it's a wonder why you don't just tell them.

Because once you've fired an arrow you usually rely on sight to know whether or not it hit? Because an arrow hitting (or not hitting) a target makes almost no noise based on my experience with archery? Because I think adding a bit of realism, immersion and uncertainty is more fun than constantly referring to game mechanics?

Choose any of the above. End of the day it's just like an opinion man. I don't relay meta-game information any more than I have to.

 

[iserith]

Because once you've fired an arrow you usually rely on sight to know whether or not it hit? Because an arrow hitting (or not hitting) a target makes almost no noise based on my experience with archery? Because I think adding a bit of realism, immersion and uncertainty is more fun than constantly referring to game mechanics?

Choose any of the above. End of the day it's just like an opinion man. I don't relay meta-game information any more than I have to.

I get that it's an opinion. I simply find "because metagaming" to be an insufficient reason to do a thing when objections over "metagame information" can be so easily knocked down. Once the player commits the character to the attack, I could preempt the roll and say something like "The arrow whistles through the air, but there is no sound that it struck anything or that any creature dodged or deflected it - there was no target to be found in that area." That seems like sufficient "realism" to me and immersive (depending on your definition of "immersion"), plus the uncertainty as to the target's location remains, as I have shown in my exchange with Sadras. Plus it avoids the disconnect in expectations between a needless roll and a result. And I don't have to play little tricks like pretending to write down damage which seems to me somewhat dishonest for no apparent gain.

Preferences aren't wrong, but it's interesting to see why people have the preferences they do. And perhaps why other don't share them.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Scenario: Party is proceeding down a wooded path at night with torches. Heavy foliage lines the path, which is 30 feet wide. Noise off the side of the path up ahead draws their attention. PC#1 goes up to check it out, is asked to roll Perception and fails. Crossbow bolts are fired out of the dark, heavy foliage and strike PC#1. PC#2 asks if she saw the spot from where the bolts were shot. DM asks for Perception roll and there is a success. PC#2 fires her bow into that exact spot, rolling a natural 20. Unbeknownst to anyone in the party, after firing the crossbow bolts, the two enemies were able to stealth away from that spot (rolled higher on Stealth than any of the party member's Passive Perception).

How do you, as DM, rule that Crit?

So, to rephrase...

PC's walking at night, can't see past torch light into woods. Hear noise and stop. PC1 investigates up to (assuming) edge of dim torch light...and then gets shot. PC2 asks to see if she noticed which direction the shots came from and succeeds. PC2 shoots an arrow at where she thinks the attacker(s) might be.

Ok...at this point, I'd ignore all normal 5e "rules". Why? There are no real rules to cover this exactly. There are hiding rules, stealth rules, cover rules, darkness/light rules, combat rules, etc. A LOT of different things are being dealt with. This is where I just say "You can't see where they are...could be 20' away...could be 120' away. And the torchlight is between you and them. And the bushes. And the trees. Hmmm...you could get luck though...go ahead and shoot. You need a natural 20 to hit".

The player rolls and gets a 20. At this point the whole "crit" thing kicks in. I'd ask to roll to hit again. If this roll would normally hit the crossbowman, then it's a Critical. If they miss, then it was just a normal hit.

This does several things. First it keep players engaged in stead of just throwing up their hands and saying "Well, I guess we run and hope we don't die...because it's impossible for us to hit them". Players feeling completely helpless because of the way a rule/rules work is almost never a good thing...in this case, it would be a "not good" thing (not ALWAYS, but usually). Second, it gives potential for those "lucky shots", or "million-to-one" type situations you read and see in movies...even if the chances are pretty much zero (e.g., movie "True Lies" where she drops the uzi down the stairs and it fires off randomly, killing a half dozen bad guys...'by chance'). Third, it reinforces the role and need of the DM as arbiter of the "campaign world", as opposed to him being a slave to the rules.

TL;DR So... in short, I'd say Natural 20 to hit, roll a "confirmation hit" to see if it is a Critical or just a normal hit.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Oofta]

I get that it's an opinion. I simply find "because metagaming" to be an insufficient reason to do a thing when objections over "metagame information" can be so easily knocked down. Once the player commits the character to the attack, I could preempt the roll and say something like "The arrow whistles through the air, but there is no sound that it struck anything or that any creature dodged or deflected it - there was no target to be found in that area." That seems like sufficient "realism" to me and immersive (depending on your definition of "immersion"), plus the uncertainty as to the target's location remains, as I have shown in my exchange with Sadras. Plus it avoids the disconnect in expectations between a needless roll and a result. And I don't have to play little tricks like pretending to write down damage which seems to me somewhat dishonest for no apparent gain.

Preferences aren't wrong, but it's interesting to see why people have the preferences they do. And perhaps why other don't share them.

I guess I could turn that around. Why do you think it's important to tell them that nothing was hit?

As far as no sound ... I've done archery. If the target is more than a few yards away with typical ambient noise you get outside you wouldn't necessarily hear whether it hit or not, especially against a relatively "soft" target. As far as writing something down, it's just something I would do to limit meta-game knowledge.

The roll was not "needless". It was just ineffective. I don't see a problem with that. Combat is always about trade-offs. In this situation, letting everyone know there's nothing there for free means they don't have to spend any resources/actions confirming there's nothing there. As far as they know the arrow hit and killed the goblin.

I would also do the same with enemies. If the rogue fired from the darkness and then used stealth move away, they would be very likely to "waste" attacks at an empty location as well. It could be quite cinematic and fun for the group, but my group also knows (and expects) to be on equal footing with the monsters. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[iserith]

I guess I could turn that around. Why do you think it's important to tell them that nothing was hit?

I think I've addressed that in both my responses to Sadras and to you.

As far as no sound ... I've done archery. If the target is more than a few yards away with typical ambient noise you get outside you wouldn't necessarily hear whether it hit or not, especially against a relatively "soft" target. As far as writing something down, it's just something I would do to limit meta-game knowledge.

The thing I always find curious about concerns over "metagame knowledge" or "metagaming" is that it always seems like the DM frequently creates the conditions for "metagaming" to occur by way of their approach, then has to come up with some kludge to fix the problem he or she created. Such as pretending to write down damage or, as is commonly suggested, making fake rolls to throw off the players.

If you just say the character knows that the area targeted contains no enemy for reasons that make some sense in the fiction, then all of these other concerns go away.

The roll was not "needless". It was just ineffective. I don't see a problem with that. Combat is always about trade-offs. In this situation, letting everyone know there's nothing there for free means they don't have to spend any resources/actions confirming there's nothing there. As far as they know the arrow hit and killed the goblin.

It's not free though. It costs the PC an attack.