Is it still a critical??

[LadyDM]

We had a situation come up last night that I need some input on. We, as a group decided to play with the critical/fumble table I found on the net. One of the players fumbled and as a result, had a -4 to attack for 4 rounds. On his next attack, he rolled a natural 18, which is a critical with his scimitar. The questions arose if the 18 still counted as a crit with a -4 to hit, making the attack total 14. The 14 still hit vs an AC of 13 and the monster only had 4 HP left and the character rolled 7 damage so he was still victorious, but the crit decision was still in question. I said no, the crit is not applicable. If a player has +4 to hit and rolls a 14, totaling 18, the crit would not apply so why would a crit apply if the total roll is less than the number needed for a crit. One of the other players, (not the one rolling) said yes it would count because it was a natural roll and you can't change the die roll. Has anyone had this come up??

 

[Rystil Arden]

We had a situation come up last night that I need some input on. We, as a group decided to play with the critical/fumble table I found on the net. One of the players fumbled and as a result, had a -4 to attack for 4 rounds. On his next attack, he rolled a natural 18, which is a critical with his scimitar. The questions arose if the 18 still counted as a crit with a -4 to hit, making the attack total 14. The 14 still hit vs an AC of 13 and the monster only had 4 HP left and the character rolled 7 damage so he was still victorious, but the crit decision was still in question. I said no, the crit is not applicable. If a player has +4 to hit and rolls a 14, totaling 18, the crit would not apply so why would a crit apply if the total roll is less than the number needed for a crit. One of the other players, (not the one rolling) said yes it would count because it was a natural roll and you can't change the die roll. Has anyone had this come up??

This situation comes up all the time. Your logic for the roll of 14 +4 not being a critical threat is correct, but your application onto the other situation is flawed. An 18 - 4 *is* a critical threat because the roll is an 18, just as a 14 + 4 is not a critical threat because the roll is a 14. Modifiers can never influence whether the hit is a critical threat, for better or for worse, but they can make a critical threat miss (For instance if the opponent in you example had AC 15), in which case it is moot.

 

[Mirage_Patrick]

We had a situation come up last night that I need some input on. We, as a group decided to play with the critical/fumble table I found on the net. One of the players fumbled and as a result, had a -4 to attack for 4 rounds. On his next attack, he rolled a natural 18, which is a critical with his scimitar. The questions arose if the 18 still counted as a crit with a -4 to hit, making the attack total 14. The 14 still hit vs an AC of 13 and the monster only had 4 HP left and the character rolled 7 damage so he was still victorious, but the crit decision was still in question. I said no, the crit is not applicable. If a player has +4 to hit and rolls a 14, totaling 18, the crit would not apply so why would a crit apply if the total roll is less than the number needed for a crit. One of the other players, (not the one rolling) said yes it would count because it was a natural roll and you can't change the die roll. Has anyone had this come up??

You sorta answered the question yourself. You said that if he "rolled" a 14 and was modified up to an 18 that it would not crit. Therefore, it is the roll...not the score after modifiers that is important.

I am siding with the player on this one, as it has always been the base roll that determines if it is a critical threat or not, otherwise, that 20th level fighter (as ge gets a minimum of +20 to hit before weapon focus, strength, etc) will be criting with every blow.

 

[Nail]

A critical is determined by two things:

• #1) the natural roll being in the critical range of the weapon, and
• #2) the adjusted attack roll being equal to or higher than the opponent's AC.

The PC fulfilled both requirements. He threatened...now he has to confirm the critical hit.

You (the DM) were wrong.

BTW: IMO, the crit and fumble charts are lame and irksome. They slow down play and penalize the players. Read DMG p. 26 and p. 28 (3.5e). Then get them out of your game.

 

[kenobi65]

I concur with the other posters; a critical threat is determined by the actual number on the die being within the weapon's critical range.

However, it does bring up an interesting possibility: with a weapon that has a critical range greater than 20, and sufficient penalties to the attack roll (or a sufficiently high opponent AC), it's possible to make an attack roll that, in theory, is a critical threat, but doesn't actually hit at all.

After all, a natural 20 always hits. But, let's say you're using a longsword (critical range 19-20), and get a 19 on the roll of the die. A critical threat, right? Except that, let's say you have a -4 penalty on the roll (for whatever reason), or the bad guy has a great AC. When you add up all your attack modifiers, it's possible that that "19" didn't actually hit...in which case, no critical threat, either.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Exactly right, kenobi65.

 

[thalmin]

I concur with the other posters; a critical threat is determined by the actual number on the die being within the weapon's critical range.

However, it does bring up an interesting possibility: with a weapon that has a critical range greater than 20, and sufficient penalties to the attack roll (or a sufficiently high opponent AC), it's possible to make an attack roll that, in theory, is a critical threat, but doesn't actually hit at all.

After all, a natural 20 always hits. But, let's say you're using a longsword (critical range 19-20), and get a 19 on the roll of the die. A critical threat, right? Except that, let's say you have a -4 penalty on the roll (for whatever reason), or the bad guy has a great AC. When you add up all your attack modifiers, it's possible that that "19" didn't actually hit...in which case, no critical threat, either.

And confirming a crit threat of 20 only possible with a second 20.

 

[Nail]

In fact, most combat spreadsheets take that possibility into account. That is to say: they calculate the chance to roll in the critical range and still miss. Only a natural 20 avoids that.

Just in case yer interested: In Xcl, use the "Min()" function, so it looks like this:
Probability to Critical = Min (Threat%,Hit%)

Things get even messier with the Power Critical feat from CW.