D&D 5E Difference between critical hits and automatic hits.

[Tormyr]

I realize that this is a real corner case, but it seems like there is a separation of critical hits and automatic hits in the rules. The rules state that a 20 automatically hits, but it separately states that a critical hit does double damage. Where this gets interesting for me is a case where somebody has an expanded critical range and through high enemy AC and low bonuses rolls a 19 on die but does not meet the enemy's AC.

I think this (difficult to encounter) case is a miss. Does anyone have a different opinion? I entered D&D at the September play test. Have the rules always been this way on this subject in earlier editions?

 

[the Jester]

You are correct: You must score a hit in order to get the critical hit. A natural 20 always hits, but other rolls do not.

Welcome to the hobby, by the way!

 

[tragicjones]

I realize that this is a real corner case, but it seems like there is a separation of critical hits and automatic hits in the rules. The rules state that a 20 automatically hits, but it separately states that a critical hit does double damage. Where this gets interesting for me is a case where somebody has an expanded critical range and through high enemy AC and low bonuses rolls a 19 on die but does not meet the enemy's AC.

I think this (difficult to encounter) case is a miss. Does anyone have a different opinion? I entered D&D at the September play test. Have the rules always been this way on this subject in earlier editions?

It's definitely a hit, at least for champion fighters. See PHB p. 72: "your weapon attacks score a critical hit on a roll of 19 or 20." It's phrased the same way on the following page.

 

[Rune]

Frankly, I don't see that situation coming up with bounded accuracy (or, rather, the bounded ACs that go with it), like, at all. Except possibly with DM-created foes that are way out of the PCs' league, in one direction or the other.

 

[DEFCON 1]

You are correct: You must score a hit in order to get the critical hit. A natural 20 always hits, but other rolls do not.

Welcome to the hobby, by the way!

I agree with the Jester on this. Only a 20 is an automatic hit. For a 19 to be a critical hit for a Champion, the roll plus modifiers must still hit the enemy's AC. If it does, then it is a critical hit. If it doesn't it's a miss, even if it falls within the crit range of the Champion.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I agree with the Jester on this. Only a 20 is an automatic hit. For a 19 to be a critical hit for a Champion, the roll plus modifiers much still hit the enemy's AC. If it does, then it is a critical hit. If it doesn't it's a miss, even if it falls within the crit range of the Champion.

Agreed. Phrased another way: all automatic hits are critical hits; not all critical hits are automatic hits.

 

[Olaf the Stout]

It's definitely a hit, at least for champion fighters. See PHB p. 72: "your weapon attacks score a critical hit on a roll of 19 or 20." It's phrased the same way on the following page.

Disagree. It doesn't matter if a 19 is a critical hit if you still don't hit the required AC.

Only a 20 is an auto-hit.

 

[Iosue]

I agree that auto-hits and critical hits are separate things in 5e (except for natural 20s, which are both). And they may have done that to keep open some design space. But I don't think the Champion's Improved and Superior Criticals are examples of it. The rules seem pretty clear: "Your weapon attacks score a critical hit on a roll of 19 or 20." Not, "You do critical hit damage on a roll of 19," or "If you hit on a roll of 19, you score a critical hit", either of which would be in line with the "natural language" ethos. If you need to actually hit on a 19, why mention the 20, which is an autohit and critical hit already by the rules? Unless the designers are drawing a comparison: treat 19s as you would 20s. They hit and do critical hit damage. By the description, you attack, you roll 19, you score a critical hit.

That said, even if you read it the other way, the effect is for all intent and purposes the same. You get Improved Critical at 3rd level. Even with a Strength of 10, you'd have a proficiency bonus of +2, which means a monster would need an AC of 22 not to be hit on a natural 19. There's no monster like that in the Basic Rules or Hoard of the Dragon Queen supplement. From the previews, an Ancient Red Dragon has 22, and the Tarrasque has a 25. Of course anything can happen in D&D, but let's just say it's highly unlikely that a 3rd level fighter (with no STR bonus, mind) is going to have a chance to take a swing at an ancient red dragon or tarrasque. Much more likely, a fighter's going to have at least a 14 Strength, for a total of +4, which means Improved Critical or not, he's hitting the Ancient Red Dragon, at least, on a natural 18. The Tarrasque is only vulnerable to the criticals of 3rd level fighters with 18 Strength.

 

[dd.stevenson]

That said, even if you read it the other way, the effect is for all intent and purposes the same. You get Improved Critical at 3rd level. Even with a Strength of 10, you'd have a proficiency bonus of +2, which means a monster would need an AC of 22 not to be hit on a natural 19. There's no monster like that in the Basic Rules or Hoard of the Dragon Queen supplement. From the previews, an Ancient Red Dragon has 22, and the Tarrasque has a 25. Of course anything can happen in D&D, but let's just say it's highly unlikely that a 3rd level fighter (with no STR bonus, mind) is going to have a chance to take a swing at an ancient red dragon or tarrasque. Much more likely, a fighter's going to have at least a 14 Strength, for a total of +4, which means Improved Critical or not, he's hitting the Ancient Red Dragon, at least, on a natural 18. The Tarrasque is only vulnerable to the criticals of 3rd level fighters with 18 Strength.

It's not too hard to imagine a situation where a ranged fighter is aiming at a guy with 3/4 cover for +5 to AC. But offhand, that's the only situation I can think of where it'd come up in the normal range of play.

 

[Iosue]

It's not too hard to imagine a situation where a ranged fighter is aiming at a guy with 3/4 cover for +5 to AC. But offhand, that's the only situation I can think of where it'd come up in the normal range of play.

But even then, a ranged fighter is likely to have the Archery Fighting Style, giving them a +2 to attacks with ranged weapons. So, conservatively, if we figure a 3rd level ranged fighter with AFS, 14 Dex, and +2 proficiency, that's a total of +6, which means the enemy needs a 20 AC or above not to get hit on a nat 19. There are no monsters with that kind of AC in the Basic Rules, and from Hoard of the Dragon Queen there's only the Helmed Horror (CR 4) and the Roper (CR 5). So IMO we're still talking extreme corner cases. In the vast majority of cases, where Champions will either have a 16 in their primary stat, and/or are near the CR level for that kind of monster, they'll be hitting on natural 19s anyway. You really have to be punching above your pay grade to hit only on a natural 20 in 5e.