-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 5E Difference between critical hits and automatic hits.
- Thread starter Tormyr
- Start date
I can't believe there are people in the world who think "you score a (critical) hit" doesn't mean you score a hit. It's mind-boggling.
If it said you "score a resounding hit," would you be making the same argument? That a "resounding hit" is somehow a different rules object than a hit?
"Critical" and "automatic" are adjectives. As such, they only serve to modify the important word, the object of the clause, which is "hit." If the rules say you "score a hit" of any kind -- be it automatic, critical, plaid, or strawberry -- then you have scored a hit. Period.
Some hits are better than others, true, but a hit is a hit is a hit.
Adding an adjective to a noun does not create a new class of rules objects that need all-new definitions. Not in this game, anyway. The word being modified is still the basis of any concept that springs from the modified meaning.
If you disagree with the preceding paragraph, I invite you to find another case in the rules where a modified noun is no longer a subclass of the noun itself.
In more general terms, if you really do think this language is vague or ambiguous, I have a feeling you're going to be constantly dissatisfied with every aspect of 5e. Common sense is the name of the game here, not hair-splitting and rules-lawyering. Things are never going to be spelled out the way they were in 3e and 4e. The basic rules of the English language hold far more sway than granular interpretations and the constant hunt for corner cases.
If it said you "score a resounding hit," would you be making the same argument? That a "resounding hit" is somehow a different rules object than a hit?
"Critical" and "automatic" are adjectives. As such, they only serve to modify the important word, the object of the clause, which is "hit." If the rules say you "score a hit" of any kind -- be it automatic, critical, plaid, or strawberry -- then you have scored a hit. Period.
Some hits are better than others, true, but a hit is a hit is a hit.
Adding an adjective to a noun does not create a new class of rules objects that need all-new definitions. Not in this game, anyway. The word being modified is still the basis of any concept that springs from the modified meaning.
If you disagree with the preceding paragraph, I invite you to find another case in the rules where a modified noun is no longer a subclass of the noun itself.
In more general terms, if you really do think this language is vague or ambiguous, I have a feeling you're going to be constantly dissatisfied with every aspect of 5e. Common sense is the name of the game here, not hair-splitting and rules-lawyering. Things are never going to be spelled out the way they were in 3e and 4e. The basic rules of the English language hold far more sway than granular interpretations and the constant hunt for corner cases.
Last edited:
Please be more careful about how you go about your arguing. As has been demonstrated in this thread, many intelligent people have come down on both sides of this (extremely minor) issue. I believe that the rules can be interpreted two different ways depending on where you start. While the Champions text says you score a critical hit, a critical hit is defined in the rules as double damage. For some reason, they went out of their way to define a 20 as automatically hitting and then said it is additionally a critical hit. Meanwhile, both the Champion text and the Critical Hit text use the phrase "score a critical hit". It can reasonably be read both ways, and it very easily could have been changed slightly to leave no ambiguity anywhere in the text while still using natural language. I came here to ask the community for their reasoned opinion more for interest than worrying about something I might not see for years.
I have been hugely satisfied (happy, ecstatic) with 5e. My players think I have an even hand running the table and make common sense rulings. I have a firm grasp of the English language. I started this thread admitting that this was an extreme corner case. Please do not insinuate that I or anyone else who has commented in a manner contrary to your opinion are unhappy with 5e, lack common sense, are focused on rules-lawyering or misunderstand basic rules of the English language.
Even if you are right in an argument, you can be wrong based on how you deliver it.
Sorry for blasting you on this. I doubt you meant what you wrote as an insult. I already PMed somebody else about their arguments starting to move from being about the subject at hand to about the person on the other side of the argument. Your post was the second that I have seen moving in that direction. One of the things I have appreciated about these boards (the D&D section; I don't really go elsewhere) is the lack of fighting and flame wars (at least since I have been on the boards). I have looked on on several other boards where people act poorly, and I appreciate that it does not seem to take hold here.
I think as much as possible has been said about 3 paragraphs in the PHB. It may be time to let this post slide off of the first page. I had no idea my question would spawn this much discussion.
Personally I think its been a really interesting thread. Its also been beneficial to me as I am now pretty sure I have been getting the rules wrong.
keterys
First Post
To be fair, only because that's been true for several editions of D&D and near D&D. Ie, 3rd edition, 4th edition, Pathfinder, 13th Age, etc.
20s are an automatic hit is enshrined in holiness, but if you miss on a 19, a surprising number of people don't think that should crit.
DM adjudication is a little like the Wesleyan Quadrilateral
Scripture - Whatever rulebooks the DM and players have agreed to use; main difference here is the rulebooks change editions periodically
Tradition - How things worked in the past
Reason - Sound judgement
Experience - What has worked before
All those things input into the decision that is made.
Death Saving Throws. They in no way use the rules for saving throws.
Armor Proficiency. They in no way use the rules for proficiencies and adding your proficiency bonus.
And as far as why they use the word 'hit' in 'critical hit' if they didn't mean 'hit'... it's because it's the same term that's been used for decades, even before the authors and designers starting caring about the words they selected to describe the rules they were writing. Why did the designers stick with the term 'hit points' when you could do damage without actually hitting (via the DoaM rules in 4E?) Because 'hit points' were a traditional term / sacred cow so there was no need to change. Same thing with 'critical hit'.
I have nothing against folks who wish to rule it the other way. More power to them. But for me... when the tradition is only a 1 is an auto-miss and a 20 is an auto-hit, and the 5E book's section heading even specifically says 'Rolling 1 or 20' (and not 'Rolling 1 or a Critical Hit')... I take it for what it says as backed up by tradition. After all... if they had meant it that way, they could have just as easily written that entire section like this:
ROLLING 1 OR A CRITICAL HIT
Sometimes fate blesses or curses a combatant, causing the novice to hit and the veteran to miss. If the d20 roll for an attack is a critical hit, the attack hits regardless of any modifiers or the target's AC.
And then said in the Critical Hit section that for most characters a roll of a 20 is a critical hit, although some characters have a wider range of numbers.
So yeah... it's a 'rulings not rules' situation... but is not one where there will be a predominate consensus for a long time I don't expect.
When you make a saving throw, you roll a d20 and succeed if you roll a target number or higher; in this case, the target number is 10.
"Proficiency" is not the game concept that causes you to add the extra value to the roll. It's "proficiency bonus." Just as in the other argument, the word "proficiency" modifies the word "bonus." You get the bonus because you are proficient, or good at, a thing.
If the feat were called "Armor proficiency bonus," you'd have a case. But all "proficiency" means is that you have training or skill in a thing. In the case of Armor Proficiency, you are good at using armor. In the case of a Proficiency Bonus, you get the bonus because you are good at using a certain skill or weapon or tool or ability score.
Last edited:
I agree, this is definitely where the so-called "confusion" comes from.
However, I feel confident that in each and every one of those sources, you'll find that the wording of criticals that are not necessarily hits is very precise. I strongly doubt any of them call it a "critical hit" if it may not actually be a hit.
Similar Threads
