Cutting Words Canceling Nat 20

[Coredump]

Except...not. AL admins have repeatedly said Sage Advice does not bind AL DMs, thus not published rules, as far as AL (and the overlords at WOTC?) are concerned.
.

Actually, AL says the following:
.

People, I know the rules. The claim was that Sage Advice was "not the published rules". He was explicitly not restricting his statement to AL.

Sage Advice is, in fact, the "published rules"; WotC says so. The AL admins, however, have given AL DMs permission to ignore those particular published rules if they so choose.

 

[CapnZapp]

No, this is the AL forum, not the general D&D forum. Please don't muddle the issue, Coredump.

My reply to Pauper's claim (post #26) was confirmed and expanded upon by Kalani just above.

Please leave it at that, at least when you post in th AL forum.

Cheers

 

[Coredump]

No, this is the AL forum, not the general D&D forum. Please don't muddle the issue, Coredump.

My reply to Pauper's claim (post #26) was confirmed and expanded upon by Kalani just above.

Please leave it at that, at least when you post in th AL forum.

Cheers

Sorry dude, I don't care how high of a horse you think you own... you do not get to tell me what to do.

*You* made the statement. It was false. I corrected your erroneous statement. Feel free to leave it at that....

 

[CapnZapp]

This is your post:

Actually, the *are* the published rules. WotC has said that JC has the authority to state and/or change what the rules are. His statements are 'official'.

Now, everyone (you, me, JC, WotC, etc) agrees that you are always free to use or not use any rule you want. But Sage Advice *is* the published rules.

This is incorrect. In AL play and out of AL play.

If JC or any other devices wants to change what's written in the PHB, he or she is free to issue official errata.

End of story, and end of my time replying to your statements on the issue.

 

[delericho]

It should be noted for the original poster's benefit that Crawford has changed his position -- Cutting Words no longer negates a critical hit according to Sage Advice.

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/02/05/can-i-cancel-a-natural-20-critical-hit-using-cutting-words/

Thanks for that. And that's a good thing - it was a pretty clear mistake when first stated, so I'm glad to see it reversed.

 

[devlin1]

A straight reading of the Cutting Words text in the PHB makes it clear, in my view, that it can't cancel a natural 20 on an attack. The player has to use Cutting Words after the roll but before the DM has said whether it's a hit or miss. A natural 20 always hits; as soon as you see the result of the roll, you already know it's a hit, so it's too late to use the feature.

I don't even see how there's room for a ruling there. If you want to call it differently, that's fine, but it'll be in direct contradiction of the text itself. This isn't making a ruling, it's making a houserule.