Cutting Words Canceling Nat 20

[RulesJD]

So I feel like this hasn't really been discussed:

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/01/06/can-i-cancel-a-20-with-cutting-words/

Personally I vehemently disagree with that, but it's straight from the horse's mouth so to speak.

Does AL have an official stances on this? I know the normal line about DMs able to ignore twitter rulings, but what if it becomes an errata or Sage Advice compendium?

Also, I assume this means other abilities/spells have the same effect? Bane, Bend Luck, etc.

 

[Steve_MND]

AL explicitly doesn't make rulings on that sort of stuff. That said, I'm guessing that the reasoning behind his argument is that specific 'cutting words' trumps the general 'nat 20 always hits' altho i can easily see why it might be disputed,as it possibly contradicts with other rulings. Expect table variance.

 

[KahlessNestor]

So I feel like this hasn't really been discussed:

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/01/06/can-i-cancel-a-20-with-cutting-words/

Personally I vehemently disagree with that, but it's straight from the horse's mouth so to speak.

Does AL have an official stances on this? I know the normal line about DMs able to ignore twitter rulings, but what if it becomes an errata or Sage Advice compendium?

Also, I assume this means other abilities/spells have the same effect? Bane, Bend Luck, etc.

Why would you vehemently disagree with it? Seems a pretty standard use of the ability. Other thungs can negate criticals, and have in previous editions as well.

 

[kalani]

DMs in AL are encouraged to use Sage Advice (in particular Jeremy's rulings, as Mike's rulings are from the perspective of the DM and sometimes cross the line into house rules), but are not required to. If you disagree with a SA ruling - ignore it.

As far as this ruling is concerned however, I see nothing in the wording of cutting words that would allow it to trump a Nat 20 (as all it does is add a negative modifier to the roll). Cutting word doesn't change the actual number rolled on the dice - it is just a modifier. If shield won't protect you from a critical hit (by raising AC), I don't see how cutting words would protect you by lowering the attack roll. This is especially true once you consider the fact that a Nat20 hits regardless of the creature's modifier.

The only way to cancel a crit by RAW, is to have an ability that forces the dice to be rerolled (or another number). Abilities such as portent or lucky (feat) are required to cancel a critical hit, or items such as adamantine​ armor.

Given the fact that some DMs will use Sage Advice rulings, expect table variation when using this ability.

 

[Pauper]

As a DM, I'm likely to ignore this ruling -- note the text on p.73 of the Basic Rules:

"If the d20 roll for an attack is a 20, the attack hits *regardless of any modifiers* or the target's AC." (emphasis mine)

The only way to justify allowing Cutting Words to negate a critical hit is to rule that the phrase "subtracting the number rolled from the creature's roll" means that you're subtracting the result from the die directly rather than imposing a negative modifier to the roll. If that's the interpretation, however, then it would follow that the standard use of bardic inspiration ("the creature can roll the die and add the number rolled to one ability check, attack roll, or saving throw it makes") would allow a non-20 to be 'promoted' to a critical hit, which would almost certainly be seen as overpowered, especially at later levels when the bardic inspiration die grows significantly larger -- the average result of adding an 18th+ level bardic inspiration die to an attack roll would be 17.

If the description of Cutting Words specifically noted that it modified the die roll and thus could prevent a critical hit, that would be different, but as written, there's nothing in Cutting Words to suggest that it isn't simply a modifier, which is already covered in the base rule regarding critical hits.

--
Pauper

 

[delericho]

As far as this ruling is concerned however, I see nothing in the wording of cutting words that would allow it to trump a Nat 20 (as all it does is add a negative modifier to the roll). Cutting word doesn't change the actual number rolled on the dice - it is just a modifier. If shield won't protect you from a critical hit (by raising AC), I don't see how cutting words would protect you by lowering the attack roll. This is especially true once you consider the fact that a Nat20 hits regardless of the creature's modifier.

Yep, looks like a straight-up mistake to me.

 

[Inconnunom]

As a DM, I'm likely to ignore this ruling -- note the text on p.73 of the Basic Rules:

"If the d20 roll for an attack is a 20, the attack hits *regardless of any modifiers* or the target's AC." (emphasis mine)

The only way to justify allowing Cutting Words to negate a critical hit is to rule that the phrase "subtracting the number rolled from the creature's roll" means that you're subtracting the result from the die directly rather than imposing a negative modifier to the roll. If that's the interpretation, however, then it would follow that the standard use of bardic inspiration ("the creature can roll the die and add the number rolled to one ability check, attack roll, or saving throw it makes") would allow a non-20 to be 'promoted' to a critical hit, which would almost certainly be seen as overpowered, especially at later levels when the bardic inspiration die grows significantly larger -- the average result of adding an 18th+ level bardic inspiration die to an attack roll would be 17.

If the description of Cutting Words specifically noted that it modified the die roll and thus could prevent a critical hit, that would be different, but as written, there's nothing in Cutting Words to suggest that it isn't simply a modifier, which is already covered in the base rule regarding critical hits.

--
Pauper

Back when I first started, I originally read it as a reduction of the value on the die. Another player and I debated and I conceded. I'm fine with Crawford's ruling.

As far as crits, only a 20 on a die roll hits. I play a bard during one of my sessions and if a player of mine ever tried to use it to get a crit then he won't be ever be getting inspiration again. Also as the support of the group, it's my main source of defense (I only have 15 AC).

Additionally, using cutting words to negate crits is not that big of a deal. Take a look at an Earth Elemental. An extra 2d8 is only 9 damage on average. It isn't as good as disadvantage on rolls. (See things like warding flare or protection fighting style, etc).

If he changes his mind later, then we will switch back but there are only so many inspiration dice to go around.

TLDR: I'm fine either way. We play with cutting crits on currently and don't see significant savings.

 

[Pauper]

Back when I first started, I originally read it as a reduction of the value on the die. Another player and I debated and I conceded. I'm fine with Crawford's ruling.

That's cool. The point of AL not requiring Sage Advice is that a DM (like me) who isn't OK with the ruling is free to ignore it.

As far as crits, only a 20 on a die roll hits. I play a bard during one of my sessions and if a player of mine ever tried to use it to get a crit then he won't be ever be getting inspiration again. Also as the support of the group, it's my main source of defense (I only have 15 AC).

Not sure if you're confusing inspiration with bardic inspiration (poor choice of terms on the designers' parts, there); it would be a tough sell to not allow the bard to gain her bardic inspiration dice after each appropriate rest.

Additionally, using cutting words to negate crits is not that big of a deal. Take a look at an Earth Elemental. An extra 2d8 is only 9 damage on average. It isn't as good as disadvantage on rolls. (See things like warding flare or protection fighting style, etc).

Agreed on the greater impact of disadvantage, but I'm going to disagree that this use of Cutting Words isn't significant -- 9 less damage on average is the difference between an average of 14 damage and an average of 23 damage. Since an earth elemental is CR5, the latter damage will be a sizable portion of a level-appropriate PC's hit points. Allowing that reduction for something that arguably doesn't even follow the game rules is pretty significant.

--
Pauper

 

[Inconnunom]

That's cool. The point of AL not requiring Sage Advice is that a DM (like me) who isn't OK with the ruling is free to ignore it.

I agree

Not sure if you're confusing inspiration with bardic inspiration (poor choice of terms on the designers' parts, there); it would be a tough sell to not allow the bard to gain her bardic inspiration dice after each appropriate rest.

To rephrase: When I am playing as a bard and I give out one of my precious Bardic Inspirations to a player and they try to use it get get a "20", I will no longer be giving them bardic inspiration, because that is the worst use of that resource I can imagine.

Agreed on the greater impact of disadvantage, but I'm going to disagree that this use of Cutting Words isn't significant -- 9 less damage on average is the difference between an average of 14 damage and an average of 23 damage. Since an earth elemental is CR5, the latter damage will be a sizable portion of a level-appropriate PC's hit points. Allowing that reduction for something that arguably doesn't even follow the game rules is pretty significant.

(Slight spoiler but no context)
There is a portion in OotA where we had to fight 4 elementals, one after the other. We averaged level 5 and a half. 9 damage is really insignificant in the grand scheme there, especially when each elemental gets 2 attacks.

But maybe the significance is just a matter of opinion.

 

[Pauper]

(Slight spoiler but no context)
There is a portion in OotA where we had to fight 4 elementals, one after the other. We averaged level 5 and a half. 9 damage is really insignificant in the grand scheme there, especially when each elemental gets 2 attacks.

Fair enough. I'll note that 9 damage is basically a hit die plus Con for pretty much any character in AL, even at level 5. From that standpoint, I'm sticking to my guns as the difference not being 'insignificant'.

But that's why Rule 1 is "expect table variation".

--
Pauper