The difference is definitely not insignificant. It's extremely significant, especially in T2+. You have mobs swinging for 20 damage average and you can short rest prevent that from being 40+??? Sign me up.
Cutting Words Canceling Nat 20
The difference is definitely not insignificant. It's extremely significant, especially in T2+. You have mobs swinging for 20 damage average and you can short rest prevent that from being 40+??? Sign me up.
eh... still not that significant. Its not completely trivial, but since it only happens 5% of the time, being able to stop it just isnt' that big of an impact.
And compare stopping a crit to stopping a hit.... Warding Flare etc can turn a hit into a miss....which not only happens much more often, is a larger reduction in damage than preventing a crit.
Allowing CW to prevent a crit, or B Inspiration to have a chance at allowing a crit..... doesn't really bother me. (Using BI for the *chance* of a crit, is a really poor use of that resource)
Bless and Bane, however, have the same wording; and allowing those to create or prevent a crit seems pretty broken.
skerritthegreen
Explorer
At AL tables, you're mileage will vary based on DM call. The Admins will not be making any official ruling on this.
Still dislike that Sage Advice isn't considered official.
More to the point, this wasn't a mistake. He specifically called it out.
Heres a good explanation of why: http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/72041/can-cutting-words-cancel-a-critical-hit
And a good explantation here of why it does not apply to things like bardic inspiration or bless/bane: http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/72065/can-bardic-inspiration-make-a-roll-a-critical-hit
More to the point, this wasn't a mistake. He specifically called it out.
Heres a good explanation of why: http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/72041/can-cutting-words-cancel-a-critical-hit
And a good explantation here of why it does not apply to things like bardic inspiration or bless/bane: http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/72065/can-bardic-inspiration-make-a-roll-a-critical-hit
Inconnunom
Explorer
THAT actually makes sense (although it reeks of legalese like what the definition of "is" is).
An "attack roll" is d20 plus modifiers. Adding or subtracting like bane or bless occur as a bonus or penalty.
The "roll" referenced in cutting words is the raw d20 roll before modifiers have been added. The idea that you can "do it after the roll but before the DM determines success by adding modifiers to the roll" kind of supports that ruling as well.
I'm convinced now that Crawford knew exactly what he was saying. (Well at least convinced for now... )
Steve_MND
First Post
I understand the reasoning they are using behind it, but I really do not agree with the premise in the first place. There should not be any way to adjust the "physical roll" -- so to speak -- of any die roll. If you rolled a 17, you rolled a 17 -- the physical die, sitting on the physical table, shows a 17. That's not alterable; you can change a lot of things, you can add or subtract from the remainder of the calculation, you can roll another die and use that physical number instead, etc., but you shouldn't be able to "change the physical roll." That was always kind of seen as inviolate.
Besides, this just opens up a number of other questions/potential issues if certain effects can change the "physical die roll" in this manner. For example, that also means that theoretical effects like these can not only keep a critical from happening, but also make one happen. Rolled an 18 on the physical die? An effect of this type adds 2 to the die's 'face,' meaning you actually "rolled" a physical 20.
Further, the rules say a 1 on the roll always misses, and a 20 on the roll always hits, regardless of any modifiers or the target's AC. But what if, using this new ruling, you "roll" a 22 on the twenty-sided die? Is that also a critical? It could be, because it's even better than "rolling" a 20. What about a similarly-worded effect that reduces the "roll" below 1? Like a "roll" of -1 on a 20-sided die, if you have +10 to hit, does that mean you miss an AC 8 opponent? You technically hit it by mathematics, but the "roll" you made is worse than what would cause you to automatically miss.
I understand it in theory, but I personally think it was a bad call/intent and sets up a dangerous precedent. The raw "roll" on any die should be what's physically on the die itself -- anything beyond that should, by definition, only exist as a modifier of some sort, regardless of the semantics in use.
Besides, this just opens up a number of other questions/potential issues if certain effects can change the "physical die roll" in this manner. For example, that also means that theoretical effects like these can not only keep a critical from happening, but also make one happen. Rolled an 18 on the physical die? An effect of this type adds 2 to the die's 'face,' meaning you actually "rolled" a physical 20.
Further, the rules say a 1 on the roll always misses, and a 20 on the roll always hits, regardless of any modifiers or the target's AC. But what if, using this new ruling, you "roll" a 22 on the twenty-sided die? Is that also a critical? It could be, because it's even better than "rolling" a 20. What about a similarly-worded effect that reduces the "roll" below 1? Like a "roll" of -1 on a 20-sided die, if you have +10 to hit, does that mean you miss an AC 8 opponent? You technically hit it by mathematics, but the "roll" you made is worse than what would cause you to automatically miss.
I understand it in theory, but I personally think it was a bad call/intent and sets up a dangerous precedent. The raw "roll" on any die should be what's physically on the die itself -- anything beyond that should, by definition, only exist as a modifier of some sort, regardless of the semantics in use.
I disagree. Cutting words subtracts from the attack roll, bardic inspiration adds to the attack roll. I don't see a difference in the verbage to warrant treating them differently. I am not against CW negating crits, but then so should Bane. And BI and Bless should allow for crits.
It is a mistake -- see the rule that determines what a critical hit is:
"If the d20 roll for an attack is a 20, the attack hits regardless of any modifiers or the target's AC. This is called a critical hit..."
Cutting Words does not change the d20 roll; it modifies it when comprising the attack roll**, consistent with the other effects in the game that modify d20 rolls for attack rolls, saving throws, or ability checks.
It should also be noted that there is no equivalent rule, as there was in other editions, about a d20 roll of 1 being an automatic failure and a 20 an automatic success on saving throws, though an AL DM could rule such at her table if she chose to.
** -- See the very first clause of the Cutting Words ability: "When a creature that you can see within 60 feet of you makes an *attack roll*..." (emphasis mine) The 'roll' being referenced in the later clause is not the d20 roll, but the attack roll. (If it was the d20 roll that was being modified, you'd think that would be stated, somewhere. Anywhere.)
You should be aware that Sage Advice isn't even official for Sage Advice:
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/675429202213011456
--
Pauper
Last edited:
kalani
First Post
Incorrect. AL DMs are not allowed to change the rules of the game, or introduce house rules. They are however, allowed to make rulings on something the rules do not cover.
A natural 20/1 is treated as an ordinary roll for Saving Throws (excluding Death Saving Throws) and Ability Checks. AL DMs are not authorized to implement automatic success/failure on those checks, however they are free to describe the success/failure as noteworthy (although they should refrain from adding mechanical effects to those descriptions).
A character with a +9 modifier to an ability check for example, will auto-succeed on any DC 10 (or lower) check involving that ability (while most characters will auto-succeed on most DC 5 checks). Meanwhile, characters with a +4 or lower modifier will auto-fail any DC25+ check. This is simply how the rules work in 5E, and AL DMs are not allowed to change them.
A natural 20/1 is treated as an ordinary roll for Saving Throws (excluding Death Saving Throws) and Ability Checks. AL DMs are not authorized to implement automatic success/failure on those checks, however they are free to describe the success/failure as noteworthy (although they should refrain from adding mechanical effects to those descriptions).
A character with a +9 modifier to an ability check for example, will auto-succeed on any DC 10 (or lower) check involving that ability (while most characters will auto-succeed on most DC 5 checks). Meanwhile, characters with a +4 or lower modifier will auto-fail any DC25+ check. This is simply how the rules work in 5E, and AL DMs are not allowed to change them.
Unless the DM is invoking Sage Advice, which says repeatedly that a DMs ruling trumps the official rules.
Numerous AL sources say that DMs are welcome to use Sage Advice when running AL games.
Lastly, the ALPG itself states that a DM's ruling at the table is final for the purpose of a specific game session. As no other person is authorized to interpret the official rules at the table, this means that what is 'official' in any given game session is wholly determined by the DM at that table.
This is why the only truly viable advice on rules is 'expect table variation'.
--
Pauper
Edit: In this specific instance, the difference between 'nat 1 is an auto-fail on saves' and 'nat 1 is not an auto-fail on saves' is likely pointless -- in nearly all cases, characters playing official AL material are not going to have a saving throw bonus that is high enough to succeed on a save while rolling a natural '1'. Likewise, it is exceedingly unlikely that a character will fail a save despite rolling a natural '20'. In the few instances where such a distinction might make a difference, the DM is the final arbiter of whether or not it does.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
