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

[Tormyr]

I favor the interpretation that this equals the old improved crit from 3rd Ed. I mean should a third level champion fighting Orcus have a 10% chance on all his attacks to auto crit? No, you should still have to hit or roll a 20.

I'm trying to like 5th ed. but this lack of clarity on some of the most basic rules is starting to irk me. I don't remember this vagueness in 3rd edition.

It may be that critting 10% to 15% of the time is part of the "balanced in its unbalancedness" of the 5e classes. The champion might need that to contribute equally with his companions. As for critting Orcus: he's a champion! While others are spending their time focusing on flashy magic or hugging trees, he focuses on being the toughest SOB who can hit in the most devastating places. For Orcus, it just means his mosquito bites are a little bigger.

 

[Dausuul]

I favor the interpretation that this equals the old improved crit from 3rd Ed. I mean should a third level champion fighting Orcus have a 10% chance on all his attacks to auto crit? No, you should still have to hit or roll a 20.

I am perfectly fine with that fighter having a 10% chance to auto hit and crit. His player can tell the story of how he landed a hit on Orcus with a 3rd-level character (after which Orcus blinked in his direction and he exploded).

 

[Imaro]

I'm going to have to go with the interpretation that the critical hit is an auto-hit. There's no confirming a critical in 5e.

 

[SigmaOne]

I favor the interpretation that this equals the old improved crit from 3rd Ed. I mean should a third level champion fighting Orcus have a 10% chance on all his attacks to auto crit? No, you should still have to hit or roll a 20.

A third level fighter critical hitting Orcus is going to do maybe 2d12 or 4d6 (+ modifiers, of course). Maybe to your Orcus that's a big deal. To my Orcus, it's only slightly annoying... like when a mosquito bites in a particularly sensitive spot. If it's realistic to have a 5% chance to hit, it can't be terribly unrealistic to have a 10% chance. Auto-hitting on a 19 doesn't really break verisimilitude at all; not any more than other rules.
But, hey, we all get to play the game we want to play at our tables. So, I don't mean to imply there is anything "wrong" about the way you think it should be, just that we all have different ideas about "how things should be".

My 2pennies: I haven't seen anything in this thread to imply that "when you roll a 19, you score a critical hit" (under Improved Critical) and "when you score a critical hit, you roll your damage dice twice" (under Critical Hits) implies you need to check that you matched or beat the AC before you roll damage. The language is quite clear to me, as others have eloquently argued in this thread. I think the only mistake the developers made was to underestimate how much tradition and inertia from previous editions would lead people to read the rules they expected to read, as opposed to the rules that were written.

 

[Mort]

!

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.

That's not quite fair though. "Critical hit" is a term of art, it has a distinct meaning within the context of this edition (and prior editions). A meaning "random adjective" hit does not have.

This is why people are confused! The rules are using a term of art, a term people have come to know and understand, in an unexpected way. This is doubly confusing for people who come in with prior editions baggage on what a critical hit is or should mean!

That said, I do think the wording seems clear. The Champion crits on a 19-20 (later 18-20), not can, not might, not "roll to confirm" but crits.

As this has been further reinforced as the intent of the designers - I'm comfortable ruling that way in my game at least.

 

[Stalker0]

I will wait the day that this situation actually comes up in game. Looking at the attack and AC numbers on monsters right now, I just don't see a circumstance where a fighter rolls an 18 but doesn't hit the creature.

 

[Ningauble]

I will wait the day that this situation actually comes up in game. Looking at the attack and AC numbers on monsters right now, I just don't see a circumstance where a fighter rolls an 18 but doesn't hit the creature.

You're probably right. I just looked at some monsters and it may be a non issue. It looks like Armor Class of monsters is a lot lower in 5th edition. My point about the 3rd level PC vs. Orcus or some other godlike entity was simply that a 3rd level character should not even be able to hit him. But maybe I'm wrong to think this in 5th edition. The ancient red dragon only has AC 22, so even a 3rd level PC would hit that with a 19.

 

[fanboy2000]

My point about the 3rd level PC vs. Orcus or some other godlike entity was simply that a 3rd level character should not even be able to hit him.

If it helps, the 3rd level PC is only going to hit Orcus once, (well, maybe twice with Action Surge...) then Orcus gets a turn and it's all over the Peter Champion.

Bounded accuracy means that you have a shot at hitting, it doesn't guarantee that the amount of damage a PC does is significant to the monster or NPC.

 

[77IM]

I favor the interpretation that this equals the old improved crit from 3rd Ed. I mean should a third level champion fighting Orcus have a 10% chance on all his attacks to auto crit? No, you should still have to hit or roll a 20.

I'm trying to like 5th ed. but this lack of clarity on some of the most basic rules is starting to irk me. I don't remember this vagueness in 3rd edition.

I'm curious why auto-hitting 5% of the time seems totally fine, yet auto-hitting 10% of the time is so hard to believe?

 

[Warbringer]

It's an autohit and critical.

The language is: " the weapon attack is a critical hit", not the "hit is a critical".

Parsed, the rule is "the attack is a hit and that hit is a critical"