D&D 5E Rolling a 20 always hits

[wedgeski]

"My first level wizard punches the pit fiend (who is behind 3/4 cover and who cast Shield earlier in the turn)!"

Well, he'll have an awesome story to tell all the other dead 1st level wizards who were stupid enough to get into melee with a Pit Fiend.

 

[BryonD]

A natural 20 is always a hit regardless of the modifiers or the target's AC(page 73). As is a natural 1 always a miss regardless of modifiers or the target's AC.

This does give characters a chance to succeed at hitting something that they may not be able to mechanically hit otherwise....how they got in that situation is going to be a good story

I understand this. But from what we have seen even Dragons and Archdevils have ACs of 18 or 19. And attacking at range gives disadvantage, not a penalty. So a roll of 20 will hit without this rule. The rule doesn't change anything.

 

[BryonD]

"My first level wizard punches the pit fiend (who is behind 3/4 cover and who cast Shield earlier in the turn)!"

This qualifies.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I always liked that variant from the 3.5E DMG: Consider natural 1s as a roll of -10, and natural 20s as a roll of 30. (Critical hit rules are otherwise unchanged.) In 3E, this meant things would be slightly less random, as 1st-level enemies who rolled 20s would possibly still not hit 20th level characters. (A corner case situation, certainly.) In 5E, bounded accuracy may have made this entirely moot anyway.

Or alternately, use the "exploding dice" mechanic: If you roll a natural 20, you take the roll as 20, then roll the d20 again and add the result to the prior 20 (continuing if the second roll is also a natural 20). If you roll a natural 1, take that as 1, then roll the d20 again and subtract the roll from the prior result.

 

[Tormyr]

I understand this. But from what we have seen even Dragons and Archdevils have ACs of 18 or 19. And attacking at range gives disadvantage, not a penalty. So a roll of 20 will hit without this rule. The rule doesn't change anything.

The cleric in my current campaign has +1 plate and a shield. AC is 21. Someone with no strength modifier and no proficiency would not hit him on a 20. Likewise, a 20th level fighter with maxed strength would be able to hit an AC of 12 with a 1. I think this is just one of those cases where they wanted to actually cover the corner case. There is a 5% chance you will hit no matter what. There is a 5% chance you will miss no matter what.

 

[BryonD]

The cleric in my current campaign has +1 plate and a shield. AC is 21. Someone with no strength modifier and no proficiency would not hit him on a 20. Likewise, a 20th level fighter with maxed strength would be able to hit an AC of 12 with a 1. I think this is just one of those cases where they wanted to actually cover the corner case. There is a 5% chance you will hit no matter what. There is a 5% chance you will miss no matter what.

Yeah, and I definitely see the miss on a 1 still happening.
How many times has your cleric been attacked by someone with a +0?

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

Yeah, and I definitely see the miss on a 1 still happening.
How many times has your cleric been attacked by someone with a +0?

11,253 times. Apparently, people don't take it too kindly when you burn down the temples, the orphanage, and all of the farmland.

 

[jadrax]

Commoners ahve +2 to hit in the Starter Set. ;o)

 

[BryonD]

11,253 times. Apparently, people don't take it too kindly when you burn down the temples, the orphanage, and all of the farmland.

Ouch. I hope he knows a healer. (oh, wait)

 

[delericho]

Does this matter?

I mean, if your target is AC19 and your attack has a -2, then ok. But doesn't it almost always hit anyway now?

Pretty much. "Nat 20 always hits" has always really been one of those rules that sounds good, but is actually pretty redundant in practice. If you're fighting something you couldn't normally hit even with a 20 you're outmatched anyway so really should be running away (and the converse for beasties you would normally hit even on a 1).

(Similarly, the 3e rule where you needed to make a Fort save if you took 50 damage with one hit - if you could take that damage and survive, you were almost certainly going to make the Fort save, too.)

All that said, it's not a bad rule, just a rather unnecessary one.