Are critical hits automatic hits? (Champion Fighter)

[zeek0]

I ran across the assertion on this site (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?398053-In-Defense-of-the-Champion/page2) that any critical hit is automatically a hit. I would contend that this is not the case.

I'll provide evidence from the book:

"If the d20 roll for an attack is a 20, the attack hits regardless of any modifiers or the target's AC. In addition, the attack is a critical hit, as explained later in this chapter"
- page 194

"When you score a critical hit, you get to roll extra dice for the attack's damage against the target."
- page 196

"Improved Critical
Beginning when you choose this archetype at 3rd level, your weapon attacks score a critical hit on a roll of 19 or 20."
- page 72

It seems that by base rules, a character only critical hits on a 20. A character also only automatically hits on a 20.

As a fighter, you critical hit on a 19. But it seems to me that it would only multiply damage dice. It would not apply the auto-hit feature that a nat 20 would.

Am I wrong?

[MeeposFire]

Quick question does this actually come up? Do we really see situations where a fighter at these levels would miss with an 18 or 19 on the die? If not this question would be moot and just seems to make for long arguments over something that never comes up.

Being that this thread is devoted to this topic I am not saying we should not discuss it (it is a valid question for its own thread) just stating that I think that outside this particular thread this may be a question with lots of posts for little reason.

[archaeo]

Am I wrong?

According to both of the game's lead designers, here (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/02/champion-critical-hit/) and here (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/18/only-20-hit/), yes.

[pwykersotz]

You're not wrong by the book. Since it's not explicitly stated, we can only infer, but based on the Paralyzed condition:


Paralyzed
• Attack rolls against the creature have advantage.
• Any attack that hits the creature is a critical hit if the attacker is within 5 feet of the creature.

So your argument is strong. But Mearls offered different advice (https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/487302292312305664), and it certainly makes the system easier and cleaner to allow the auto-hits. And most people are in agreement that this small buff to the Champion isn't game breaking.

Edit:

Missed the Crawford link, nicely done.

[Chronos]

So, a champion with a longsword attacks a creature with a super-high armor class, and the die roll shows a 19. What exactly do you assert happens, here? It's a critical hit, but it's a miss? You do a d8 of damage from the weapon's die, but not the original 1d8+mod?

[jkat718]

So, a champion with a longsword attacks a creature with a super-high armor class, and the die roll shows a 19. What exactly do you assert happens, here? It's a critical hit, but it's a miss? You do a d8 of damage from the weapon's die, but not the original 1d8+mod?

There are two rulings you could possibly make here:

OPTION 1: Crits ⇒ Hit, aka "It's called a critical HIT, not a critical MAYBE!"
The attack automatically succeeds, regardless of the target's AC. Roll double damage dice, as per usual.

OPTION 2: Crits ∋ Hits, aka "You DESTROYED...the air."
The attack is still a critical, so you roll all damage dice twice. BUT you missed, so there are no damage dice to roll twice. Sucks to suck.

[Malifice]

The key is in the name fellas.

Critical hit.

[MeeposFire]

The key is in the name fellas.

Critical hit.

Not really helpful honestly.

One side says that the name implies that if it is a hit that the attack is critical.

The other side will say that the name implies that you have hit and it will be critical.

[Jakinbandw]

Not really helpful honestly.

One side says that the name implies that if it is a hit that the attack is critical.

The other side will say that the name implies that you have hit and it will be critical.

I think the only reason it is confusing is because of 3e where there was a critical threat range. In this case however it clearly says 'You score a critical hit on a roll of 18-20'. That means that regardless of other factors, if the dice is a 18-20 you score a critical hit. I think it's something about specific beating general?

[edit] If it was meant the other way I would think it would read, 'If you hit your opponent, on a roll of 18-20 it counts as a critical hit.'

[Malifice]

Not really helpful honestly.

One side says that the name implies that if it is a hit that the attack is critical.

The other side will say that the name implies that you have hit and it will be critical.

If a natural 19 is always a critical hit, then how can it be a miss?

Its logically absurd.

You guys are looking into it waaaay too much. The devs have been clear on this point.

[MeeposFire]

If a natural 19 is always a critical hit, then how can it be a miss?

Its logically absurd.

You guys are looking into it waaaay too much. The devs have been clear on this point.

Of course it is a critical hit but the phrase does not imply that there has to be a hit only that if you hit it is critical.

Also the rules do not imply this at all.

Page 194 says that "If the d20 roll for an attack is 20m the attack hits" it then states that it does this regardless of any modifiers or AC. It then says in a different sentence that "In addition, the attack is a critical hit,". Notice that this implies that the critical hit is actually separate from the auto hit of the natural 20 and that the natural 20 gives auto hit and then also does a critical hit.

Going by the text critical hit is not defined as auto hitting, only that the one instance of the auto hit also in addition gives out a critical hit. Also note that things like paralysis gives advantage on attack rolls and also gives critical hits but yet this means that yes by RAW (and in this case fully 100% intended) you can miss with a critical hit attack.

So yes I think your assertion is absurd.

[Chronos]

The section on natural 20s in no way implies that other critical hits are not hits. Rather, there are three categories of swings: Misses, hits, and critical hits. A decent roll is usually a hit, but is not necessarily critical. If it's a 20, it's guaranteed to be a hit, and it's also a critical hit. All critical hits are hits, but not all hits are critical hits.

[MeeposFire]

The section on natural 20s in no way implies that other critical hits are not hits. Rather, there are three categories of swings: Misses, hits, and critical hits. A decent roll is usually a hit, but is not necessarily critical. If it's a 20, it's guaranteed to be a hit, and it's also a critical hit. All critical hits are hits, but not all hits are critical hits.

That section implies that critical hits are separate from the auto hit condition. Some people want to treat them as being the same but it is closer to "the square is a rectangle but a rectangle may not be a square" issue. Auto hits are the rectangle and the critical hit is the square. The auto hit is a critical but by those listed rules the critical is not an auto hit. They actually wrote it as an additional effect and listed one instance that it occurs on the roll of a natural 20. They did not tie auto hit to the critical hit definition at all.

Also in paralysis you can miss on an attack that would be a critical hit how is this different from the champion ability? Both give you an ability to get a critical hit if you manage a hit in a certain circumstance.

Also the fighter ability says that you score a critical hit on X. If you look up critical hits on page 196 it says what happens when you score a critical hit which involves rolling all dice twice. Never once does it mention that it is an auto hit. It does not say that on the other section about critical hits. Nothing about it says that scoring involves hitting only that you roll the dice twice. I would not bother on a miss but hey that is how the game defines things.

This would all be easily averted if they ever bothered to say "A critical hit always hits" especially since the game never actually says that and even has situations where an attack that is a critical hit can miss such as with paralysis.

EDIT: Just to clarify I have no problems with having all critical hits being auto hits (with anything that can miss such as paralysis as being treated sort of like an exception) just that I have yet to see anything that actually says this and the words they have chosen in their writing implies the opposite.

[Easy_Lee]

Huh, probably good this didn't end up in the RAW thread.

As said, there are two schools of thought. A critical "hit" seems like it would have to be a hit. On the other hand, the "always hits on a 20" rule is explained separately from how to roll the damage for a critical hit.

The only time I can see it coming up is if a champion with static penalties to their attack, such as from great weapon fighting and something else, managed to roll an 19 on the die but his modified role ended up still being less than target AC.

Let's say our champion is level 4, has 16 strength, is using a greatsword, and took the GWM feat. He uses it, and rolls a 19. His attack bonus at that level would be +6. It's -5 for GWF, so +1. He rolled a 19, so his modified roll is a 20. Maybe the target he attacked uses a feature like defensive duelist, and has high AC to begin with, and so is temporarily able to push to 21.

At this point, in this unlikely scenario, it might happen. I confess that I have sent a defensive duelist with dual wielder at a party, and he was able to push his AC over 20 as a reaction. Had to avoid using that feature more than once that fight to give them a chance. It was pretty cool when he deflected the cleric's guiding bolt, though; his weapon lit up like a torch for one round.

If a champion was theoretically strength-drained, the same kind of thing could happen at later levels. Admittedly, it's less likely due to bounded accuracy making the later levels very deadly (you can hit and get hit very easily since AC doesn't scale nearly as much as attack bonus).

The situation is minor and unlikely to begin with. it's not a balancing factor for the champion, really. But it does feel good for the person playing the champion to know that those critical hits are guaranteed hits. I think that's important for the kind of person who would pick a champion (people like me, who enjoy the math). I suspect most DMs would be cool with the auto-hit thing; as shown, Mike and Jeremy are for what that's worth.

[Giant2005]

Am I wrong?

By the book you are absolutely correct but the game designers disagree so I use their ruling (Mainly because I use their rulings on other, more ambiguous issues and want to remain consistent).
Either way it doesn't matter - there isn't an enemy in the game with an AC high enough for it to be relevant.

[MeeposFire]

Huh, probably good this didn't end up in the RAW thread.

As said, there are two schools of thought. A critical "hit" seems like it would have to be a hit. On the other hand, the "always hits on a 20" rule is explained separately from how to roll the damage for a critical hit.

The only time I can see it coming up is if a champion with static penalties to their attack, such as from great weapon fighting and something else, managed to roll an 19 on the die but his modified role ended up still being less than target AC.

Let's say our champion is level 4, has 16 strength, is using a greatsword, and took the GWM feat. He uses it, and rolls a 19. His attack bonus at that level would be +6. It's -5 for GWF, so +1. He rolled a 19, so his modified roll is a 20. Maybe the target he attacked uses a feature like defensive duelist, and has high AC to begin with, and so is temporarily able to push to 21.

At this point, in this unlikely scenario, it might happen. I confess that I have sent a defensive duelist with dual wielder at a party, and he was able to push his AC over 20 as a reaction. Had to avoid using that feature more than once that fight to give them a chance. It was pretty cool when he deflected the cleric's guiding bolt, though; his weapon lit up like a torch for one round.

If a champion was theoretically strength-drained, the same kind of thing could happen at later levels. Admittedly, it's less likely due to bounded accuracy making the later levels very deadly (you can hit and get hit very easily since AC doesn't scale nearly as much as attack bonus).

The situation is minor and unlikely to begin with. it's not a balancing factor for the champion, really. But it does feel good for the person playing the champion to know that those critical hits are guaranteed hits. I think that's important for the kind of person who would pick a champion (people like me, who enjoy the math). I suspect most DMs would be cool with the auto-hit thing; as shown, Mike and Jeremy are for what that's worth.

I for one am perfectly willing to allow the 18+crit to be auto hit in my games for this very reason. The chances of it being a problem are remote and it has the possibility of making a player happier. I certainly don't think it is a huge buff unless ACs are higher than I think they are.

[Chronos]

Also in paralysis you can miss on an attack that would be a critical hit how is this different from the champion ability?
The effect of paralysis says that an attack is a crit if it hits. So first you have to find out whether you hit, and then if you do, it's a critical hit. You still don't get a critical hit if you don't hit.

The champion's ability, though, just says that it's a critical hit, without putting any extra conditions on it.


Also the fighter ability says that you score a critical hit on X. If you look up critical hits on page 196 it says what happens when you score a critical hit which involves rolling all dice twice. Never once does it mention that it is an auto hit.
So you're saying it's a miss, but you still roll all dice twice anyway? Why do I care if you're calling it a miss, if I'm doing damage anyway?

A critical hit is a kind of hit (specifically, it's a hit that's critical). If you get a critical hit, then you've gotten a hit. The champion's ability says that they get critical hits.

[MukkTB]

RAW is ambiguous. RAI is not ambiguous. It seems like we should clearly go with devs' stated RAI in this case. I mean, is it really the state of the forums that we totally ignore the spirit of the intent for all cases when RAW is in question? Sure I understand RAW over RAI when RAW solidly states something contradictory to RAI, but this is just a case of ambiguity.

For clarity it seems to make the most sense to view it in this order:
Clear RAW / Clear or Unclear RAI / RAW and RAI agree = No Problem
Clear RAW/ Clear or unclear RAI / RAW and RAI disagree = RAW takes precedence
Unclear RAW / Clear RAI / Don't know if they agree = Use the RAI
Unclear / Unclear RAI / Who knows what = We're all screwed

[mephnick]

I mean, is it really the state of the forums that we totally ignore the spirit of the intent for all cases when RAW is in question?

Uh, some people here ignore the designers actually stating what the intent of the rule is. See the wild-shape/PWK thread.

If you were hoping to avoid pedantic rules-lawyering you came to the wrong place.

[Easy_Lee]

Uh, some people here ignore the designers actually stating what the intent of the rule is. See the wild-shape/PWK thread.

If you were hoping to avoid pedantic rules-lawyering you came to the wrong place.

It depends a lot on the rule in question. I think my favorite was crossbow expert, where the devs said, and I paraphrase, “the RAW says this but it should say this." That was also one where Crawford and Mearls disagreed.

Regarding your druid PWK thing, that's a good comparison because the RAW is unclear. If a form automatically dies, and it's not due to damage, does that kill the druid? We don't know for absolute certain, so it will vary by table.

Back on the topic at hand, are critical hits always "hits?" It's not immediately clear, and could go either way. We could presumably whip out a dictionary and start debating what the definition of is "hit" is.

But I think it's fine to just say, "ask your DM, but two devs say they meant it this way."

[ProphetSword]

"Improved Critical
Beginning when you choose this archetype at 3rd level, your weapon attacks score a critical hit on a roll of 19 or 20."
- page 72

It seems that by base rules, a character only critical hits on a 20. A character also only automatically hits on a 20.

Am I wrong?

One doesn't have to look further than the definition of the word "score" to see that you are in error.

Score: "to be successful" as in "to score a goal." When you "score a goal," you don't almost get one...you got one.

Translated, the "Improved Critical" section would read like this:
"Beginning when you choose this archetype at 3rd level, your weapon attacks score successfully get a critical hit on a roll of 19 or 20."

You cannot successfully get a critical hit unless you hit. The intention is kind of clear, and there was already another thread about this last week, which you can find here: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?396276-Is-the-19-or-18-improved-critical-from-Champion-a-natural-20-on-the-attack

[Easy_Lee]

One doesn't have to look further than the definition of the word "score" to see that you are in error.

And so the dictionary war begins.

http://buildthis.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/CalledItBLUEBG.jpg

[Myzz]

"Improved Critical
Beginning when you choose this archetype at 3rd level, your weapon attacks score a critical hit on a roll of 19 or 20."
- page 72

You don't even have to look up the meaning of score. It says the roll is a critical hit. Not a critical if the attack hits. Specific beats general. You dont have to add up anything to the roll of 19 or 20 to determine if it hits (with this feature), it is a critical hit. (Period)

<and of course the devs have said its intended that way>

Reading the statements any other way is adding pre-conceived notions of how it should work or used to work... Notice it does not just say critical, or critical damage. It specifies a critical hit.

[ProphetSword]

And so the dictionary war begins.


Not really a war, since there's no other way to interpret the word "score" in this context. And you called a debate on the word "hit," not "score." Sorry, man. :smallamused:

[Easy_Lee]

Not really a war, since there's no other way to interpret the word "score" in this context. And you called a debate on the word "hit," not "score." Sorry, man. :smallamused:

Actually, I'm on the side of automatic hits. If you scroll up, I mentioned that we could easily resort to arguing over definitions literally the post right before it happened.

[ProphetSword]

Actually, I'm on the side of automatic hits. If you scroll up, I mentioned that we could easily resort to arguing over definitions literally the post right before it happened.

I know. I'm just poking fun.

[Talderas]

I ran across the assertion on this site (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?398053-In-Defense-of-the-Champion/page2) that any critical hit is automatically a hit. I would contend that this is not the case.

I'll provide evidence from the book:

"If the d20 roll for an attack is a 20, the attack hits regardless of any modifiers or the target's AC. In addition, the attack is a critical hit, as explained later in this chapter"
- page 194

"When you score a critical hit, you get to roll extra dice for the attack's damage against the target."
- page 196

"Improved Critical
Beginning when you choose this archetype at 3rd level, your weapon attacks score a critical hit on a roll of 19 or 20."
- page 72

It seems that by base rules, a character only critical hits on a 20. A character also only automatically hits on a 20.

As a fighter, you critical hit on a 19. But it seems to me that it would only multiply damage dice. It would not apply the auto-hit feature that a nat 20 would.

Am I wrong?

Yes, by the book you are wrong and the RAW is very clear on this.

Page 194 states what happens when you roll a 20 on an attack roll. You generate two effects. The first effect is that attack automatically hits and the second effect from rolling a 20 is that you score a critical hit. These effects are independent of each other and the only link between them is that you get both when you roll 20 on an attack roll. Page 196 only describes what happens when you generate the critical hit effect (double dice damage) so as far as this goes it's irrelevant. With page 72 improved critical states that you get a critical hit when you roll a 19 or 20. This in no way shape or form modifies or overrides the rule from page 194.

The flaw people appear to be making is that any time you get a critical hit the attack is an automatic hit. There's no text in the rules that state this. I'm actually not sure where people are getting this from unless they're assuming that A->B therefore B->A. This is a logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent).

Edit: Though to apply the pg196 rule regarding critical hits you only get to roll to the attacks damage dice. If the roll of 19 is insufficient to hit the target then you have no damage dice so even if it is a critical you your roll 0dx * 2 which is still 0.

[JFahy]

I know. I'm just poking fun.

I forget the name, but there's an internet phenomenon where nobody can tell the
difference between a real extremist, and someone making fun of extremists by
impersonating one. Looks like it's found its way here. :smallwink:


Edit: Looks like it's Poe's Law.

[JFahy]

Yes, by the book you are wrong and the RAW is very clear on this.

Page 194 states what happens when you roll a 20 on an attack roll. You generate two effects. The first effect is that attack automatically hits and the second effect from rolling a 20 is that you score a critical hit. These effects are independent of each other and the only link between them is that you get both when you roll 20 on an attack roll. Page 196 only describes what happens when you generate the critical hit effect (double dice damage) so as far as this goes it's irrelevant. With page 72 improved critical states that you get a critical hit when you roll a 19 or 20. This in no way shape or form modifies or overrides the rule from page 194.

The flaw people appear to be making is that any time you get a critical hit the attack is an automatic hit. There's no text in the rules that state this. I'm actually not sure where people are getting this from unless they're assuming that A->B therefore B->A. This is a logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent).

It's a pretty reasonable inference, and you shouldn't pretend it isn't. Blue cars are a subset of cars. Sharp knives are a subset of knives. People see critical hits, and conclude they're a subset of hits. If it were essential to steer people away from that interpretation, they could have invented a category like 'critical threat' or 'possible critical' to do it - but as we've been told, they didn't intend to.

[Easy_Lee]

It's a pretty reasonable inference, and you shouldn't pretend it isn't. Blue cars are a subset of cars. Sharp knives are a subset of knives. People see critical hits, and conclude they're a subset of hits. When Paizo wanted to steer people away from this, they created the concept of a critical threat.

There's also the phrase "scores a critical hit", which throws more confusion into the mix. From Crawford's replies, it seems the intended interpretation is: one could theoretically have a larger crit range without scoring an automatic hit for criticals, but the champion does get an automatic hit when they crit on a 19/18.

[JFahy]

I hope that theory never becomes reality. Keeping track of 'expanded crit plus autohit'
versus 'expanded crit only' sounds like the kind of headache D&D5 has tried to stay
clear of, and I like it that way...

[Myzz]

Yes, by the book you are wrong and the RAW is very clear on this.

Page 194 states what happens when you roll a 20 on an attack roll. You generate two effects. The first effect is that attack automatically hits and the second effect from rolling a 20 is that you score a critical hit. These effects are independent of each other and the only link between them is that you get both when you roll 20 on an attack roll. Page 196 only describes what happens when you generate the critical hit effect (double dice damage) so as far as this goes it's irrelevant. With page 72 improved critical states that you get a critical hit when you roll a 19 or 20. This in no way shape or form modifies or overrides the rule from page 194.

The flaw people appear to be making is that any time you get a critical hit the attack is an automatic hit. There's no text in the rules that state this. I'm actually not sure where people are getting this from unless they're assuming that A->B therefore B->A. This is a logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent).

Edit: Though to apply the pg196 rule regarding critical hits you only get to roll to the attacks damage dice. If the roll of 19 is insufficient to hit the target then you have no damage dice so even if it is a critical you your roll 0dx * 2 which is still 0.

Actually I think the 'interpretation' is that Champions Improved Critical Ability expands a roll of 20 to also include 19, then later 18. As without Improv Crit the only way to crit is to roll a 20. the rules for what critical hits do are not on the page you referenced. Thats the rule for what happens when you roll a 1 or a 20. Critical hits are on page 196.


"When you score a critical hit, you get to roll extra dice for the attacks damage against the target. Roll all of the attack's damage dice twice and add them together. Then add any relevant modifiers as normal. To speed up play, you can roll all the damage dice at once..."

So following the rules and RAW:

Champion with Improv Crit rolls a 19... attack is a critical hit per rules on page 72. Quick check of page 196... nothing about ensuring that a critical hit still hits... says roll damage dice twice (not check targets AC, its AC is irrelevant at this point) add em up and add any other relevant modifiers...

You can add that part about checking page 194 which discusses what happens when you roll a 20, this was not a 20, has nothing to do with rolling a 20 (or a 1), so you dont reference that page. It does have the effect of a critical hit as outlined on page 196.

All attacks that do NOT score a critical hit would have to have thier value checked verse targets AC. IC is specific rule that overides a general rule about combat attack rolls (NOT about the specific rule of rolling a 20 on page 194).

When you score a critical hit, you go do what the section on scoring a critical hit tells you to do. NOT look in other places.

[Talderas]

It's a pretty reasonable inference, and you shouldn't pretend it isn't. Blue cars are a subset of cars. Sharp knives are a subset of knives. People see critical hits, and conclude they're a subset of hits. Paizo recognized this fact when they created the concept of a critical threat.

What are you talking about with Paizo? 3rd edition was launched in 2000 and Paizo didn't even come into existence until 2002. They didn't launch Pathfinder until after 3.5 had been released and both of these editions had critical threats and clearly stated that only rolls of 20 were automatic hits.

Straight from the SRD (so 3.5 edition).

"A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on the attack roll is always a miss. A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a hit. A natural 20 is also a threat—a possible critical hit."

"When you make an attack roll and get a natural 20 (the d20 shows 20), you hit regardless of your target’s Armor Class, and you have scored a threat."

The only mechanical change between 3.0/3.5 and 5th edition is that they have removed the requirement to roll the attack roll a second time to confirm the threat and score the critical hit. You still have to successfully hit the target with the attack in order to get a critical hit and the rules only give you an automatic hit on the roll of a 20.

--


Actually I think the 'interpretation' is that Champions Improved Critical Ability expands a roll of 20 to also include 19, then later 18. As without Improv Crit the only way to crit is to roll a 20. the rules for what critical hits do are not on the page you referenced. Thats the rule for what happens when you roll a 1 or a 20. Critical hits are on page 196.

That rule says no such thing. You are making the same logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent) as everyone else. There is no such rule in the book that can create the outcome. You would need a rule that states a critical hit automatically hits.

You also are ignoring my edit. Pg194 is an override condition that is triggered when you roll a 20 and only when you roll a 20. On any other roll you must follow the normal action flow. Check against AC and if it meets or beats it you roll damage. If it doesn't meet or beat it you roll no damage in which case you get a critical hit on a 19 that missed and you double your non-existent damage dice.

Or we can just skip confirming whether the attack hits and thus skip granting damage and the champion suddenly deals no damage on an 18 or 19.

[JFahy]

What are you talking about with Paizo? 3rd edition was launched in 2000 and Paizo didn't even come into existence until 2002. They didn't launch Pathfinder until after 3.5 had been released and both of these editions had critical threats and clearly stated that only rolls of 20 were automatic hits.

I only played 3rd Ed for a couple hours, so Pathfinder was the first example that came to mind. My point, which you seem to
have recognized, is that there's already a framework for talking about "an attack which will deal additional damage iff it
meets the various damage-dealing-hit criteria", so if the D&D5 writers had wanted to re-use that concept it would have
been easy to do. Do you think it was just negligence that they didn't do it?

[zeek0]

Here's a neat logic-tree thing. For convenience, the general rules are at the top and the specific rules are at the bottom:

Rule #1: You [hit] a creature iff your attack roll plus modifiers is higher than your target's AC
Rule #2: You [critical hit] a creature iff you roll at 20 on the dice for your attack roll.
Rule #3: You automatically [hit] iff you roll a 20 on the dice for your attack roll.
Rule #4: A [critical hit] doubles the number of dice you roll for your [hit].
Rule #5: Iff you are a 3rd level champion fighter you score a [critical hit] on a roll of 19 on the dice for your attack roll.

I believe that what we need to do at first is to be clear: the term "critical hit" is defined by the book, and only by the book. It is a single term, and cannot be broken down into the parts of "critical" and "hit". In terms of syntax, "critical hit" is a single word. Similarly, "Snoop Dog" and "Exxon Mobile" are phrases that, syntactically, are treated as words.

So you are a character, and you roll at d20 for your attack roll. Here is what happens on certain rolls:

Roll........Roll Value......Critical hit?..............................Hit?:........... ......................................
5 .....................[5].................................................. iff [roll]+[attack modifier]>[target AC]: [hit]
19...................[19].....iff Champion: [critical hit]......iff [roll]+[attack modifier]>[target AC]: [hit]
20...................[20]..........[critical hit].......................................[hit]

You only hit a creature if a) you roll a 20 on the die, or b) your roll plus modifiers is greater than the target AC.

Discuss.

(It has been made clear to me, thanks to you fine fellows, that this is rarely a problem. In fact, if I were a DM, I would "rule of cool" this so that 19s always hit. But I love debating logic.)

(Sorry for the table formatting, extraneous spaces seem to be deleted.)

[Easy_Lee]

You only hit a creature if a) you roll a 20 on the die, or b) your roll plus modifiers is greater than the target AC.

See the developer responses and various definitions of the words "hit" and "score".

[Galen]

Why does it even matter?

For your basic level 3 fighter, a roll of 19 will hit AC 24 at least. If are you fighting something with AC 25 or better on level 3, your DM clearly needs new medication, because whatever he's taking isn't working.

[ProphetSword]

Since people want to use the rules, how about this rule combination:

Page 72:
Beginning when you choose this archetype at 3rd level, your weapon attacks score a critical hit on a
roll of 19 or 20.

Page 196:
When you score a critical hit, you get to roll extra dice for the attack's damage against the target. Roll all of the attack's damage dice twice and add them together. Then add any relevant modifiers as normal.
For example, if you score a critical hit with a dagger, roll 2d4 for the damage, rather than 1d4, and then add your relevant ability modifier.


Here's what we take from this:

* Scoring a critical hit doubles the dice.
* A roll of a 19 or 20 using the rule on page 72 means that you score a critical hit.
* The example on page 196 shows us what happens when we have a dagger in hand. It clearly specifies when you score a critical hit. It does not say to use no dice. It does not say if you score a critical hit but don't hit the AC. It says to double the damage dice.
* It is not an accident that the term "score a critical hit" is used in all these cases throughout the book.


The conclusion we can come to is that any condition where we "score a critical hit" does damage as we are doubling the normal damage dice.

[MeeposFire]

RAW is ambiguous. RAI is not ambiguous. It seems like we should clearly go with devs' stated RAI in this case. I mean, is it really the state of the forums that we totally ignore the spirit of the intent for all cases when RAW is in question? Sure I understand RAW over RAI when RAW solidly states something contradictory to RAI, but this is just a case of ambiguity.

For clarity it seems to make the most sense to view it in this order:
Clear RAW / Clear or Unclear RAI / RAW and RAI agree = No Problem
Clear RAW/ Clear or unclear RAI / RAW and RAI disagree = RAW takes precedence
Unclear RAW / Clear RAI / Don't know if they agree = Use the RAI
Unclear / Unclear RAI / Who knows what = We're all screwed

The whole point of this tread is to discuss what the actual rules say. That is what the OP wants I actually would have the auto hit if the players wanted it because it seriously does not matter and would not argue with anyone whether it is appropriate. That said the whole stated purpose of this thread is actually about what the rules say NOT how we would actually decide to change the rules to fit our game.

[Chronos]

Yes, the rules are very clear. The champion scores a critical hit. Therefore, he scores a critical hit. It doesn't say "If you roll a 19, and it's a hit, you score a critical hit". It's a critical hit. A hit that is critical. You can't score a critical hit if you miss, and so if you get a critical hit, it must be the case that you did not miss.

The only thing that even makes this in the least bit ambiguous is the expectation that it would work like third edition. But this is not third edition, and the rule is different.

[MeeposFire]

Yes, the rules are very clear. The champion scores a critical hit. Therefore, he scores a critical hit. It doesn't say "If you roll a 19, and it's a hit, you score a critical hit". It's a critical hit. A hit that is critical. You can't score a critical hit if you miss, and so if you get a critical hit, it must be the case that you did not miss.

The only thing that even makes this in the least bit ambiguous is the expectation that it would work like third edition. But this is not third edition, and the rule is different.

A tautology is not a great way to base an argument. I mean sure it defines what scoring entails in the rule book and it says nothing about hitting at all. A critical does not have to be a hit by the stated rules and this has NOTHING to do with 3e.

The wording still works if you miss. You score critical hits on paralyzed targets. You also score critical hits when you roll an 18 or higher with a champion. Both of these statements are true and yet on one of those you can miss with no ambiguity. Nothing in the scoring definition actually says that critical hits are auto hits. The entire section on scoring talks about damage which is not the same thing. The one time they talk about auto hits actually separates that from the critical hit thus stating that they are two different things.

When I read the rule I do not have to add any rules to make it work. Yours only works have if all critical hit rolls are auto hits which is not said anywhere.

Also using dictionary definitions and the like are useless when the game defines the term in relation to the game. These terms have definitions in the game and I actually took the time to not just look them up but to also state them for the record and I do not see it as following your interpretation. If the game said that blue was red it does not matter the the dictionary says that blue is blue because in that game blue is red.

For whatever reason (don't ask me why) they actually bothered to differentiate the auto hit and the critical hit. They could have been the same. They chose to separate them.

[Chronos]

A critical does not have to be a hit by the stated rules and this has NOTHING to do with 3e.
What is "a critical"? The word "critical" is nowhere in the rules used as a noun. We're not talking about "criticals"; we're talking about critical hits. Which are hits.

[campskully]

I think it's worth noting two things from a more humane perspective on the matter. Since D&D is our escapists game into a world of fantasy then let's chill a bit and think this through. The devs for 5e had one main goal, streamlined gameplay. They say it's a critical hit in a new range because they want you to Crit with this bonus, anyone who passed english 12 would tell you that the authors purpose is just as important as the text they made. Secondly, this point is rather low-tech but the champion would be even weaker with the ruling of no auto hit on expanded range. The class has suffered enough, let's take some weight off

[zeek0]

I'll repeat one thing: In terms of syntax, "critical hit" is a single word. It cannot be broken up into requisite parts, as it is defined by the book as a phrase.

And once again, this thread is not about RAI - it is both uninteresting and already established.

Instead, it is a fun logic problem that I would like to solve together!

[ProphetSword]

A critical does not have to be a hit by the stated rules and this has NOTHING to do with 3e.


Can you show me in the rules where you can get a critical that is not a hit?



The wording still works if you miss. You score critical hits on paralyzed targets. You also score critical hits when you roll an 18 or higher with a champion.


This is misleading. You do not "score" a critical hit against paralyzed targets. The wording is specific there, it says:

"Any attack that hits the creature is a criticai hit if the attacker is within 5 feet of the creature."

Notice that the word "score" isn't used here. It specifies that "any attack that hits" is a critical hit. This wording actually proves the point we're trying to make, so I think you destroyed your own argument in this case.

Against paralyzed targets, the wording specifies that the attack must hit.

Improved Critical says you score a critical hit.

You figure it out.

[Chronos]

Quoth zeek0:

I'll repeat one thing: In terms of syntax, "critical hit" is a single word. It cannot be broken up into requisite parts, as it is defined by the book as a phrase.
How do you get that? Sure, it's a single lexeme, but that doesn't mean that it can't be broken down into other lexemes. "Critical hit" is a lexeme, specifically a noun, constructed from the adjective "critical" modifying the noun "hit". By the same token, "eerily-glowing stone statue" is also a lexeme, constructed from the adverb "eerily", the adjectives "glowing" and "stone", and the noun "statue".

If your DM told you that there was an eerily-glowing stone statue in the room, and you told him that you were attacking the statue, what would you say if he said "There's no statue here, there's only an eerily-glowing stone statue. But it's not a statue".

[MeeposFire]

Can you show me in the rules where you can get a critical that is not a hit?





You figure it out.

You are asking me to prove a negative and that is not a proper thing to do. You need to show that a rule says that a critical hit HAS to be a hit and not that it usually will be one. The problem is that the rules go out of their way to disassociate critical hits with the auto hit mechanic. They literally separated the two.


The rules require you to hit with an attack roll to deal damage. The rules state what happens when you score a critical (you roll double dice on the damage roll there is nothing in it about attack rolls what so ever). In a third rule they spell out that a natural 20 is an automatic hit and in addition to being an auto hit it also is a critical hit.

Also note the rules on attack rolls on page 194. It tells you what makes a successful attack roll and then later gives you a set of exceptions which is the natural 20 and the natural 1 that breaks the general rule. Note that neither of those exceptions are tied to the critical hit affect (though the critical hit is applied if you happen to get the natural 20 exception as an additional benefit). As far as I can recall those are the only two exceptions for success and failures for attack rolls. In order for anything else to break the general rule there would need to be a specific exception made for that. When it defines scoring a critical hit it defines specific exceptions to the normal rules but they are the normal rules for damage not attack rolls which means the language in the champion ability is not specific to attack rolls but to damage rolls. This means that on its own its ability to scoring a critical does not exempt itself from the standard attack roll rules. In order to do so the rules on critical hits or the ability itself would need to say something specific that they are an additional exception to the normal attack roll rules.


Do note that this means that if any ability said that a natural 20 can miss in a specific situation (say some sort of luck based monster ability) then by the rules it says "in addition the attack is a critical hit" then that attack roll is still a critical hit but still misses, however since it is still a critical hit if you had any ability that worked off of a critical hit that does not require an actual hit then those would still work. So oddly no extra damage but I have to rule that no-matter what you can use the bonus action attack from great weapon master since that ability requires you to score a critical hit but not necessarily that you hit with it or deal damage.

Do things get weird if you try to be overly pedantic with the rules (and make no mistake I am being overly pedantic here since that is the point of this thread)? Yes that is why generally I recommend not being that way in actual play or you get silly things like drowning healing you in 3e and the many other odd ball rules you can find in every edition of D&D.

[MeeposFire]

How do you get that? Sure, it's a single lexeme, but that doesn't mean that it can't be broken down into other lexemes. "Critical hit" is a lexeme, specifically a noun, constructed from the adjective "critical" modifying the noun "hit". By the same token, "eerily-glowing stone statue" is also a lexeme, constructed from the adverb "eerily", the adjectives "glowing" and "stone", and the noun "statue".

If your DM told you that there was an eerily-glowing stone statue in the room, and you told him that you were attacking the statue, what would you say if he said "There's no statue here, there's only an eerily-glowing stone statue. But it's not a statue".

Well to be fair to the situation at hand if there was a rule on the books about the "egss" and defined it as something and that definition had nothing to do with statues then it may very well not be a statue (though it might be it would depend on how it is defined in the game).

Just because a term uses simple English words that have meaning does not mean that the combo may mean the same thing especially when it is being used as a special term in something like a game. For instance in English we drive on parkways and park on driveways and yet this flies in the face of the simple way of defining terms that you want to apply here.

[ProphetSword]

Do things get weird if you try to be overly pedantic with the rules (and make no mistake I am being overly pedantic here since that is the point of this thread)? Yes that is why generally I recommend not being that way in actual play or you get silly things like drowning healing you in 3e and the many other odd ball rules you can find in every edition of D&D.

I suppose if we wanted to get pedantic and really break the whole conversation I could point this out:

Beginning when you choose this archetype at 3rd level, your weapon attacks score a critical hit on a roll of 19 or 20.

It doesn't say "your attacks." It says "your weapon attacks." I hearby submit that this ability only comes into play when your weapon makes attacks on its own and rolls a 19 or 20 for its attack roll. Whether a 19 is an auto-hit doesn't matter anymore. :smallcool:

[MeeposFire]

I suppose if we wanted to get pedantic and really break the whole conversation I could point this out:

Beginning when you choose this archetype at 3rd level, your weapon attacks score a critical hit on a roll of 19 or 20.

It doesn't say "your attacks." It says "your weapon attacks." I hearby submit that this ability only comes into play when your weapon makes attacks on its own and rolls a 19 or 20 for its attack roll. Whether a 19 is an auto-hit doesn't matter anymore. :smallcool:

ooo that could be a good one. Sadly I think the rules do mention using the term weapon attacks as a way of differing from spell attacks so I do not think it quite works but hey it is the sort of silliness one could expect from trying to be too literal with the rules.

You may be surprised but parsing language that far has been done in other editions too though some actually were the official way to read the rules. For example in 4e there is a difference between making a weapon attack and making an attack with a weapon. One meant that you had to use the weapon in the traditional way with those rules the other was an even t such as using a dagger in casting a spell. The dagger was a weapon so if you had an effect that worked with daggers (such as you crit on a 19 with dagger attacks) it worked when you cast a spell using the dagger as an implement and when you use it as a weapon. If the effect specified that it was a weapon attack (for example you get +1 damage on weapon damage rolls) then it only applied when used as a weapon.

[Chronos]

Just because a term uses simple English words that have meaning does not mean that the combo may mean the same thing especially when it is being used as a special term in something like a game.
The rules are written in English. If any word is to have any meaning other than the English meaning, the rules must specify that, else we're forced to use the English meaning. In English, the phrase "critical hit" means a hit that is critical, and the rules don't say anything to change that. They can (and do) clarify what it means for a hit to be critical, but they don't say that a hit that is critical is not necessarily a hit.

[ProphetSword]

According to a Google search, the definition for "critical hit" seems to be:
In many role-playing games and video games, a critical hit is a successful attack that deals more damage than a normal blow.

The idea that scoring a critical hit means that you can miss on a 19 seems to be getting flimsier by the second.

[MeeposFire]

The rules are written in English. If any word is to have any meaning other than the English meaning, the rules must specify that, else we're forced to use the English meaning. In English, the phrase "critical hit" means a hit that is critical, and the rules don't say anything to change that. They can (and do) clarify what it means for a hit to be critical, but they don't say that a hit that is critical is not necessarily a hit.

Funny I would say why you don't like to use what the book actually say what scoring a critical hit entails. Instead your premise is that it is a hit because you say it is a hit. You have not shown any actual rules for it you just say that it is what it is because that is what it is. I am sorry that in a conversation like this I find that pretty flimsy especially since the bulk of your evidence is to go outside of the game whereas my evidence actually is coming from the game. The only reason I am saying this at all, because my natural inclination would be that a critical hit is a hit, is due to the rules they actually wrote and certainly not what I want (since I have already stated that I would allow auto hits with the champion anyway regardless).

However I do not think this conversation is serving any purpose anymore. We are just looping around where I say "well this page says this" and you say "well this word means that" and I think we are not going to come to a consensus about it. I don't want to use outside sources to make a basis of an assumption and you want to use outside sources to prove that a critical hit requires an assumption of a hit.

[Chronos]

I do not need a rule to tell me that a red ball is a ball, because that's implicit in how the language works. Nor do I need a rule to tell me that a female human is a human, nor to tell me that a bludgeoning weapon is a weapon. Why should I need a rule to tell me that a critical hit is a hit?

[MeeposFire]

I do not need a rule to tell me that a red ball is a ball, because that's implicit in how the language works. Nor do I need a rule to tell me that a female human is a human, nor to tell me that a bludgeoning weapon is a weapon. Why should I need a rule to tell me that a critical hit is a hit?

I have already said why you just don't like the answer. We already hashed this out I have my reasons and you have yours so unless you have something that is actually new to add there really is no point repeating what is already said. If you really want to go through the effort you could just look at a previous post and read it again and then make a response to it because as we have seen that is about the same as what we are doing now.

[ProphetSword]

I would say, until we get errata (which will clearly rule in favor of critical hits being hits and the champion being able to actually hit when they score a critical, based on the developer tweets), each DM should rule it how they see fit at the table. I suggest that the "rule of cool" be used and allow the player to hit, but to each his own.

Though, honestly, it will probably only ever come up anyway. As has already been discussed, a roll of 19 at level 3 and above will usually hit any armor class in the game, unless the DM is bending the rules somehow. Same is true of 18 once the champion finally gets that ability.

[Yakk]

Page 194 states what happens when you roll a 20 on an attack roll. You generate two effects. The first effect is that attack automatically hits and the second effect from rolling a 20 is that you score a critical hit. These effects are independent of each other and the only link between them is that you get both when you roll 20 on an attack roll.
There is no text that states that the two clauses are independent or dependent.

You made that up. Extra sentences can be new rules, or merely clarifications of what happens.

If you remove the "on a 20 you hit" sentence, what happens? Well, you still critical hit, and the rules for a critical hit sure seem to imply you hit.

And then clearly 19s and 18s from champions also critical hit.

Given that reading, why should adding a clarifying line make them miss? Reading that line as a clarification rather than an independent rule is both a valid reading, and apparently RAI.

[Giant2005]

There is no text that states that the two clauses are independent or dependent.

You made that up. Extra sentences can be new rules, or merely clarifications of what happens.

If you remove the "on a 20 you hit" sentence, what happens? Well, you still critical hit, and the rules for a critical hit sure seem to imply you hit.

And then clearly 19s and 18s from champions also critical hit.

Given that reading, why should adding a clarifying line make them miss? Reading that line as a clarification rather than an independent rule is both a valid reading, and apparently RAI.

If that were true the rule about a natural 20 always hitting would never have been published because it would be completely redundant.

[Vogonjeltz]

Am I wrong?

Yes, by definition a critical hit is a hit. The explanation in the book is intentionally simplified. They explain first that the natural 20 is automatically a hit, and then secondly it's not just a regular hit, but a critical hit.

This isn't intended to trick the reader, but to make it easy for someone who has NEVER played D&D to understand.

[Ghost Nappa]

Relevant Excerpts-~

PHB p.7
"Specific Beats General"
"...If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins.
Exceptions to the rules are often minor. For instance, many adventurers don't have proficiency with longbows, but every wood elf does because of a racial trait..."

PHB p. 72 (Fighter: Champion)
"Improved Critical"
"Beginning when you choose this archetype at 3rd level, your weapon attacks score a critical hit on a roll of 19 or 20."

PHB p. 73 (Fighter: Champion)
"Superior Critical"
"Starting at 15th level, your weapon attacks score a critical hit on a roll of 18-20."

PHB p. 194 (Making an Attack)
"3. Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise..."


PHB p. 194 (Attack Rolls)
"Rolling 1 or 20"
"If the d20 for an attack is a 20, the attack hits regardless of any modifiers or the target's AC. In addition, the attack is a critical hit..."

PHB p. 196 (Damage and Healing: Damage Rolls)
"Critical Hits"
"When you score a critical hit, you get to roll extra dice for the attack's damage against the target. Roll all of the attack's damage dice twice and add them together. Then add any relevant modifiers as normal. To speed up play, you can roll all of the damage die at once.
For example, if you score a critical hit with a dagger, roll 2d4 for the damage, rather than 1d4, and then add your relevant ability modifier. If the attack involves other damage dice, such as from the Rogue's Sneak Attack feature, you roll those dice twice as well."


~-Additional Commentary-~

PHB p. 313 (Index)
Entries include the phrase "Critical Hit" but nothing with the word "Critical" by itself.

PHB p. 314 (Index)
Entries do not include the phrase "Hit" in regards to Attack Rolls. All entries with "hit" are reference to Hit Dice, HP, and other aspects of vitality.


~-Analysis-~
It seems intuitively obvious to me that a Critical Hit based on the wording should be an auto-hit. But when you re-read "Rolling 1 or 20" on p. 194, the opposite appears to be no: the book's wording seems to indicate that there are two separate effects occuring at the same time: auto-hit and double damage. The only thing thing "Improved Critical" and "Superior Critical" seem to do is increase the interval at which you can do double damage. That is, neither feature comments on extending the interval of the auto-hit effect.

But here's the problem with that. The book does not have any commentary or terminology for the event where you would do double damage but miss. It does however, have terminology for when you hit and score double damage: a critical hit. (p. 196) Now recall, the first bit from p. 194:


On a hit, you roll damage.

From this line alone, it logically follows that a Critical Hit is a kind of hit: a Critical Hit is a hit that tells you to roll twice the normal damage die (p. 196). Because of the nature of attack/damage rolls, you make damage rolls if and only if you had hit the target. Because you are rolling damage during a critical hit, it follows that you must have had hit.

It does not make any logical sense (either by the book's terminology, the implications of the English language or for any other source or reason) for a Critical Hit to miss. There is no term, reference, or acknowledgement for such an event.

Now you may be asking why this is important. Let me pose the following question.

Suppose you have a battle situation where a Level 3 or higher Champion fighter with a hit modifier of +5 attacks a target with 25 AC and rolls an 19.

What happens?

General Rule for Combat: PHB p. 194 (Attack Rolls)
"If the total of the roll plus modifiers equals or exceeds target's Armor Class (AC), the attack hits."

Okay, let's take the total and compare:

19 + 5 ? 25
24 ? 25
24 < 25

The total of the roll plus modifiers does not equal or exceed the target's armor class.

Our resident Fighter however, is all excited. He has scored a critical hit! This does not seem possible following the general rule of combat however: there are two clauses in play that are responsible.

The first is the "Specific Beats General" clause from page 7. It is apparently so much more important and rudimentary to the game that it was placed nearly 200 pages before this general rule of combat. But it doesn't mean anything by itself.

The second it the "Improved Critical" class feature. The Champion has by this feature "scored a Critical Hit."

We know our Fighter friend should now be dealing double his/her damage die to his/her target because of this. But this is impossible if he/she missed, so it must be the case that they didn't miss. If a Critical Hit cannot miss, it must be the cast that it automatically hits.

If you wish to use the writing on p. 194 as evidence to the contrary, allow me to pull a technicality: Either the text does not come into the equation in the first place because it only addresses what happens in the event of a 1 or 20 (thus making is purposeless as a source that critical hits =/= automatic hits in our scenario) OR the entire thing is modified by the Champion's Class Features, making it an automatic hit anyway.


~-Conclusion-~

tl;dr

If you want to be pedantic about how the wording on p. 194 seems to indicate that Critical Hits aren't automatic hits, you must somehow overcome the non-intuitive language issue of how a "Critical Hit" is not a hit by both the book's definition of what constitutes what, and the natural inference in the terminology as well as proving that the wording is a meaningful source of what to do when we don't fall into its parameters in the first place.

By all accounts, a Critical Hit is an automatic hit. You have no reason to attempt to confuse other players by making them think otherwise. There may be future items, abilities, spells, class features, or other such things that imply you can have an automatic hit but not necessarily a critical hit or that any hit you make will be a critical hit (like in the "Paralyzed" Condition), but the features state quite clearly that you are rolling double your damage dice and there is no reason do so unless you have already hit.

[ProphetSword]

Ghost Nappa, thank you for taking all the points we have made in this thread (as well as some of your own) and combining them into a well-written argument. I somehow feel that those who cling to the idea that a critical hit is somehow not a hit will still find ways to render it invalid in their own minds. But hopefully anyone who comes to this thread looking for answers will find it in your post.

[Malifice]

Of course it is a critical hit but the phrase does not imply that there has to be a hit only that if you hit it is critical.

Also the rules do not imply this at all.

Page 194 says that "If the d20 roll for an attack is 20m the attack hits" it then states that it does this regardless of any modifiers or AC. It then says in a different sentence that "In addition, the attack is a critical hit,". Notice that this implies that the critical hit is actually separate from the auto hit of the natural 20 and that the natural 20 gives auto hit and then also does a critical hit.

Going by the text critical hit is not defined as auto hitting, only that the one instance of the auto hit also in addition gives out a critical hit. Also note that things like paralysis gives advantage on attack rolls and also gives critical hits but yet this means that yes by RAW (and in this case fully 100% intended) you can miss with a critical hit attack.

So yes I think your assertion is absurd.

The ability states that a natural 19 is always a critical hit. And you as a DM interpret that to tell me I missed.

How can a critical hit... miss?

[OracleofWuffing]

~-Analysis-~
It seems intuitively obvious to me that a Critical Hit based on the wording should be an auto-hit. But when you re-read "Rolling 1 or 20" on p. 194, the opposite appears to be no: the book's wording seems to indicate that there are two separate effects occuring at the same time: auto-hit and double damage. The only thing thing "Improved Critical" and "Superior Critical" seem to do is increase the interval at which you can do double damage. That is, neither feature comments on extending the interval of the auto-hit effect.

But here's the problem with that. The book does not have any commentary or terminology for the event where you would do double damage but miss.
Apologies for the brevity of the quotation.

May I ask for clarification of why that is a problem? As I understand it, the thought process which leads to the conclusion that critical hits do not automatically hit does not rely on there needing to be commentary or terminology for what happens on a missed critical hit. Your analysis relies strongly on this being a problem, and sure, it'll cause someone to roll for something that doesn't actually do anything, everyone will turn in to sentient bear-shaped pizza slices, or maybe the universe will grind to a halt while the mechanics figure something out, yeah, that kind of outcome isn't necessarily a good thing. However, those results do not appear to touch the premise of "Someone didn't give the automatic hit attribute to critical hits, only to natural 20s on attack rolls (which also result in a critical hit)."

If the thought process is logical (and you've outlined why it could initially be seen as such) but may lead to an unsolvable situation, that doesn't necessarily mean the thought process is suddenly illogical, it may just mean that the text doesn't give us information on how to solve a particular situation. It appears that those of the stance that Critical Hits do not Automatically Hit generally would provide a personal ruling contrary to their stance. If they're fine ruling against the text, they are unlikely to have a problem stating that the text is insufficient or leads to an absurd situation.

[Talderas]

By all accounts, a Critical Hit is an automatic hit. You have no reason to attempt to confuse other players by making them think otherwise. There may be future items, abilities, spells, class features, or other such things that imply you can have an automatic hit but not necessarily a critical hit or that any hit you make will be a critical hit (like in the "Paralyzed" Condition), but the features state quite clearly that you are rolling double your damage dice and there is no reason do so unless you have already hit.

The problem with your conclusion is the page 194 and 196 rules governing making an attack. It is a multi-step process so the more specific rule applies to steps where it is applicable. Critical hits, per pg196, are a function of damage rolls. When you get or score a critical hit you double your damage dice. Damage is not rolled until after you have resolved the attack.

All Champion does is expand the conditions under which someone can score a critical hit from (natural 20 & against a paralyzed foe) to (natural 18-20 & against a paralyzed foe). The auto-hit on a 20 is a rule governing the "is this a hit?" segment of resolving the entire attack. To suggest that an 18 and 19 also auto-hit is to affirm the consequent.

Also note that there is absolutely nothing wrong with having a critical hit on a miss. The critical hit modifier just doubles your damage dice which there are none if you fail to hit.

A lot of the irritation over this outcome I believe stems from the fact that the situation under which it arises comes from one of the known weaker archetypes in the game along with the very natural desire to see things in their most powerful light wherever possible.

[Myzz]

I think I have changed my position on critical hits being auto hits thanks to this thread...

Originally I was in the camp that critical hits were indeed per RAW auto hits.

I now think that RAW does not in fact state that Critical Hits are Auto Hits. Per RAW only a roll of 20 is an auto hit.

BUT, A critical Hit does indeed do double damage regardless of weather it hits or not. So if a roll of a 19 misses the AC of the target it is a miss that does double damage per RAW! In fact there is no other way to read RAW, any other reading is adding words or omitting words from statements.

[Vogonjeltz]

The problem with your conclusion is the page 194 and 196 rules governing making an attack. It is a multi-step process so the more specific rule applies to steps where it is applicable. Critical hits, per pg196, are a function of damage rolls. When you get or score a critical hit you double your damage dice. Damage is not rolled until after you have resolved the attack.

All Champion does is expand the conditions under which someone can score a critical hit from (natural 20 & against a paralyzed foe) to (natural 18-20 & against a paralyzed foe). The auto-hit on a 20 is a rule governing the "is this a hit?" segment of resolving the entire attack. To suggest that an 18 and 19 also auto-hit is to affirm the consequent.

Also note that there is absolutely nothing wrong with having a critical hit on a miss. The critical hit modifier just doubles your damage dice which there are none if you fail to hit.

A lot of the irritation over this outcome I believe stems from the fact that the situation under which it arises comes from one of the known weaker archetypes in the game along with the very natural desire to see things in their most powerful light wherever possible.

For my own part the irritation stems from the fact that the designers have outright said what the intent is, and it's patently obvious that it is a hit from the words "critical hit", all of which serves to indicate that those saying otherwise are trying their best to create a misunderstanding.

[Baroknik]

I think I have changed my position on critical hits being auto hits thanks to this thread...

Originally I was in the camp that critical hits were indeed per RAW auto hits.

I now think that RAW does not in fact state that Critical Hits are Auto Hits. Per RAW only a roll of 20 is an auto hit.

BUT, A critical Hit does indeed do double damage regardless of weather it hits or not. So if a roll of a 19 misses the AC of the target it is a miss that does double damage per RAW! In fact there is no other way to read RAW, any other reading is adding words or omitting words from statements.

No problem with that interpretation though, since 2x 0 = 0...

[ProphetSword]

A critical hit is a hit.

Remember when you were watching baseball game and the announcer said:
"Looks like Johnson got a nice solid hit! Too bad he missed the ball completely!"

Me neither.

[Baroknik]

A critical hit is a hit.

Remember when you were watching baseball game and the announcer said:
"Looks like Johnson got a nice solid hit! Too bad he missed the ball completely!"

Me neither.

Remember whenever you parked on a parkway and drove on a driveway?

Me neither.

Possibly a better example is thinking of the phrase "near-miss" which is not a hit, but still a miss.

Just because a term/phrase has the word "hit" in it does not mean that it is the same as the normal usage of the term "hit."

As was mentioned earlier the term "critical hit" in a RAW sense really cannot be decomposed into two separate meanings, since there is no sourced definition of what "critical" does in game terms, only what a "critical hit" does.

Note that nowhere under the heading for this token "critical hit" do the mechanics say that it is an automatic hit. Though it does tend to occur on the same triggering conditions as an automatic hit (rolling a natural 20).

Let's do this with symbolic logic.

A: An attack Roll turns up as a natural 20
B: A critical hit is scored
C: The attack automatically hits the target
D: a natural 19 is rolled on the attack roll
E: a natural 18 is rolled on the attack roll

Normal (non-expanded crit range):
If B, then A
If A, then C
B -> A -> C

Expanded threat range:
If B, then AvDvE
If A, then C
B->AvDvE

[Chronos]

So your argument that critical hits can miss is just that one possible argument for saying they're hits is fallacious, therefore every argument that says they're hits is fallacious.

No, natural 20s being both crits and auto-hits does not imply that all crits are hits. But nobody's arguing that. You're not demolishing anyone's argument by pointing that out. What we're arguing is that a critical hit is a kind of hit by the rules of grammar, and that the rules for the game say that a critical hit does damage. If you want to argue the opposite point, address that argument, instead of an argument that nobody's making.

[Knaight]

Remember whenever you parked on a parkway and drove on a driveway?

Me neither.

Actual compound words are a completely different case than a phrase composed of an adjective and a noun. While compound words routinely have meanings other than their components (parkway, driveway, pancake), something like "big house" or "red car" or "sharp sword" or "resonance energy" is employed to define a subset of the noun. In the above examples, it's the subset of houses which are large, cars which are red, swords which are sharp, and energies tied up in the stabilizing effect of delocalized electrons in a chemical compound.

The argument that critical hit is a specific game term that skirts away from the normal definition is one thing; that we have precedence for. The word "feat" comes to mind as a particularly notable case here. The argument that adjective-noun pairs work a particular way in the language the rules are written of because of compound words? Less convincing.

[Myzz]

No problem with that interpretation though, since 2x 0 = 0...

Maybe I should have included the actual statement (again) from pg 196 concerning what to do with a critical hit:


"When you score a critical hit, you get to roll extra dice for the attack's damage against the target. Roll all of the attack's damage dice twice and add them together. Then add any relevant modifiers as normal. To speed up play, you can roll all of the damage die at once.
For example, if you score a critical hit with a dagger, roll 2d4 for the damage, rather than 1d4, and then add your relevant ability modifier. If the attack involves other damage dice, such as from the Rogue's Sneak Attack feature, you roll those dice twice as well."

My bad I thought we had moved passed what critical hit damage wording looked like.

So to be as specific as possible on what I "think" RAW states is:

Roll 19 on an attack as a Champion level 3 or greater, if attack would hit target "Roll all of the attack's damage dice twice and add them together. Then add any relevant modifiers as normal".

Roll 19 on an attack as a Champion level 3 or greater, if attack would miss target "Roll all of the attack's damage dice twice and add them together. Then add any relevant modifiers as normal"

Hit or Miss is irrelevant since you still "Roll all of the attack's damage dice twice and add them together. Then add any relevant modifiers as normal"

0 (from miss) + "Roll all of the attack's damage dice twice and add them together. Then add any relevant modifiers as normal" (from critical hit) = essentially a hit

From RAW it doesn't matter if the attack hits or misses on 19 or 18 at the applicable levels because you "Roll all of the attack's damage dice twice and add them together. Then add any relevant modifiers as normal" when you achieve natural rolls of 19 or 18...

so call it a miss if you like but it still does "Roll all of the attack's damage dice twice and add them together. Then add any relevant modifiers as normal".

Or call it an auto hit, it doesnt really matter since it states what a natural roll of 19 and then 18 do... It however, never states anywhere that you should compare that roll to targets AC, you can if you want to follow combat rules, but it still requires that you "Roll all of the attack's damage dice twice and add them together. Then add any relevant modifiers as normal" - I'm not a math genius, but I am fairly certain that adding that many dice rolls and relevant modifiers will never actually equal 0.

[Easy_Lee]

Just to restate, Crawford said that one could theoretically increase threat range without getting automatic hits on crits, but the champion is intended to auto-hit on crits.

If we look at the champion's other features, and the general nature of the subclass as the superior fighter, then this makes perfect sense. Further, it's not enough of a balance concern to merit too much debate; as myself and others have shown, an 18 is going to hit the vast majority of the time. And finally, it's much simpler and more fun for the player to just treat the crits as hits.

I do love how this thread has derailed as far as parkways and driveways, though. Stay classy, GitPG.

[ProphetSword]

Hit or Miss is irrelevant since you still "Roll all of the attack's damage dice twice and add them together. Then add any relevant modifiers as normal"


So, what you're saying is that by RAW this is what would happen:

Champion with 18 Strength and a +1 long sword rolls a 19. Due to the monster having full cover, he manages to not meet the armor class number (which we will pretend is 26, just to make the example work).

He then rolls all attack damage twice (0) and ends up with 0. He then adds all relevant modifiers (+5) as normal.

So, the math works out like this: (0 x 2) (dice) + 4 (strength) + 1 (sword) = 5

Total damage: 5 points.


Then, by RAW, there is also this statement:

"When you score a critical hit, you get to roll extra dice"

Definition of "extra" - In addition to, more than usual. The number cannot be 0, since that would not qualify as "more than usual."

So, now it's 1D8 + 5 on a 19 when they miss; because the word extra means that they get to roll an additional die.

I'm dying for someone to come along now and explain this by RAW.

[Myzz]

So, what you're saying is that by RAW this is what would happen:

Champion with 18 Strength and a + 1 long sword rolls a 19. Due to the monster having full cover, he manages to not meet the armor class number (which we will pretend is 26, just to make the example work).

He then rolls all attack damage twice (0) and ends up with 0. He then adds all relevant modifiers (+5) as normal.

So, the math works out like this: (0 x 2) (dice) + 4 (strength) + 1 (sword) = 5

Total damage: 5 points.


Then, by RAW, there is also this statement:

"When you score a critical hit, you get to roll extra dice"

Definition of "extra" - In addition to, more than usual.

So, we could also say that they get to roll that additional die. So, now it's 1D8 + 5 on a 19 when they miss.

I'm dying for someone to come along now and dispute RAW...

none of my dice have zeroes on them... If yours do I suggest getting different dice! (exception = my D10, where the zero really means 10).

AND where is the statement extra dice? Not on page 196... which is where you should be looking.

[ProphetSword]

AND where is the statement extra dice? Not on page 196... which is where you should be looking.

You better look again.

Also, I'm essentially agreeing with you that it will never equal 0 due to the way it's worded.

[Baroknik]

Actual compound words are a completely different case than a phrase composed of an adjective and a noun. While compound words routinely have meanings other than their components (parkway, driveway, pancake), something like "big house" or "red car" or "sharp sword" or "resonance energy" is employed to define a subset of the noun. In the above examples, it's the subset of houses which are large, cars which are red, swords which are sharp, and energies tied up in the stabilizing effect of delocalized electrons in a chemical compound.

The argument that critical hit is a specific game term that skirts away from the normal definition is one thing; that we have precedence for. The word "feat" comes to mind as a particularly notable case here. The argument that adjective-noun pairs work a particular way in the language the rules are written of because of compound words? Less convincing.

Just as a point of grammar, many compound words appear to be adjective-nouns, such as science fiction, school bus, etc.. These are still considered a single (but compound) word, and are called open compound words (open because they contain spaces in them).

Treating the token "critical hit" in this way means that it is not an argument of adj-noun pairs working differently, but of a defined class of nouns working as game terms (note that you may or may not accept "critical hit" as a compound word).

[Knaight]

Just as a point of grammar, many compound words appear to be adjective-nouns, such as science fiction, school bus, etc.. These are still considered a single (but compound) word, and are called open compound words (open because they contain spaces in them).

Sure, but science fiction is a type of fiction, a school bus is a type of bus, so on and so forth. Open compound words tend to fit into that niche, rather than something like "driveway" or "pancake" which is a distinct entity not of the class of the defined noun.

[Baroknik]

Sure, but science fiction is a type of fiction, a school bus is a type of bus, so on and so forth. Open compound words tend to fit into that niche, rather than something like "driveway" or "pancake" which is a distinct entity not of the class of the defined noun.

While that form is true, open compound words are generally defined as nouns. Regardless, taking multiple words as a single token is really not uncommon, especially whenever game design is concerned.

That being said, I have no problem with it being open to grammatical interpretation, but the idea of it being impossible to read as a critical never missing seems a farce to me. We can debate the semantics of it, which is important, but once either side flat rejects the existence of the other's interpretation, the conversation is moot.

[Yakk]

If the rule state "20 is an automatic hit", this in no way shape or form implies that a roll of 19 or less is not a hit, or even an automatic hit.

A sentence that states "A implies B" does not mean "Not A implies not B" outside of some legalistic structures. And 5e is not written as a code of laws.

"20 is an automatic hit" does not mean "and critical hits can miss unless they are 20s". It doesn't mean the opposite either. Anyone who uses "20 is an automatic hit" to justify "critical hits are not hits" is bending the rules into a statement it did not make.

Stating that "if critical hits are hits, then the 20 is an automatic hit sentence is redundant" is irrelevant. Redundant text, especially in a conversational-style rulebook like 5e, should be expected, and is not interesting evidence, let alone conclusive evidence.

There are rulebooks that are intended to be read that way, where adding a sentence that particularly highlights a subcase implies that the highlight is exclusive to that subcase. Projecting that on 5e is a RAI reading of the rules -- interpreting the clauses to say more than they say -- not a RAW one.

In a conversational style rulebook like 5e, it would take a large amount of evidence against it for a "critical hit" to not be a kind of "hit". Such evidence can exist, but I haven't seen anything of that scale presented in this thread.

[PeterM]

Remember whenever you parked on a parkway and drove on a driveway?

Me neither.

Then how do you get your car out of the driveway?

[Gwendol]

For my own part the irritation stems from the fact that the designers have outright said what the intent is, and it's patently obvious that it is a hit from the words "critical hit", all of which serves to indicate that those saying otherwise are trying their best to create a misunderstanding.

Yup, that pretty much sums it up nicely. That and perhaps a desire to carry over the "critical threat" rules from earlier editions. In 5e critical threats are all hits, thus expanding the threat range automatically increases the auto-hit range as well, since the two are the same.

[JAL_1138]

Possibly a better example is thinking of the phrase "near-miss" which is not a hit, but still a miss.


Tangential to the thread: This argument always bugs me. Near is referring to distance in this expression. E.g., "that snowball that missed me passed so near to my head that I heard it whizz past." Near as in "synonym of close; the opposite of far," not near as in "nearly; almost." It was a near (close physical proximity) miss rather than the never-used-expression a far (considerable distance away) miss, or a wide miss.

[Knaight]

Tangential to the thread: This argument always bugs me. Near is referring to distance in this expression. E.g., "that snowball that missed me passed so near to my head that I heard it whizz past." Near as in "synonym of close; the opposite of far," not near as in "nearly; almost." It was a near (close physical proximity) miss rather than the never-used-expression a far (considerable distance away) miss, or a wide miss.

There is the phrase "missed by a mile" though for the essential opposite, in which the miss was so bad that the sheer extent to which the aim involved was terrible is worth observing.

[JAL_1138]

There is the phrase "missed by a mile" though for the essential opposite, in which the miss was so bad that the sheer extent to which the aim involved was terrible is worth observing.

Aye. Wanted to be as clear as possible on "near" as distance opposite "far", though. That said, I believe Maxwell Smart gives the true idiomatic opposite of "missed by a mile": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBlhrTpi69E :smalltongue:

[ProphetSword]

Possibly a better example is thinking of the phrase "near-miss" which is not a hit, but still a miss.


Or is it?

I think George Carlin said it best when he said:

“Here's a phrase that apparently the airlines simply made up: near-miss. They say that if 2 planes almost collide, it's a near-miss. Bulls*&!, my friend. It's a near-hit! A collision is a near-miss!
[WHAM! CRUNCH!]
"Look, they nearly missed!"
"Yes, but not quite.”

[eastmabl]

This is why I like Chevron deference in administrative law.

Is there an ambiguity in the statute? Defer to the administrative agency's reasonable interpretation in its regulations. Here, the rules are ambiguous, so we should defer to the reasonable interpretation of Mearls/Crawford. A roll which results in a critical hit is always a hit, regardless of AC - tarrasques in three quarter's cover be damned!

(And for anyone who says that there is no ambiguity - the proof that we've argued for three pages is evidence of ambiguity in the rule).

[JAL_1138]

This is why I like Chevron deference in administrative law.

Is there an ambiguity in the statute? Defer to the administrative agency's reasonable interpretation in its regulations. Here, the rules are ambiguous, so we should defer to the reasonable interpretation of Mearls/Crawford. A roll which results in a critical hit is always a hit, regardless of AC - tarrasques in three quarter's cover be damned!

(And for anyone who says that there is no ambiguity - the proof that we've argued for three pages is evidence of ambiguity in the rule).

Thank you! Chevron deference is pretty much the perfect summary of how to use dev tweets.

It runs counter to basic contract principle, where any ambiguity is construed against the drafter, and the rule of lenity in criminal law, so as a legal rule I don't much like it...but it makes perfect sense for looking at the game rules when the writers are saying "this is what we meant."

Edit: Of course, anyone is free to ignore the devs, or even the printed rules, in their own game.

[ProphetSword]

I still want someone to answer how, by RAW, when you "score a critical hit" you roll extra dice. Then you add all modifiers.

By definition, extra means more than the usual amount. The number of dice you roll cannot be 0 if you are rolling extra dice.

Then you add all modifiers.

In the end, even if you don't count a critical hit as a hit, when you "score a critical hit" (according to page 196), you still roll an extra die. Then you add your modifiers. Meaning you do damage on a miss.

I addressed this above but no one who is claiming that a Critical Hit is not a hit has addressed this. Here is the RAW:

PHB, Page 76:
IMPROVED CRITICAL
Beginning when you choose this archetype at 3rd level, your weapon attacks score a critical hit on a roll of 19 or 20.

PHB, Page 196:
CRITICAL HITS
When you score a critical hit, you get to roll extra dice for the attack's damage against the target. Roll all of the attack's damage dice twice and add them together. Then add any relevant modifiers as normal.

This means a warrior with a +4 Strength modifier and a +1 Long Sword who misses an armor class (possibly due to cover), would still do damage. Even if no dice rolls are allowed (which is odd being as it allows for an extra die), the rules say you then add modifiers.

With no dice, the damage would be:

0 + 5 = 5

So, even if you count it as a miss, the warrior does 5 damage. It's right there in the rules.

PHB, Page 196:
DAMAGE ROLLS:
Each weapon. spell. and harmful monster ability specifies the damage it deals. You roll the damage die or dice, add any modifiers, and apply the damage to your target.

The rules specify that when you do damage, you roll the damage dice. Critical Hits, also on page 196, specifies that you roll extra damage dice. It doesn't seem to be concerned with whether it's an auto-hit or not, as it specifies that you do damage. It doesn't say "if you hit," it says you do damage. And the Damage Rolls section also doesn't specify that those conditions happen "if you hit."

The argument that Critical Hits aren't hits makes no difference. According to RAW, you do damage, and extra damage. Then you add modifiers.