Can you use a Bard's cutting words to prevent a crit?

[Douche]

If a bard uses an inspiration die against an enemy who just rolled a 20, does that make it not a crit?

Or if a target was affected by Bane, would they be simply unable to crit?

[Boci]

No, penalties don't change the number on the dice face you rolled, merely what you add or subtract to it. 1d20+5 and 1d20+(5-1d6) both have the same chance of critting.

[lebefrei]

Adding and subtracting to the number rolled does not change the roll, it applies a modifier and potentially changes the result. Otherwise, a character with a negative score could never get critical hits.

[Douche]

Adding and subtracting to the number rolled does not change the roll, it applies a modifier and potentially changes the result. Otherwise, a character with a negative score could never get critical hits.

What if, then, the cutting words caused the attack to fall below my AC?

Lets say I have AC 21. Monster rolls a 20 with +2 strength, for a total of 22. Cutting words rolls a 6, reducing it to 16. Does it still hit?

[Boci]

What if, then, the cutting words caused the attack to fall below my AC?

Lets say I have AC 21. Monster rolls a 20 with +2 strength, for a total of 22. Cutting words rolls a 6, reducing it to 16. Does it still hit?

Yes because a natural 20 always hits. Previous editions would turn a crit into a regular hit if the total attack result on a roll of 20 was less than the targets AC, but 5th ed seems to have removed that.

So don't use cutting words on an attack roll of 20, it will still crit you.

[Citan]

Yes because a natural 20 always hits. Previous editions would turn a crit into a regular hit if the total attack result on a roll of 20 was less than the targets AC, but 5th ed seems to have removed that.

So don't use cutting words on an attack roll of 20, it will still crit you.
Would it be bad though (in terms of balance) if the DM used this as a houserule (critical hit becomes regular)?

I would be tempted to use it in my games, seems not overpowered but very flavorful...
"The assassin launches a powerful thrust with his shortsword. *rolls a 20* The blade is aimed at Rick's neck who seems doomed. *Bard: reaction!* Fortunately, Jack, that was somehow expecting this, instantly utters words and make hand moves in such a threatening and powerful way that the assassin slightly loses focus and arm strength. As a result, the shortsword misses the throat by a few inches and instead plunges deeply into Rick's shoulder, dealing *rolls damage* 24 damage. As intense pain expands, Rick grits his teeth. It hurts as hell, but at least he's still alive... For now."

[bardo]

So don't use cutting words on an attack roll of 20, it will still crit you.

Like with most reactions, the Bard needs to use Cutting Words *before* knowing the result.

"You can choose to use this feature after the creature makes its roll, but before the DM determines whether the attack roll or ability check succeeds or fails, or before the creature deals its damage."

The way it's written kind of assumes the DM is rolling behind a screen. DMs who roll in the open might need to do it a bit differently. The ogre prepares to attack Jim... Pause... Roll... A crit! Jim dies. The Bard has a chance to jump in during the pause and say Cutting Words. At any rate, the intent is clear. The player doesn't know if it's a hit or a miss before deciding to use Cutting Words, and "don't do it on a 20" isn't something that's under the player's control.

On OP's question. A natural 20 on attack roll is always a crit. Also applies to spells.

Bardo.

[Citan]

Like with most reactions, the Bard needs to use Cutting Words *before* knowing the result.

"You can choose to use this feature after the creature makes its roll, but before the DM determines whether the attack roll or ability check succeeds or fails, or before the creature deals its damage."

The way it's written kind of assumes the DM is rolling behind a screen. DMs who roll in the open might need to do it a bit differently. The ogre prepares to attack Jim... Pause... Roll... A crit! Jim dies. The Bard has a chance to jump in during the pause and say Cutting Words. At any rate, the intent is clear. The player doesn't know if it's a hit or a miss before deciding to use Cutting Words, and "don't do it on a 20" isn't something that's under the player's control.

Disagree here. I don't think it's assumed that (whether DM is rolling behind a screen or other mean) the DM never tells the roll to the players.

In fact it's quite the opposite: many features allows players to intervene on an enemy roll: how could they evaluate the potential of using this feature if they don't know the result of the roll? It would basically tell them to decide on sheer luck or intuition when to try and use it.

If you try to actually imagine the scene, it would be telling the Bard to blind himself while the enemy attacks: because otherwise, he could see very well from the start of the attack if it has a decent chance to hit.

Also, it's only fair imo that the DM gives (in most cases) the result of the roll since players do the same on their side. The result of the roll does not give away by itself the result of the action (since modifiers are not yet applied) nor the true ability of the enemy (since only DM knows modifiers).
But it gives a clear enough hint for players to decide if it's worth spending the resource (20? "It will be a crit anyway". 5? "It's probable the attack will miss, I won't react").

Sure, indeed, attentive players may guess after a few turns what power level their enemy has if they take the time to track and memorize whichever rolls landed hits. Seems fair enough to me (and prevent the temptation of Monster Manual munchkinism ;)).

By the way, your example is plain contradictory with the letter of the PHB.
It would rather be...
"The ogre prepares to attack Jim... Roll... PAUSE... A crit! Jim dies."

[tieren]

Like with most reactions, the Bard needs to use Cutting Words *before* knowing the result.

"You can choose to use this feature after the creature makes its roll, but before the DM determines whether the attack roll or ability check succeeds or fails, or before the creature deals its damage."

The way it's written kind of assumes the DM is rolling behind a screen. DMs who roll in the open might need to do it a bit differently. The ogre prepares to attack Jim... Pause... Roll... A crit! Jim dies. The Bard has a chance to jump in during the pause and say Cutting Words. At any rate, the intent is clear. The player doesn't know if it's a hit or a miss before deciding to use Cutting Words, and "don't do it on a 20" isn't something that's under the player's control.

On OP's question. A natural 20 on attack roll is always a crit. Also applies to spells.

Bardo.

I respectfully disagree with your assertion the way it is written suggests the player doesn't know the DM's roll. I think the exact opposite, that the DM rolls, the bard looks at it to decide if a cutting words is appropo and acts accordingly. If the player wasn't meant to know the result of the DM's roll there would be no point in making the decision after such roll.

In my view the player is supposed to look at it and say "hmmm, DM rolled a 15, I'm not sure what the +to hit is but hes only wearing light armor so maybe I should use cutting words now", instead of "I'm feeling like this might be a good use of my limited resource even though I have no information one way or another to decide that".

edit: ninja'd by concurring opinion

[Theodoxus]

Disagree here. I don't think it's assumed that (whether DM is rolling behind a screen or other mean) the DM never tells the roll to the players.

In fact it's quite the opposite: many features allows players to intervene on an enemy roll: how could they evaluate the potential of using this feature if they don't know the result of the roll? It would basically tell them to decide on sheer luck or intuition when to try and use it.

If you try to actually imagine the scene, it would be telling the Bard to blind himself while the enemy attacks: because otherwise, he could see very well from the start of the attack if it has a decent chance to hit.

Also, it's only fair imo that the DM gives (in most cases) the result of the roll since players do the same on their side. The result of the roll does not give away by itself the result of the action (since modifiers are not yet applied) nor the true ability of the enemy (since only DM knows modifiers).
But it gives a clear enough hint for players to decide if it's worth spending the resource (20? "It will be a crit anyway". 5? "It's probable the attack will miss, I won't react").

Sure, indeed, attentive players may guess after a few turns what power level their enemy has if they take the time to track and memorize whichever rolls landed hits. Seems fair enough to me (and prevent the temptation of Monster Manual munchkinism ;)).

By the way, your example is plain contradictory with the letter of the PHB.
It would rather be...
"The ogre prepares to attack Jim... Roll... PAUSE... A crit! Jim dies."

The way I run these scenarios, is I let the players see the die roll, but unless the combat has been going for a while and they've sussed out the total To Hit, it's still a guess as to whether to use a reaction to modify the results (provided the die roll is in the teens...)

[lebefrei]

Dice rolls are only representations of the action.

A bard watches, alert, as the Ogre grins, seeing an opening. The fighter is hurt and the bard knows that the fighter can't handle another a powerful blow. As its club swings close, looking likely to hit, the bard reacts and throws a cutting insult. The Ogre is distracted and his blow goes wide, barely missing.

So, of course the bard must have some idea of the roll. They are, after all, a participant of this fight and seeing it occur. They can't wait until it hits if they want to deflect it (then they must reduce damage), but they should have an idea that it may or may not hit! The above saw a good attack (roll) and used cutting words before it hit. They didn't know for sure if it would, but seeing the attack (roll) being made gave them an idea.

D&D should never just be dice rolls. You must picture the mechanics in action.

[GAA]

Yes because a natural 20 always hits. Previous editions would turn a crit into a regular hit if the total attack result on a roll of 20 was less than the targets AC, but 5th ed seems to have removed that.

Not exactly, you're prolly thinking of 3e or pathfinder, which you roll a confirmation roll for criticals. In that case, a 20 Still auto hits and you don't have to calculate. 2e had this rule which was different criticals entirely,

"You roll your attack roll, if it's an 18,19 or 20 and you clear the AC by 4, you crit once, so you double the amount of damage die you roll, if you clear by 8 you triple it and if you clear by 12 you times the amount of damage die by 4.

The opponent then rolls a save vs death(Something unique to 2nd Edition) and if he fails, you roll X for severity, and X for location, depending on the weapon size/ type of monster(Humanoid, Animal, whatever). The severity can be anything from 1d2 damage every 10 turns to losing an arm. "

which is interesting

[coredump]

They did a pretty good job so all the rules still work regardless of the DM rolls being hidden or open.

[Ashrym]

Not exactly, you're prolly thinking of 3e or pathfinder, which you roll a confirmation roll for criticals. In that case, a 20 Still auto hits and you don't have to calculate. 2e had this rule which was different criticals entirely,

Here is the actual rule for reference.

"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. "

The rule for cutting words is after the roll and before the results. It's up to the DM to determine the bard's perception whether the use of the ability is appropriate or not, as well as up to the DM to determine whether he or she is hiding rolls behind a screen. We roll in the open in our games for simplicity, apply relevant mechanics, and describe the results.

No matter how a person looks at modifications to rolls, it's clearly stated that a natural 20 is automatically a hit and a critical.

[JeffreyGator]

We actually would have let this happen in our game the other night - except that it was a Zombie that had critically hit my bard and zombies are immune to charm spells.

Fortunately the zombies all ran away from the thunderwaving bard after the cleric turned them before they could kill my bard off.

[Douche]

I believe the whole "Before you know the result" would moreso apply to skill checks when it comes to Bardic Inspiration. If you roll a 15 (after modifiers) to picking a lock, the DC might be 20. But you wouldn't know that ahead of time. You may think you have a decent chance to pick the lock, but you may also decide that you need a little help on top of that and use your bardic inspiration.

When it comes to monsters attacking you, it's much muddier waters. First off, a DM is usually trying to keep combat moving quick, and thus wouldn't be asking the bard every turn if he's going to use cutting words. So, can you blame the bard for saying "No wait! Cutting words" after the DM says it's a hit? On top of that, somebody making a hit is much more easily determined than a skill check. You know the exact DC every time, it's not up to the DMs whims. Someone has 18 AC, the DM says "16 to hit?" then the bard knows he doesn't need to bother using his bardic inspiration. There's a lot of ways to handle that situation, but none of them really seems ideal

[joaber]

PHB page 194: "If the d20 roll for an attack is a 20, the attack hits regardless of any modifiers ar the target's AC."

Jeremy Crawford in a old, unfortunate, twitter post said was possible. Apparently he corrected himself:

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/02/05/can-i-cancel-a-natural-20-critical-hit-using-cutting-words/

[Dimolyth]

Well in 5e there is a way to prevent a critical hit. Just find the way to make your enemies attack with disadvantage.

[dnd2016]

Can I use cutting words on a turn if I have already given out bardic inspiration to an ally, but he hasn't used it yet?

[Idkwhatmyscreen]

Would it be bad though (in terms of balance) if the DM used this as a houserule (critical hit becomes regular)?

I would be tempted to use it in my games, seems not overpowered but very flavorful...
"The assassin launches a powerful thrust with his shortsword. *rolls a 20* The blade is aimed at Rick's neck who seems doomed. *Bard: reaction!* Fortunately, Jack, that was somehow expecting this, instantly utters words and make hand moves in such a threatening and powerful way that the assassin slightly loses focus and arm strength. As a result, the shortsword misses the throat by a few inches and instead plunges deeply into Rick's shoulder, dealing *rolls damage* 24 damage. As intense pain expands, Rick grits his teeth. It hurts as hell, but at least he's still alive... For now."

For sake of balance any change to combat must affect both sides, so if monsters can't crit when below target AC, neither can players. Most of the time this won't matter since monsters tend to have crap ac and more hit points, but when it does it will make that player salty.

[BiPolar]

Can I use cutting words on a turn if I have already given out bardic inspiration to an ally, but he hasn't used it yet?

Yes, and you can even use Cutting Words if they HAVE used it. Cutting Words is a reaction, Bardic Inspiration die distribution is a Bonus Action.

[Quoxis]

Well in 5e there is a way to prevent a critical hit. Just find the way to make your enemies attack with disadvantage.

Doesn't prevent 100% of crits, they might roll a second 20 (as unlikely as that seems).

[BiPolar]

Doesn't prevent 100% of crits, they might roll a second 20 (as unlikely as that seems).

Or wear adamantine armor.

[NNescio]

If a bard uses an inspiration die against an enemy who just rolled a 20, does that make it not a crit?

Or if a target was affected by Bane, would they be simply unable to crit?

A Nat 20 (and Nat 19 for Champions) is a crit, doesn't matter what the final roll is, it still hits. Eldritch Knights with 25 AC (18 plate + 2 shield + 5 Shield spell) still get critted by a Nat 20 from a goblin (+4 to attack), despite the combined roll being 24. Similarly, a Nat 20 still crits no matter what the Bard does to tank the roll.

Main exception is if the attacker hits the wrong target, like a mirror image duplicate. Still technically a crit though -- it just hit the wrong target.

[Rysto]

Well in 5e there is a way to prevent a critical hit. Just find the way to make your enemies attack with disadvantage.

You can't retroactively impose disadvantage on a roll, though. No, not even with the Light Cleric's Warding Flare ability. Cancelling a crit with disadvantage is just pure luck. The Lucky feat, of course, could do it by making them re-roll the d20.

[Ruslan]

Would it be bad though (in terms of balance) if the DM used this as a houserule (critical hit becomes regular)?

I would be tempted to use it in my games, seems not overpowered but very flavorful...
"The assassin launches a powerful thrust with his shortsword. *rolls a 20* The blade is aimed at Rick's neck who seems doomed. *Bard: reaction!* Fortunately, Jack, that was somehow expecting this, instantly utters words and make hand moves in such a threatening and powerful way that the assassin slightly loses focus and arm strength. As a result, the shortsword misses the throat by a few inches and instead plunges deeply into Rick's shoulder, dealing *rolls damage* 24 damage. As intense pain expands, Rick grits his teeth. It hurts as hell, but at least he's still alive... For now."
I advise against it, it makes martials slightly worse and magic slightly better.

[Flashy]

We actually would have let this happen in our game the other night - except that it was a Zombie that had critically hit my bard and zombies are immune to charm spells.

Fortunately the zombies all ran away from the thunderwaving bard after the cleric turned them before they could kill my bard off.

Zombies are not immune to charm, enchantment, or anything but the poisoned condition in 5e. Specific charm spells and effects will tell you whether or not they work on the undead, but zombies aren't generically immune to charm anymore. Cutting Words definitely works on them.

[Citan]

For sake of balance any change to combat must affect both sides, so if monsters can't crit when below target AC, neither can players. Most of the time this won't matter since monsters tend to have crap ac and more hit points, but when it does it will make that player salty.
As a reminder, I was talking about using Cutting Words. So except for Bard enemy NPC, I don't see how that could affect both sides. ;)


I advise against it, it makes martials slightly worse and magic slightly better.
I'm sorry but I don't see why. I wasn't talking about removing crit in general, just making Cutting Words change a crit into a normal hit. Confer above: this is a plain boost to players against their enemies, but would not affect player's martial damage. Unless of course I put enemy Bards among ranks (which I would probably do once in a while, but still not often).

[Ruslan]

I'm sorry but I don't see why.Because it gives a magic-based PC yet another ability that a mundane-based PC does not have. A small ability, admittedly, but still. Magic, IMO, can already solve enough problems in D&D, and we don't need to add more things to the "can be solved by magic" list.

[Elite Hatter]

The ability itself says "subtract from the creatures roll" I would rule that it does it before modifier is added. I mean Bards are, let's be honest, a Support class focused on control. Plus its a limited resource. At level 3 you have 3 uses per long rest. And even at 6 it'd be 4 uses per short rest. Assuming you bump Cha and not another stat or take a feat.

I DM for my group, and we've always assumed Bardic Inspiration was intended as a major middle finger to monsters and npc's. That's just us though, and we have fun.

[BiPolar]

PHB page 194: "If the d20 roll for an attack is a 20, the attack hits regardless of any modifiers ar the target's AC."

Jeremy Crawford in a old, unfortunate, twitter post said was possible. Apparently he corrected himself:

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/02/05/can-i-cancel-a-natural-20-critical-hit-using-cutting-words/

This thread was kinda necroed, so in case folks didn't see this post...

[KnotaGuru]

You can't use cutting words to negate the critical hit, but you can use cutting words to alter the damage roll. This could negate the damage depending on rolls and modifiers.

[Citan]

Because it gives a magic-based PC yet another ability that a mundane-based PC does not have. A small ability, admittedly, but still. Magic, IMO, can already solve enough problems in D&D, and we don't need to add more things to the "can be solved by magic" list.

Aaaah ok, it was in that view that you said that. Ok, fair point. :)

You can't use cutting words to negate the critical hit, but you can use cutting words to alter the damage roll. This could negate the damage depending on rolls and modifiers.
Oh, very good point. Totally forgot about this possibility.:smalltongue: