RAW ruling: Cutting Words on a Critical Hit.

[KOLE]

I’m DMing for an amazing group, love the characters, love the players, no complaints. Party is level 3, 5 PCs total. No munchkin shenanigans, but they’re decently optimized and chew through most CR appropriate encounters, even using Kobold Fight Club to adjust for the 5th member.

With all that said, I was on fire with my rolls tonight. I roll in the open, as when I’m on the player side, a DM fudging rolls, even when its in my favor, really cheapens the experience for me. Three Dire Wolves surprised the party after rolling fair stealth rolls vs passive perception. I got crits, hit more than I had any right to, and consistently rolled 5s and 6s on their 2d6 bite attack. It was a rough encounter for the party, but thankfully last encounter of the day.

Two wolves left, low hp, almost definitelt going down next round, their turns up. They’re surrounded and can only get pack tactics on one character so naturally they focus on him. One hit, max damage, Ranger’s barely on his feet. Second hit... Critical.

Panic hit me; this could be it for our Copper Dragonborn. I do some quick math and realize his odds aint great. Cringe as I pick up 4d6...

Lore Bard: “I use cutting words!” Oh thank God. He only rolled two but I ruled this cancelled the critical. The Ranger still went down, but not out. Pally strikes down the wolf with great fervor and Warlock crits an EB to take out the last one. Pally brings the Ranger back up and they settle into camp as the sun sets. Party breathes a sigh of relief, feeling heroic and triumphant. I breathe a sigh of relief and close the book on a great adventuring day.

Now the question is, was this ruling RAW? Mostly out of curiosity, I’ll always rule this way from here on out.

[JNAProductions]

I'd lean towards no-but the way it's worded is slightly ambiguous. It SEEMS to just be a penalty on the roll, but the way it's worded makes me think your ruling MIGHT be RAW.

Regardless, I think you did the right thing if you and your players had a good time! Even if someone comes in with clear evidence it's not RAW, who cares? (Well, I do. I'm curious as to this interaction. And you obviously are too. But still! Job's a good'un.)

[KOLE]

My excuse is it seems to work like Portent- but with a variable roll instead of a predetermined one, in that it seems to alter the roll itself instead of being a negative modifier. The 2 made it so the roll was an 18 instead of a 20, therefore making it a non critical.


Job's a good'un.

Also, thank you. I recently played a short campaign with a really miserable, toxic group as a player. It made me really appreciate these guys and I want to give them my all.

[MaxWilson]

Now the question is, was this ruling RAW? Mostly out of curiosity, I’ll always rule this way from here on out.

I suspect it's not--though RAW is sloppy enough to be a bit ambiguous here. But who cares as long as you're all happy with it? Rule variants are fine.

[KOLE]

I suspect it's not--though RAW is sloppy enough to be a bit ambiguous here. But who cares as long as you're all happy with it? Rule variants are fine.

Like I said, I'm ruling this way at my table regardless if only for consistency. I'm just genuinely curious about what people think in general on the idea, if only for a consensus ruling as I like to have RAW to lean on.

[JNAProductions]

My excuse is it seems to work like Portent- but with a variable roll instead of a predetermined one, in that it seems to alter the roll itself instead of being a negative modifier. The 2 made it so the roll was an 18 instead of a 20, therefore making it a non critical.

Also, thank you. I recently played a short campaign with a really miserable, toxic group as a player. It made me really appreciate these guys and I want to give them my all.

Yeah, that's kinda the way I see it, now that you say it. Obviously it doesn't matter a TON, but it does bring up an interesting "loophole"-namely, use Cutting Words on your Halfling ALLY. Let's say they rolled a 4-if you get lucky and roll EXACTLY 3, they count as having rolled a 1, and may reroll thanks to Lucky.

But, the most important thing is having fun, which you've succeeded it. And since you say your players aren't the powergaming sort, I doubt they'll think of this loophole.

[BigRedJedi]

If the d20 roll for an attack is a 20, the attack hits regardless of any modifiers (emphasis mine) or the target's AC. This is called a critical hit, which is explained later in this chapter.

With the way it is worded, the RAW would be that Cutting Words does not eliminate the critical hit, as Cutting Words is applying a modifier to the roll. That being said, however, your ruling is both completely reasonable and sounds appropriate to fit your table, well done!

The Portent comparison is not, necessarily, an effective one, as it permits substitution of a roll, rather than a modifier, but Cutting Words is definitively a modifier. Again, your ruling still makes sense and is reasonable.

[Keravath]

RAW .. my personal opinion would be no though I recently ran into someone advocating the other way.

The relevant wording is:

"ROLLING 1 OR 20
Sometimes fate blesses or curses a combatant, causing the novice to hit and the veteran to miss. 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. If the d20 roll for an attack is a 1, the attack misses regardless of any modifiers or the target's AC."

"CUTTING WORDS:
When a creature that you can see within 60 feet of you makes an attack roll, an ability check, or a damage roll, you can use your reaction to
expend one of your uses of Bardic Inspiration, rolling a Bardic Inspiration die and subtracting the number rolled from the creature's roll."

Both quote use the word "roll" ... however, cutting words only says that the value rolled of the bardic inspiration die is subtracted from the rolled number. It doesn't say that cutting words changes the interpretation of the actual die rolled to actually BE a different number. The result would still be a 20 - (bardic inspiration) giving a lower net number ... which is not the same thing as just rolling the lower number.

By using the word subtracted, cutting words is clearly a modifier of the origial die roll and the rule on 1s and 20's indicates "regardless of modifiers".

In addition, the specific rule regarding rolling 20's on attack rolls would also take precedence over the more general rule of applying cutting words to attacks, ability checks or damage rolls.

So there are several ways to interpret it and most would tend to indicate that cutting words is a modifier for the die roll and doesn't change the original value rolled on the die ... no matter what cutting words does the number rolled is still a 20 and thus would still be a critical hit in terms of RAW.

However, your solution is perfectly fine if that is the way you want to play it. It does significantly increase the utility of cutting words since it can be used to prevent almost every critical hit when applied this way.

[DarkKnightJin]

As has been said by others, I don't think this is RAW.. but it seems like a good 'compromise' to show your players some goodwill.
As long as they keep in mind that if THEY get a crit and an enemy Bard has the Cutting Words feature.. that Bard can cancel out their crit, as well.

Not that this should come up a great deal. There are astonishingly few creatures with Bardic skills.

[diplomancer]

RAW is so ambiguous that sage advice has given two contradictory rulings, with the current ruling being that CW does not nullify a crit.

[LtPowers]

It does significantly increase the utility of cutting words since it can be used to prevent almost every critical hit when applied this way.

Yeah, I think that's enough by itself to make RAI (at least) clear to me.

Only Grave Clerics should be able to do that. ;)


Powers &8^]

[BurgerBeast]

In addition, the specific rule regarding rolling 20's on attack rolls would also take precedence over the more general rule of applying cutting words to attacks, ability checks or damage rolls.

So there are several ways to interpret it and most would tend to indicate that cutting words is a modifier for the die roll and doesn't change the original value rolled on the die ... no matter what cutting words does the number rolled is still a 20 and thus would still be a critical hit in terms of RAW.


Let me start by saying I’m fine with your opinion on this issue. However this comment really caught my attention because, as I see it, you’ve got it backward.

It seems to me that the rule regarding rolling 1s and 20s is the general rule here, and Cutting Words is the specific rule.

Am I missing something? One applies to every attack roll in the game. The other applies when Cutting Words is cast.

[ThePolarBear]

Now the question is, was this ruling RAW? Mostly out of curiosity, I’ll always rule this way from here on out.

While a mighty fine ruling in the situation, no. Cutting Words applies to attack rolls, damage rolls and ability checks.
Critical hits however work on the d20 roll that is part of an attack roll, and that's not what ican be modified by Cutting Words.

To visualize it better: an attack roll is, generally speaking, the result of a d20, + ability, + eventual proficiency. Cutting Words adds another modifier.
Critical hits work of the result of the d20 alone.

[DracoKnight]

Cutting Words wouldn’t negate a crit. The feature has to be used before the DM determines if the attack succeeds or fails, and with a critical hit, there’s nothing to determine: it automatically hits.

[Draz0000]

Cutting Words wouldn’t negate a crit. The feature has to be used before the DM determines if the attack succeeds or fails, and with a critical hit, there’s nothing to determine: it automatically hits.

Since a crit is automatically a hit, and cutting words must be used before it is determined if the attack succeed or fails, does that mean that one can not even expend a use of Cutting Words against a crit?

[Rukelnikov]

About the argument that it modifies the "unmodified roll" and not the total of the roll. Bardic inspiration has the same wording but "add" instead of "substract", thus if negate a crit worked, a 17 in the d20 with a 3 or more in the inspiration die should be considered a crit.

I personally don't think it works RAW, but if it did, the opposite has to work too.

[Keravath]

Since a crit is automatically a hit, and cutting words must be used before it is determined if the attack succeed or fails, does that mean that one can not even expend a use of Cutting Words against a crit?

If cutting words couldn't prevent the natural 20 hit from occurring (because it is a crit and automatically hits) then why would anyone bother trying to use cutting words in the first place since they know it wouldn't work?

[Torpin]

its your final call as the dm, but remember to stay consistent, especially later when the bard can negate 5 crits per short rest, and if your guys play like we do we typically get 2 short rests a day which can effectively make it so your party pretty much never gets crit

[ThePolarBear]

If cutting words couldn't prevent the natural 20 hit from occurring (because it is a crit and automatically hits) then why would anyone bother trying to use cutting words in the first place since they know it wouldn't work?

What kind of argument is this? I can try something if i don't understand it won't work. It doesn't make the thing work.

A DM preventing a player from using Cutting Words since a 20 has come to show on the die is a possibility and the curteous thing to do if Cutting Words actually doesn't prevent a natural 20 from being a crit.

"Why would anyone shoot fire at the fire immune thing?"

[Keravath]

What kind of argument is this? I can try something if i don't understand it won't work. It doesn't make the thing work.

A DM preventing a player from using Cutting Words since a 20 has come to show on the die is a possibility and the curteous thing to do if Cutting Words actually doesn't prevent a natural 20 from being a crit.

"Why would anyone shoot fire at the fire immune thing?"

I think the point the previous poster was trying to make (not me :) ) ... I just thought it was interesting was the following.

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

"If the d20 roll for an attack is a 20, the attack hits regardless of any modifiers or the target's AC."

The previous poster appeared to be saying that since a 20 is a hit regardless of any modifiers, the DM has already determined that the attack hits as soon as the 20 result appears on the die and as a result there is no opportunity to use cutting words since the attack has already hit.

Personally, I'd also consider cutting words to be a modifier to the die roll.

Also, compare the wording of the general bardic inspiration and cutting words:

"Once within the next 10 minutes, the creature can roll the die and add the number rolled to one ability check, attack roll, or saving throw it makes"

"When a creature that you can see within 60 feet of you makes an attack roll, an ability check, or a damage roll, you can use your reaction to expend one of your uses of Bardic Inspiration, rolling
a Bardic Inspiration die and subtracting the number rolled from the creature's roll."

What is the difference between applying bardic inspiration to an attack roll and cutting words to the creature's roll? Both say "attack roll" in the list of affected rolls.

If cutting words can prevent a crit then regular bardic inspiration should cause them if the modified die roll is exactly 20. Which I think most would agree makes no sense.

Cutting words and bardic inspiration apply modifiers to the die roll, the number is added or subtracted from the result to get the final number ... but none of that changes the rule that if the original die roll is a 20 it automatically hits. None of these abilities say they specifically change the actual number rolled on the die, they only add or subtract from it.

[redwizard007]

Let me start by saying I’m fine with your opinion on this issue. However this comment really caught my attention because, as I see it, you’ve got it backward.

It seems to me that the rule regarding rolling 1s and 20s is the general rule here, and Cutting Words is the specific rule.

Am I missing something? One applies to every attack roll in the game. The other applies when Cutting Words is cast.

I see exactly what you are saying, and agree that the call made by the DM was both flavorful and appropriate, but it was not RAW.

As others have posted, Cutting Words adds a modifier. That doesn't affect the die roll, just the final total (which in this case is irrelevant because a 20 was rolled pre modifiers.) It's not a question of general vs specific, but literally two related rules affecting things in different ways.

[ThePolarBear]

I think the point the previous poster was trying to make (not me :) )

Is what?
To me, it looks like a question. A simple, honest question.
"If crits are not affected, can a bard even spend the inspiration in this case?"

And the answer, for me, is "Not on the attack roll, but it can still be spent to reduce damage."
I don't see a particular "point" or "argument" made, just a question being asked.

Furthermore, for that it's irrelevant if there would be an effect or not. The possibility to do so would be prevented if "the DM determines", while it would not be prevented, RAW, in case of "normal" Bardic Inspiration, until the DM "says" the result.
Nitpicking even more, it could also mean that you can apply Cutting Words to the attack roll, to no effect, if the DM is not looking at the moment so they can't determine the result.

But again, it would just be curteos by the DM to prevent the use at all, and avoid unnecessary expenditure of resources, which also ends up as a simpler and faster result.


"You can choose [...]

I have to admit: i originally read your comment as "if you couldn't do thing X (which is actually possible), then why would people try it?"

Conditionals like you used generally establish that the case you are discussing is in fact something that is possible:
"If you couldn't negate a critical" assumes that you can, in fact, negate a critical. It expresses an irrealistic scenario.
"If i could fly, i would be in Paris" - as an example: since it is not "negated", it means assumes that it is not possible (or not have been possible).

Still: it is a bad argument, since it doesn't really answer the question or gives a good reason why. You know, "I want to jump to the moon" kind of scenario some players can attempt to make: in that case you "can" spend your action doing so, but you'll never succeed.
In the case of Cutting Words, you are prevented from attempting to begin with, assuming a DM already determined. The fact that it would be pointless is secondary.

[Cynthaer]

If the d20 roll for an attack is a 20, the attack hits regardless of any modifiers or the target's AC. This is called a critical hit, which is explained later in this chapter.

I'll join the chorus of people saying that your ruling (A) does not seem to be RAW, and (B) was clearly the correct ruling regardless.

In fact, I'd use it as a case study for a great ruling:

Intuitive. The point of Cutting Words is to screw up your opponent. The standard effect is to turn a hit into a miss. It stands to reason that it could turn a crit into a normal hit.

Balanced. As others have noted, this officially gives your bard the ability to nullify up to five criticals per short rest. But they already had the ability to turn up to five narrow hits into complete misses per short rest, so that's not really an increase in power.

Feels powerful. Even though it's not actually an increase in raw power, negating a critical feels epic—and by definition, it's going to come up in the most dangerous moments in the game.

Narrowly tailored. Despite what a couple of others have said, you don't need to create a general rule that Bardic Inspiration changes the "unmodified roll" or anything like that (which would have implications for using BI to actually create criticals on non-20 rolls). The ruling is simple and direct: Cutting Words can cancel out a critical.

Overall, very good job. :)

[DracoKnight]

Balanced. As others have noted, this officially gives your bard the ability to nullify up to five criticals per short rest. But they already had the ability to turn up to five narrow hits into complete misses per short rest, so that's not really an increase in power.

Okay, so here’s the issue with allowing this: the Grave Cleric gets the ability to nullify critical hits, at 6th level, up to five times per LONG rest. To give it to the Bard, at 3rd level, up to five times per long rest (upgrading to up to five times per short rest at 5th level) takes away from the Grave Cleric’s special ability by allowing Cutting Words to do something it’s clearly not intended to do, and at a greater distance. Cutting Words has a range of 60 feet and Sentinel at Death’s Door has a range of 30.

And you might be saying “Oh, well if they don’t have a Grave Cleric in the party, it’s not an issue.” But for future characters, it might be. You might have a player go “Oh, the Grave Cleric seems really cool, but our DM lets the Lore Bard do this thing but better, and I have so many magical secrets that I can definitely build a death-themed Healing character with my spells.”

Now there are MANY other awesome things about the Grave Cleric, but negating critical hits is a part of its niche and no one else gets that ability.

[Cynthaer]

Okay, so here’s the issue with allowing this: the Grave Cleric gets the ability to nullify critical hits, at 6th level, up to five times per LONG rest. To give it to the Bard, at 3rd level, up to five times per long rest (upgrading to up to five times per short rest at 5th level) takes away from the Grave Cleric’s special ability by allowing Cutting Words to do something it’s clearly not intended to do, and at a greater distance. Cutting Words has a range of 60 feet and Sentinel at Death’s Door has a range of 30.

And you might be saying “Oh, well if they don’t have a Grave Cleric in the party, it’s not an issue.” But for future characters, it might be. You might have a player go “Oh, the Grave Cleric seems really cool, but our DM lets the Lore Bard do this thing but better, and I have so many magical secrets that I can definitely build a death-themed Healing character with my spells.”

Now there are MANY other awesome things about the Grave Cleric, but negating critical hits is a part of its niche and no one else gets that ability.
You raise a good point, and this speaks to a general issue about letting a character do something that maybe obviates a separate class feature or spell. There are a couple of ways to deal with this.

One approach is to be very careful never to let people implicitly get something "for free" that exists as a feature somewhere else.

The case that always comes up around here is the Subtle Spell metamagic, because (A) secret spellcasting is a cool thing that sorcerers can spend resources to do, but (B) trying to cast a spell without people noticing it is a common trope, and is the kind of thing that lots of people might reasonably try to do. A lot of people solve this by simply ruling that it's impossible to do magic normally in their world without being obvious about it.

I'm not a huge fan of this approach, because I don't like being restricted in my rulings by things that aren't even in my game. What if I made the Cutting Words/crit ruling before Xanathar's was even published? That's a tricky spot to be in.

Still, the upside to this approach is what you said: You have rules consistency across games, and you don't devalue future choices by your players.

My preferred approach is to tailor the rulings to the party ("no Grave Clerics, no problem"), and only deal with the implications if they actually come up. And the only way to make that work is to explicitly have open communication.

Basically, in session zero I make one thing very clear: If you ever feel like you're trapped between the correct flavor/RP choice for your character and the correct mechanical choice, let me know. Either it's not actually suboptimal and I can tell you why, or it is actually too weak and I can do something about it.

I've found that this makes DMing vastly easier, simply because most hypothetical problems like this end up not actually mattering.

For instance, consider the odds that this campaign finishes. Statistically, a lot don't, and that's fine.

Now consider the odds that after finishing, a new campaign starts with the same players. There's a good chance, but maybe not.

If that does happen, consider the odds that any of the players is even considering a Grave Cleric. I'd say well over 99.9% of games don't have a Grave Cleric, simply because it's a very specific archetype and it's not in the core books.

If you do in fact have a player who'd like to play a Grave Cleric, what are the odds that that particular player notices or cares that Sentinel at Death's Door in this game is technically outclassed by Cutting Words in the last game?

And what are the odds that they care enough that it's actually making them feel bad about choosing Grave Cleric instead of Lore Bard?

I would say it's only in this last case that any action needs to be taken, and even then, my first response would be: "Given how few criticals happen in an adventuring day, the Grave Cleric's ability still basically reads as 'cancel all enemy criticals as a reaction', right? Do you still feel this one discrepancy is ruining Grave Clerics for you?"

Some people don't like this approach, since the game rules adjust to fit the party instead of being static within the world. That's a valid way to feel.

But I like tailoring the gameplay experience to the actual party, and I happen to find the tradeoff worth it.

[diplomancer]

Its not really unbalanced actually; unless you are talking about creatures with a smite-like ability of deciding to add more damage to a hit, turning a crit into a hit is actually less effective than turning a hit into a miss, so it is more of an increase in versatility than in power.

If you are worried about balance, just rule that the crit is cancelled, but no matter what you roll with the inspiration die you cannot turn a crit into a miss (which would be theoretically possible for very high AC targets)

[BurgerBeast]

This ruling should also depend on (1) whether the DM rolls in front of or behind the screen, and (2) secondarily if the DM rolls behind the screen, whether the DM makes verbal “mistakes” or uses houserules to overcome them.

In the case of (1), and as has been pointed out, if a DM rolls a 20 in sight of the players, then RAW the Bard can’t use cutting words.

In the case of (2), DMs have to be careful to not say things like: “is a 17 a hit?” or “the goblin crits you” because they interfere with the player of the Bard’s decision process. If the target, in the first case, replies “yes,” then RAW the Bard can’t use cutting words. If the Bard interjects first, the DM has provided too much information.

DMs should be careful to always only say “hit” and never announce crits or rolled numbers. Once you say “crit” you rob the Bard of he opportunity to react with cutting words.