The ability is only used to allow a Bard to use their Inspiration Die to reduce an enemy attack, damage or ability roll. Even though a natural 20 is somewhat rare, I think reducing a critical attack against an ally would be an excellent use of Cutting Word.
A crit is a crit. For example, if a wizard with a very low attack bonus (let's say +3) swings a dagger at a creature with an AC of 25, his roll of 20 is still a crit and still hits even though it only adds up to 23. Cutting Words is treated the same. Even if you reduce a crit to add up to a number like 17 and your ally's AC is 18, the attack still hits and it still crits because the critical hit roll trumps the modifiers.
Here's the specific language for crits:
"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."
Now, if the attack isn't a crit and you reduce the total to below your ally's AC, then yeah it misses, which is an awesome use of Cutting Words
On a crit, I would reduce the modifier to hit first, if the Inspiration Die roll was more than the mod to hit, I would rule the 20 drops to 19 and so on until all Inspiration Die points are gone. This would yield the new, non crit hit total.
Totally a house rule, however. There are other abilities/properties that negate a crit so, I don't personally think it's unreasonable to use Cutting Word in this way.
Why would you use that house rule? What's the benefit/contribution to the fun of the game? No other effect can negate a crit in that way, so why Cutting Words?
It's to the benefit of the player characters in most cases. What would you rule in place of my idea that would make the player feel that Cutting Word wasn't just a useless endeavor in the scenario provided?
Adding a little more. I have a Grave cleric that can just say no to crits as well as a fighter that can do the same with his armor. Is it fun negating crits? I would say, yes.
Grave Domain clerics can only negate crits with that ability, but the attack still hits, whereas Cutting Words is designed to stop an attack hitting full stop and crits are designed per the rules to explicitly go through regardless. What you're suggesting is the ability for Cutting Words to block a hit and negate a crit, it just seems a bit like muchness to me and at that point you might as well stop calling crits against players.
There's also the weirdness of making Cutting Words the only thing that can negate a crit through result modification; cover doesn't do that nor does bane.
Some DMs roll behind a screen, in my case, I would allow one player to save another. This is in Discussion by the way, I discussed. Maybe Bane would work exactly the same way, since many situations that occur, were never anticipated when the rules were written. I. E. How does Bane affect a Nat20 plus bonuses if you actually allow it to do something?
I'll reverse your question. How does not allowing the players to do anything about a Nat20 crit benefit/contribute to the fun of the game? Now I have asked you two questions. It is EASY to pick at someone else's ideas but, lets hear some better options other than "Nat20zzz...U R DeD!".
I forgot to mention, I'm not one of those DMs whot gets off on critting my players or having NPCs walk all over them for a show of power. I design adventures with the thought in mind that they can and should prevail. If that means toning things down so, at least one party member can survive, so be it.
You're being a little confrontational, the reason I wouldn't use this rule is it seems inconsistent with other abilities and opens up a whole can of "the bard can do this, why can't X class for the same logic" to the point of effectively rendering critical hits moot.
I'm not trying to tell you how to run your game, I'm just curious as to what you think it adds to the game. Retorting with "Nat20zzz...U R DeD!" and "one of those DMs whot gets off on critting my players or having NPCs walk all over them for a show of power" seems a bit puerile and petty. If you can't have a discussion with resorting to attacks in the face of criticism, then maybe you shouldn't share your ideas.
Actually, this was not directed at you. Maybe your egocentricity made you think such. There are many player vs DM games going on out in the world. I don't necessarily give my NPCs every advantage that the rules allow but, I do extend that courtesy to my players. If you think it's too generous, then as I always say, don't use the idea. Why bother to dispute or argue against a stated house rule? This just makes you the confrontational naysayer who still hasn't added a positive alternative suggestion to the conversation.
Well there's no alternative, Cutting Words doesn't negate a crit RAW and I don't see any value, other than making things easier on my players, to change that.
Also I thought it was directed at me because I was offering a contrary opinion to your rule and you were replying to me, so it seemed to be a natural inference based on context that it was aimed if partially at me.
Either way, if it makes your games more fun for your players, awesome. Sorry if I came across as sounding like I was saying it was the wrong way to do things, it was just that I could initially understand what it added to the game.
I don't know anyone who plays 100% RAW. The game has too many holes without a couple patches, again, before anyone disagrees, in MY opinion.
You really can't see how being more imaginative and letting characters take center stage to do something outside of the standard rules can be fun? Have you never had an NPC roll a Nat1 on an attack and have them lodge their axe into the wall for the benefit of the players? Rules don't say to do it, interesting play doesn't rule it out.
I'm not talking about playing 100% RAW, I'm talking about this specific houserule you have. Not all houserules and homebrews are created equal, and homebrewing isn't always a good thing in of itself, it has to add something to the game. I was curious about that, about the value of your rule, not homebrewing in general. I do plenty of that, but I always try and have a goal in mind for adding something to the game.
cutting words works like a modifier and it’s still a natural 20 or 5 percent crit chance that everyone gets be default.
would you allow cutting words to make a 1 or 2 dmg attack into a negative causing the enemy to heal you with that attack?
It works like a modifier. Even if I have a negative attack stat roll and roll a natural 20 it’s still a crit right? Or if I have plus 5 attack and roll a 15 does it make it crit?
No, because it’s about the natural dice roll not the modifiers for cross and automatic misses.
and it only happens for combat weapon and spells attacks using a d20 to hit.
The conversation got a bit heated and I want to remind everybody that this a game designed for the enjoyment of everyone. And everyone has a different opinion of what makes the game fun. Let's try to respect each other's opinions and move on.
As hotshotjoe stated, Cutting Words is a modifier, so by RAW a modifier does not change the outcome of a critical hit or miss.
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. This is called a critical hit, which is explained later in this section.
If the d20 roll for an attack is a 1, the attack misses regardless of any modifiers or the target's AC.
As always, homebrew rules always allow the DM to change the rules to encourage the maximum enjoyment of all involved.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Grave Domain clerics can only negate crits with that ability, but the attack still hits, whereas Cutting Words is designed to stop an attack hitting full stop and crits are designed per the rules to explicitly go through regardless. What you're suggesting is the ability for Cutting Words to block a hit and negate a crit, it just seems a bit like muchness to me and at that point you might as well stop calling crits against players.
There's also the weirdness of making Cutting Words the only thing that can negate a crit through result modification; cover doesn't do that nor does bane.
would this mean, by your description of the spell, that Cutting Words would potentially negate the attack hit, but the target would still only take the added crit damage?
for example, if i have an AC of 17, the attack roll was nat20, but cutting words removed a 1d8(say a 6), would the only damage taken be the (originally to-be added) bonus damage?
Grave Domain clerics can only negate crits with that ability, but the attack still hits, whereas Cutting Words is designed to stop an attack hitting full stop and crits are designed per the rules to explicitly go through regardless. What you're suggesting is the ability for Cutting Words to block a hit and negate a crit, it just seems a bit like muchness to me and at that point you might as well stop calling crits against players.
There's also the weirdness of making Cutting Words the only thing that can negate a crit through result modification; cover doesn't do that nor does bane.
would this mean, by your description of the spell, that Cutting Words would potentially negate the attack hit, but the target would still only take the added crit damage?
for example, if i have an AC of 17, the attack roll was nat20, but cutting words removed a 1d8(say a 6), would the only damage taken be the (originally to-be added) bonus damage?
I'd say that Cutting Words is an excellent way to negate the effect of a critical hit in just the manner that you described. Say that a PC is critically hit by someone wielding a shortsword with a +3 Str bonus and a Bard uses CW for the damage roll. The Bard's roll could, with a big enough Inspiration die, possibly take away all damage except the +3 Str bonus. Of course, you'll have to remember in which order you do the subtraction from CW and doubling damage for the Crit (especially if you use the homebrew rule to just roll the dice once and then double them instead of rolling double the amount of dice) and also decide if "subtracting the number rolled from the creature’s roll" means "just the dice rolled" or "the roll after modifiers have been added" and so on. Since these are all things that often vary between gaming groups, I'm not gonna go into which one is "right".
Grave Domain clerics can only negate crits with that ability, but the attack still hits, whereas Cutting Words is designed to stop an attack hitting full stop and crits are designed per the rules to explicitly go through regardless. What you're suggesting is the ability for Cutting Words to block a hit and negate a crit, it just seems a bit like muchness to me and at that point you might as well stop calling crits against players.
There's also the weirdness of making Cutting Words the only thing that can negate a crit through result modification; cover doesn't do that nor does bane.
would this mean, by your description of the spell, that Cutting Words would potentially negate the attack hit, but the target would still only take the added crit damage?
for example, if i have an AC of 17, the attack roll was nat20, but cutting words removed a 1d8(say a 6), would the only damage taken be the (originally to-be added) bonus damage?
A roll of a 20 on the d20 of an attack roll is a Critical Hit. Critical hits do two things:
Always hit
Double the number of damage dice rolled for the attack
Cutting words doesn't change the result of the d20, but the overall attack. Because you're not changing the result of the d20, you're not stopping it from being a critical hit.
I think the wording is the tricky part, as it says the inspiration die reduces the roll, so I would read that as the roll is no longer a 20, and therefore not a crit. But that’s just me!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Can Cutting Word be used to change a Natural 1 (Crit Miss) or Natural 20 (Crit Hit) to negate the crit?
The ability is only used to allow a Bard to use their Inspiration Die to reduce an enemy attack, damage or ability roll. Even though a natural 20 is somewhat rare, I think reducing a critical attack against an ally would be an excellent use of Cutting Word.
A crit is a crit. For example, if a wizard with a very low attack bonus (let's say +3) swings a dagger at a creature with an AC of 25, his roll of 20 is still a crit and still hits even though it only adds up to 23. Cutting Words is treated the same. Even if you reduce a crit to add up to a number like 17 and your ally's AC is 18, the attack still hits and it still crits because the critical hit roll trumps the modifiers.
Here's the specific language for crits:
"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."
Now, if the attack isn't a crit and you reduce the total to below your ally's AC, then yeah it misses, which is an awesome use of Cutting Words
On a crit, I would reduce the modifier to hit first, if the Inspiration Die roll was more than the mod to hit, I would rule the 20 drops to 19 and so on until all Inspiration Die points are gone. This would yield the new, non crit hit total.
Totally a house rule, however. There are other abilities/properties that negate a crit so, I don't personally think it's unreasonable to use Cutting Word in this way.
Why would you use that house rule? What's the benefit/contribution to the fun of the game? No other effect can negate a crit in that way, so why Cutting Words?
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
It's to the benefit of the player characters in most cases. What would you rule in place of my idea that would make the player feel that Cutting Word wasn't just a useless endeavor in the scenario provided?
Adding a little more. I have a Grave cleric that can just say no to crits as well as a fighter that can do the same with his armor. Is it fun negating crits? I would say, yes.
Grave Domain clerics can only negate crits with that ability, but the attack still hits, whereas Cutting Words is designed to stop an attack hitting full stop and crits are designed per the rules to explicitly go through regardless. What you're suggesting is the ability for Cutting Words to block a hit and negate a crit, it just seems a bit like muchness to me and at that point you might as well stop calling crits against players.
There's also the weirdness of making Cutting Words the only thing that can negate a crit through result modification; cover doesn't do that nor does bane.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Some DMs roll behind a screen, in my case, I would allow one player to save another. This is in Discussion by the way, I discussed. Maybe Bane would work exactly the same way, since many situations that occur, were never anticipated when the rules were written. I. E. How does Bane affect a Nat20 plus bonuses if you actually allow it to do something?
I'll reverse your question. How does not allowing the players to do anything about a Nat20 crit benefit/contribute to the fun of the game? Now I have asked you two questions. It is EASY to pick at someone else's ideas but, lets hear some better options other than "Nat20zzz...U R DeD!".
I forgot to mention, I'm not one of those DMs whot gets off on critting my players or having NPCs walk all over them for a show of power. I design adventures with the thought in mind that they can and should prevail. If that means toning things down so, at least one party member can survive, so be it.
You're being a little confrontational, the reason I wouldn't use this rule is it seems inconsistent with other abilities and opens up a whole can of "the bard can do this, why can't X class for the same logic" to the point of effectively rendering critical hits moot.
I'm not trying to tell you how to run your game, I'm just curious as to what you think it adds to the game. Retorting with "Nat20zzz...U R DeD!" and "one of those DMs whot gets off on critting my players or having NPCs walk all over them for a show of power" seems a bit puerile and petty. If you can't have a discussion with resorting to attacks in the face of criticism, then maybe you shouldn't share your ideas.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Actually, this was not directed at you. Maybe your egocentricity made you think such. There are many player vs DM games going on out in the world. I don't necessarily give my NPCs every advantage that the rules allow but, I do extend that courtesy to my players. If you think it's too generous, then as I always say, don't use the idea. Why bother to dispute or argue against a stated house rule? This just makes you the confrontational naysayer who still hasn't added a positive alternative suggestion to the conversation.
Well there's no alternative, Cutting Words doesn't negate a crit RAW and I don't see any value, other than making things easier on my players, to change that.
Also I thought it was directed at me because I was offering a contrary opinion to your rule and you were replying to me, so it seemed to be a natural inference based on context that it was aimed if partially at me.
Either way, if it makes your games more fun for your players, awesome. Sorry if I came across as sounding like I was saying it was the wrong way to do things, it was just that I could initially understand what it added to the game.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
I don't know anyone who plays 100% RAW. The game has too many holes without a couple patches, again, before anyone disagrees, in MY opinion.
You really can't see how being more imaginative and letting characters take center stage to do something outside of the standard rules can be fun? Have you never had an NPC roll a Nat1 on an attack and have them lodge their axe into the wall for the benefit of the players? Rules don't say to do it, interesting play doesn't rule it out.
I'm not talking about playing 100% RAW, I'm talking about this specific houserule you have. Not all houserules and homebrews are created equal, and homebrewing isn't always a good thing in of itself, it has to add something to the game. I was curious about that, about the value of your rule, not homebrewing in general. I do plenty of that, but I always try and have a goal in mind for adding something to the game.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Simple answer is by RAW, no.
cutting words works like a modifier and it’s still a natural 20 or 5 percent crit chance that everyone gets be default.
would you allow cutting words to make a 1 or 2 dmg attack into a negative causing the enemy to heal you with that attack?
It works like a modifier. Even if I have a negative attack stat roll and roll a natural 20 it’s still a crit right? Or if I have plus 5 attack and roll a 15 does it make it crit?
No, because it’s about the natural dice roll not the modifiers for cross and automatic misses.
and it only happens for combat weapon and spells attacks using a d20 to hit.
it does not apply to skill or ability checks.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorThe conversation got a bit heated and I want to remind everybody that this a game designed for the enjoyment of everyone. And everyone has a different opinion of what makes the game fun. Let's try to respect each other's opinions and move on.
As hotshotjoe stated, Cutting Words is a modifier, so by RAW a modifier does not change the outcome of a critical hit or miss.
As always, homebrew rules always allow the DM to change the rules to encourage the maximum enjoyment of all involved.
Homebrew Rules || Homebrew FAQ || Snippet Codes || Tooltips
DDB Guides & FAQs, Class Guides, Character Builds, Game Guides, Useful Websites, and WOTC Resources
would this mean, by your description of the spell, that Cutting Words would potentially negate the attack hit, but the target would still only take the added crit damage?
for example, if i have an AC of 17, the attack roll was nat20, but cutting words removed a 1d8(say a 6), would the only damage taken be the (originally to-be added) bonus damage?
I'd say that Cutting Words is an excellent way to negate the effect of a critical hit in just the manner that you described. Say that a PC is critically hit by someone wielding a shortsword with a +3 Str bonus and a Bard uses CW for the damage roll. The Bard's roll could, with a big enough Inspiration die, possibly take away all damage except the +3 Str bonus. Of course, you'll have to remember in which order you do the subtraction from CW and doubling damage for the Crit (especially if you use the homebrew rule to just roll the dice once and then double them instead of rolling double the amount of dice) and also decide if "subtracting the number
rolled from the creature’s roll" means "just the dice rolled" or "the roll after modifiers have been added" and so on. Since these are all things that often vary between gaming groups, I'm not gonna go into which one is "right".
Cheers!
A roll of a 20 on the d20 of an attack roll is a Critical Hit. Critical hits do two things:
Cutting words doesn't change the result of the d20, but the overall attack. Because you're not changing the result of the d20, you're not stopping it from being a critical hit.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
I think the wording is the tricky part, as it says the inspiration die reduces the roll, so I would read that as the roll is no longer a 20, and therefore not a crit. But that’s just me!