So random situation I thought of and wanted to know what the ruling would be.
Situation: A player with adamantine armor and an AC of 25 is fighting a creature with an attack bonus of +4. Adamantine Armor makes it so that a critical hit is treated as a normal hit.
RAW from the player handbook, "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..."
Question: Does Adamantine Armor negate the ability of a natural 20 to hit the wearer IF the attack roll is below the wearer's AC. (In the above situation, the creature with the +4 attack bonus would only have a 24 to hit, less the player's 25 AC)
Not according to the RAW quote you just posted. For there to be an argument that Adamantine would negate a nat. 20 bring an automatic hit, the rules would have to read something like "If the d20 roll for an attack roll is a 20, the attack is a critical hit....critical hits hit their target regardless of the targets AC". This makes the automatic hit a property of being a critical hit, which the adamantine armor would negate. This is not what the rules say though. As it stands, the property that makes the attack an automatic success is that the die face says 20, NOT that the attack is a critical hit. Therefore, since adamantine armor does not change the die face, the attack should still be an automatic hit.
Not according to the RAW quote you just posted. For there to be an argument that Adamantine would negate a nat. 20 bring an automatic hit, the rules would have to read something like "If the d20 roll for an attack roll is a 20, the attack is a critical hit....critical hits hit their target regardless of the targets AC". This makes the automatic hit a property of being a critical hit, which the adamantine armor would negate. This is not what the rules say though. As it stands, the property that makes the attack an automatic success is that the die face says 20, NOT that the attack is a critical hit. Therefore, since adamantine armor does not change the die face, the attack should still be an automatic hit.
Yeah, I don't know if OP just misquoted or if it's received errata, but the current text on D&D Beyond is clear that the auto-hit is part of the critical hit, not a separate thing that also happens on a natural 20. The point is that it doesn't matter: adamantine armor explicitly turns a critical hit into something that is still a hit.
"In cases where the outcome of an action is uncertain, the Dungeons & Dragons game relies on rolls of a 20-sided die, a d20, to determine success or failure."
If the roll of a 20 on a d20 results in a failure, why bother rolling it? The general rule that a 20 always hits is the answer. This is specifically for an attack roll.
I'm fully aware that there is no such thing as a "critical" for ability checks or saving throws, but in that same thought, if a 20 doesn't result in a success, why was the roll even asked for? The outcome of that action would not be uncertain. It is certain, you fail. Don't lift the dice as a player or entertain rolls as the DM if the outcome is certain.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So random situation I thought of and wanted to know what the ruling would be.
Situation: A player with adamantine armor and an AC of 25 is fighting a creature with an attack bonus of +4. Adamantine Armor makes it so that a critical hit is treated as a normal hit.
RAW from the player handbook, "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..."
Question: Does Adamantine Armor negate the ability of a natural 20 to hit the wearer IF the attack roll is below the wearer's AC. (In the above situation, the creature with the +4 attack bonus would only have a 24 to hit, less the player's 25 AC)
No. A normal hit is still a hit.
Not according to the RAW quote you just posted. For there to be an argument that Adamantine would negate a nat. 20 bring an automatic hit, the rules would have to read something like "If the d20 roll for an attack roll is a 20, the attack is a critical hit....critical hits hit their target regardless of the targets AC". This makes the automatic hit a property of being a critical hit, which the adamantine armor would negate. This is not what the rules say though. As it stands, the property that makes the attack an automatic success is that the die face says 20, NOT that the attack is a critical hit. Therefore, since adamantine armor does not change the die face, the attack should still be an automatic hit.
Yeah, I don't know if OP just misquoted or if it's received errata, but the current text on D&D Beyond is clear that the auto-hit is part of the critical hit, not a separate thing that also happens on a natural 20. The point is that it doesn't matter: adamantine armor explicitly turns a critical hit into something that is still a hit.
The following protects against a Natural 20 always hitting.
Adamantine does not. It just stops crits
I agree with all comments, valid points on each, and would want to add this citation as well: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/introduction#TheD20 ...
"In cases where the outcome of an action is uncertain, the Dungeons & Dragons game relies on rolls of a 20-sided die, a d20, to determine success or failure."
If the roll of a 20 on a d20 results in a failure, why bother rolling it? The general rule that a 20 always hits is the answer. This is specifically for an attack roll.
I'm fully aware that there is no such thing as a "critical" for ability checks or saving throws, but in that same thought, if a 20 doesn't result in a success, why was the roll even asked for? The outcome of that action would not be uncertain. It is certain, you fail. Don't lift the dice as a player or entertain rolls as the DM if the outcome is certain.