[...] **does an unconscious PC in adamantine armor cancel the autocrit of melee attack on an unconscious target?
This is from the Dev:
@DropTheDie If a player is wearing Adamantine armor, do they still take critical damage while incapacitated? (Stunned, paralyzed?) @JeremyECrawford The specific (the armor) beats the general (the combat rules).
Honestly, I don't see the issue. The Level 3: Improved Critical feature is overriding the General Rules, so for both quoted rules, they become (green text added by me):
Chapter 1: Playing the Game:
If you roll a 19 or 20 on the d20 (called a “natural 19/20”) for an attack roll, the attack hits regardless of any modifiers or the target’s AC. This is called a Critical Hit.
Rules Glossary:
If you roll a 19 or 20 on the d20 for an attack roll, you score a Critical Hit, and the attack hits regardless of any modifiers or the target’s AC. A Critical Hit lets you roll extra dice for the attack’s damage against the target.
No. In the case of the Rules Glossary text, you cannot make the substitution that you are suggesting.
It's important to always be really careful when thinking about whether or not the Exceptions Supersede General Rules rule applies to any particular situation. Explicitly, that rule ONLY applies:
When an exception and a general rule disagree
In this case, the exception does not disagree with the general rule since they are actually talking about two different things.
The Rules Glossary text begins like this:
"If you roll a 20 on the d20 for an attack roll, you score a Critical Hit, and the attack hits regardless of any modifiers or the target’s AC."
The correct way to parse that statement is like this:
"If you roll a 20 on the d20 for an attack roll, you score a Critical Hit.
AND
If you roll a 20 on the d20 for an attack roll, the attack hits regardless of any modifiers or the target's AC."
From that statement, it does NOT logically follow that all Critical Hits are auto-hits.
It also does NOT logically follow that all auto-hits are Critical Hits.
For example, consider this series of statements:
When I walk my dog in the park, my legs get sore.
And
When I walk my dog in the park, my dog barks at the birds.
From that, it does not logically follow that every time my legs get sore my dog barks at the birds. it also does not logically follow that every time my dog barks at the birds my legs get sore.
Yes, we all know that that's what the text is trying to say. But it doesn't get there. It does get there in the main text, which is what we should use. It does not get there in the Rules Glossary text, which should be changed via errata.
Now, to complete the point, consider the text of the Improved Critical feature:
Your attack rolls with weapons and Unarmed Strikes can score a Critical Hit on a roll of 19 or 20 on the d20.
When using the Exceptions Supersede General Rules rule, we end up with the following change to the general rules:
"If you roll a 20 on the d20 for an attack roll, you score a Critical Hit.
AND
If you roll a 20 on the d20 for an attack roll, the attack hits regardless of any modifiers or the target's AC."
. . . Becomes . . .
"If you roll a 19 or 20 on the d20 for an attack roll with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike, you can score a Critical Hit.
AND
If you roll a 20 on the d20 for an attack roll, the attack hits regardless of any modifiers or the target's AC."
In this case, the exception does not disagree with the general rule since they are actually talking about two different things.
The exception from Improved Critical disagree with the general rules on Critical Hit since you normally can't score a crit on a 19.
Yes, that's correct. This specific rule changes the die value at which you can score a Critical Hit.
If using the wording of the general rule from the main text, then this specific rule also changes the die value at which you will auto-hit since the term "Critical Hit" is actually defined there as being an attack that auto-hits.
However, if using the wording of the Rules Glossary, then this specific rule does not change the die value at which you will auto-hit since the two concepts are not linked to each other in that rules text and the new specific rule only changes when a Critical Hit can be scored, not when an auto-hit is achieved.
Raw says a 20 on the die is a critical hit if you are immune to those that would make it not a critical and the modifiers as normal against your ac
For the attack to be a critical hit against you, it must hit you. Therefore for the armor to modify the critical hit to a normal hit, you have already been hit by it
The item only modifies the effect on damage from a critical hit, not the effect on hitting (ie insta-hit). Otherwise you'd have a scenario where an item that modifies a hit against you (not an attack, a hit) into not being a hit against you therefore it no longer modifies it, therefore it hits you.
It's always been the case that anything that modifies a critical hit into a normal hit (or vice versa) applies only to the damage.
If something would modify the attack, it would say it modifies the roll.
If your AC is from wearing plate mail you are probably very rarely dodging the blow, it is hitting you but just not penetrating the armor. So if I need a 15 to hit and roll a 14, im still making contact it just bounces off the armor. So if the function of the hit was based on it being a critical hit, then removing the critical hit portion would logically make it a miss. They are stated their intent which I kind of assumed, but for RAW particular people they will probably read it differently. I think people need to understand RAW is vague as almost any rule can be read in multiple ways RAW, so look at the intent, and look at what is best for your table.
And honestly when the heck is this coming up, you are either fighting enemies way beneath your weight class so if the goblin or whatever hits you for 1d6 does it really matter, or you should be retreating as your DM put you into a fight you are not designed to win. Pro-tip to new players if you need to roll a 20 to hit with your main attack, run or surrender.
If your AC is from wearing plate mail you are probably very rarely dodging the blow, it is hitting you but just not penetrating the armor. So if I need a 15 to hit and roll a 14, im still making contact it just bounces off the armor.
If you are on the ball, you can narrate hits/misses according to armor, dex mods and shields with 8- being clean misses.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
Yes, that's correct. This specific rule changes the die value at which you can score a Critical Hit.
If using the wording of the general rule from the main text, then this specific rule also changes the die value at which you will auto-hit since the term "Critical Hit" is actually defined there as being an attack that auto-hits.
However, if using the wording of the Rules Glossary, then this specific rule does not change the die value at which you will auto-hit since the two concepts are not linked to each other in that rules text and the new specific rule only changes when a Critical Hit can be scored, not when an auto-hit is achieved.
Auto hit and extra damage are effect when scoring a Critical Hit that Improved Critical doesn't disagree with the general rules on Critical Hit so no change here.
Honestly, I don't see the issue. The Level 3: Improved Critical feature is overriding the General Rules, so for both quoted rules, they become (green text added by me):
Chapter 1: Playing the Game:
If you roll a 19 or 20 on the d20 (called a “natural 19/20”) for an attack roll, the attack hits regardless of any modifiers or the target’s AC. This is called a Critical Hit.
Rules Glossary:
If you roll a 19 or 20 on the d20 for an attack roll, you score a Critical Hit, and the attack hits regardless of any modifiers or the target’s AC. A Critical Hit lets you roll extra dice for the attack’s damage against the target.
[...] The Rules Glossary text begins like this:
"If you roll a 20 on the d20 for an attack roll, you score a Critical Hit, and the attack hits regardless of any modifiers or the target’s AC."
The correct way to parse that statement is like this:
"If you roll a 20 on the d20 for an attack roll, you score a Critical Hit.
AND
If you roll a 20 on the d20 for an attack roll, the attack hits regardless of any modifiers or the target's AC."
From that statement, it does NOT logically follow that all Critical Hits are auto-hits.
It also does NOT logically follow that all auto-hits are Critical Hits. [...]
You changed the meaning by adding a period. Unfair. I also know how to play that game.
The correct way to parse that statement is like this:
"You score a Critical Hit, and the attack hits regardless of any modifiers or the target’s AC, if you roll a 20 on the d20 for an attack roll"
From that statement, it logically follows that all Critical Hits are auto-hits.
From that statement, it logically follows that all Critical Hits are auto-hits.
No. It absolutely does not. Linguistically, you cannot logically get to this second statement from the information provided in the first statement.
My legs get sore and my dog barks at the birds when I walk my dog in the park.
This does not mean that my legs get sore whenever my dog barks at the birds. Nor does it mean that my dog barks at the birds whenever my legs get sore.
Auto hit and extra damage are effect when scoring a Critical Hit
This is incorrect. Here is what the text says about what happens when you score a Critical Hit:
Critical Hits
When you score a Critical Hit, you deal extra damage. Roll the attack’s damage dice twice, add them together, and 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 add your relevant ability modifier. If the attack involves other damage dice, such as from the Rogue’s Sneak Attack feature, you also roll those dice twice.
There is nothing in there about whether or not any auto-hit occurred. It's ONLY describing the damage.
The only reason why we actually know that a Critical Hit automatically hits is because the main text includes a rule which explicitly links those two concepts together like this:
. . . the attack hits regardless of any modifiers or the target’s AC. This is called a Critical Hit.
The text in the Rules Glossary does not do that. That text links Critical hits back to rolling a 20 and it also links auto-hits back to rolling a 20. It never links those two concepts to each other. That rule says that when a 20 is rolled, two things happen. So what? This is not enough information to make any additional assumptions about the relationship between those two concepts. It's just that they each happen when one other common thing happens. Trying to jump from that to a statement such as "all Critical Hits are auto-hits, and all auto-hits are Critical Hits" is a logical error.
Again, we CAN get there from the main text, which is what we should use. We cannot get there from the Rules Glossary text, which should be changed via errata.
From that statement, it logically follows that all Critical Hits are auto-hits.
No. It absolutely does not. Linguistically, you cannot logically get to this second statement from the information provided in the first statement.
Yes. It absolutely does. Both results ("you score a Critical Hit" and "the attack hits regardless of any modifiers or the target’s AC") are explicitly tied to the condition "if you roll a 20 on the d20 for an attack roll."
But landing a Critical Hit does not necessarily mean a 20 was rolled. Some exceptions:
- Unconscious [Condition] - Automatic Critical Hits. Any attack roll that hits you is a Critical Hit if the attacker is within 5 feet of you. - Level 3: Improved Critical
[...] My legs get sore and my dog barks at the birds when I walk my dog in the park.
This does not mean that my legs get sore whenever my dog barks at the birds. Nor does it mean that my dog barks at the birds whenever my legs get sore.
Of course not, because that's wrong.
To match the structure of Critical Hits, the equivalent sentence would be: "My legs get sore and my dog barks at the birds if I walk my dog in the park."
Or, if you prefer, "If I walk my dog in the park, my legs get sore and my dog barks at the birds"
Now both events ("my legs get sore" and "my dog barks at the birds") are clearly tied to a single condition ("if I walk my dog in the park").
Remember:
- "if" introduces a condition. Something that must happen for the result to occur. - "when" introduces a temporal occurrence. It describes that two things happen at the same time, but does not imply one causes the other.
Both results ("you score a Critical Hit" and "the attack hits regardless of any modifiers or the target’s AC") are explicitly tied to the condition "if you roll a 20 on the d20 for an attack roll."
But landing a Critical Hit does not necessarily mean a 20 was rolled. Some exceptions:
- Unconscious [Condition] - Automatic Critical Hits. Any attack roll that hits you is a Critical Hit if the attacker is within 5 feet of you.
You do realize this is just more support for the position that a Critical Hit and an auto-hit are separate things in the rules, right?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue) Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Both results ("you score a Critical Hit" and "the attack hits regardless of any modifiers or the target’s AC") are explicitly tied to the condition "if you roll a 20 on the d20 for an attack roll." [ and therefore, it logically follows that all Critical Hits are auto-hits ]
Hmm, I was hoping that my dog walking example would make things a lot more obvious, but I can see that it's still not landing for some reason.
To be abundantly clear, the conclusion that you are drawing above is a logical fallacy. Hopefully another forum member who studies linguistics much more formally than I do will chime in with the correct terminology for precisely which type of logical fallacy this is, but rest assured, it is 100% a logical fallacy.
Don't you think it might be possible that my dog might bark at the birds at other times? Like in my backyard? And perhaps at times when my legs are not sore? Don't you think it might be possible that my legs might get sore during activities which are nowhere in the vicinity of my dog?
Just because I make a statement that if I walk my dog in the park my legs get sore and my dog barks at the birds is absolutely positively not enough information to be able to draw the conclusion that all events where my legs get sore occur when my dog barks at the birds or that all of the times that my dog barks at the birds my legs get sore. I apologize if this example just ended up causing more confusion. I'm just not sure how else to explain this at this point.
It's also another case where this doesn't matter too much because we can always just use the rule from the main text which does function correctly. I was just pointing out that the authors should update the Rules Glossary entry accordingly, but it's not a big deal.
Both results ("you score a Critical Hit" and "the attack hits regardless of any modifiers or the target’s AC") are explicitly tied to the condition "if you roll a 20 on the d20 for an attack roll."
But landing a Critical Hit does not necessarily mean a 20 was rolled. Some exceptions:
- Unconscious [Condition] - Automatic Critical Hits. Any attack roll that hits you is a Critical Hit if the attacker is within 5 feet of you.
You do realize this is just more support for the position that a Critical Hit and an auto-hit are separate things in the rules, right?
When you score a Critical Hit, you deal extra damage. Roll the attack’s damage dice twice, add them together, and 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 add your relevant ability modifier. If the attack involves other damage dice, such as from the Rogue’s Sneak Attack feature, you also roll those dice twice.
This is from the Dev:
No. In the case of the Rules Glossary text, you cannot make the substitution that you are suggesting.
It's important to always be really careful when thinking about whether or not the Exceptions Supersede General Rules rule applies to any particular situation. Explicitly, that rule ONLY applies:
In this case, the exception does not disagree with the general rule since they are actually talking about two different things.
The Rules Glossary text begins like this:
"If you roll a 20 on the d20 for an attack roll, you score a Critical Hit, and the attack hits regardless of any modifiers or the target’s AC."
The correct way to parse that statement is like this:
"If you roll a 20 on the d20 for an attack roll, you score a Critical Hit.
AND
If you roll a 20 on the d20 for an attack roll, the attack hits regardless of any modifiers or the target's AC."
From that statement, it does NOT logically follow that all Critical Hits are auto-hits.
It also does NOT logically follow that all auto-hits are Critical Hits.
For example, consider this series of statements:
When I walk my dog in the park, my legs get sore.
And
When I walk my dog in the park, my dog barks at the birds.
From that, it does not logically follow that every time my legs get sore my dog barks at the birds. it also does not logically follow that every time my dog barks at the birds my legs get sore.
Yes, we all know that that's what the text is trying to say. But it doesn't get there. It does get there in the main text, which is what we should use. It does not get there in the Rules Glossary text, which should be changed via errata.
Now, to complete the point, consider the text of the Improved Critical feature:
When using the Exceptions Supersede General Rules rule, we end up with the following change to the general rules:
"If you roll a 20 on the d20 for an attack roll, you score a Critical Hit.
AND
If you roll a 20 on the d20 for an attack roll, the attack hits regardless of any modifiers or the target's AC."
. . . Becomes . . .
"If you roll a 19 or 20 on the d20 for an attack roll with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike, you can score a Critical Hit.
AND
If you roll a 20 on the d20 for an attack roll, the attack hits regardless of any modifiers or the target's AC."
The exception from Improved Critical disagree with the general rules on Critical Hit since you normally can't score a crit on a 19.
Yes, that's correct. This specific rule changes the die value at which you can score a Critical Hit.
If using the wording of the general rule from the main text, then this specific rule also changes the die value at which you will auto-hit since the term "Critical Hit" is actually defined there as being an attack that auto-hits.
However, if using the wording of the Rules Glossary, then this specific rule does not change the die value at which you will auto-hit since the two concepts are not linked to each other in that rules text and the new specific rule only changes when a Critical Hit can be scored, not when an auto-hit is achieved.
If your AC is from wearing plate mail you are probably very rarely dodging the blow, it is hitting you but just not penetrating the armor. So if I need a 15 to hit and roll a 14, im still making contact it just bounces off the armor. So if the function of the hit was based on it being a critical hit, then removing the critical hit portion would logically make it a miss. They are stated their intent which I kind of assumed, but for RAW particular people they will probably read it differently. I think people need to understand RAW is vague as almost any rule can be read in multiple ways RAW, so look at the intent, and look at what is best for your table.
And honestly when the heck is this coming up, you are either fighting enemies way beneath your weight class so if the goblin or whatever hits you for 1d6 does it really matter, or you should be retreating as your DM put you into a fight you are not designed to win. Pro-tip to new players if you need to roll a 20 to hit with your main attack, run or surrender.
If you are on the ball, you can narrate hits/misses according to armor, dex mods and shields with 8- being clean misses.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Auto hit and extra damage are effect when scoring a Critical Hit that Improved Critical doesn't disagree with the general rules on Critical Hit so no change here.
You changed the meaning by adding a period. Unfair. I also know how to play that game.
The correct way to parse that statement is like this:
"You score a Critical Hit, and the attack hits regardless of any modifiers or the target’s AC, if you roll a 20 on the d20 for an attack roll"
From that statement, it logically follows that all Critical Hits are auto-hits.
Sure, you could parse the Rules Glossary text that way if you'd like.
No. It absolutely does not. Linguistically, you cannot logically get to this second statement from the information provided in the first statement.
My legs get sore and my dog barks at the birds when I walk my dog in the park.
This does not mean that my legs get sore whenever my dog barks at the birds. Nor does it mean that my dog barks at the birds whenever my legs get sore.
This is incorrect. Here is what the text says about what happens when you score a Critical Hit:
There is nothing in there about whether or not any auto-hit occurred. It's ONLY describing the damage.
The only reason why we actually know that a Critical Hit automatically hits is because the main text includes a rule which explicitly links those two concepts together like this:
The text in the Rules Glossary does not do that. That text links Critical hits back to rolling a 20 and it also links auto-hits back to rolling a 20. It never links those two concepts to each other. That rule says that when a 20 is rolled, two things happen. So what? This is not enough information to make any additional assumptions about the relationship between those two concepts. It's just that they each happen when one other common thing happens. Trying to jump from that to a statement such as "all Critical Hits are auto-hits, and all auto-hits are Critical Hits" is a logical error.
Again, we CAN get there from the main text, which is what we should use. We cannot get there from the Rules Glossary text, which should be changed via errata.
Yes. It absolutely does. Both results ("you score a Critical Hit" and "the attack hits regardless of any modifiers or the target’s AC") are explicitly tied to the condition "if you roll a 20 on the d20 for an attack roll."
But landing a Critical Hit does not necessarily mean a 20 was rolled. Some exceptions:
- Unconscious [Condition] - Automatic Critical Hits. Any attack roll that hits you is a Critical Hit if the attacker is within 5 feet of you.
- Level 3: Improved Critical
Of course not, because that's wrong.
To match the structure of Critical Hits, the equivalent sentence would be: "My legs get sore and my dog barks at the birds if I walk my dog in the park."
Or, if you prefer, "If I walk my dog in the park, my legs get sore and my dog barks at the birds"
Now both events ("my legs get sore" and "my dog barks at the birds") are clearly tied to a single condition ("if I walk my dog in the park").
Remember:
- "if" introduces a condition. Something that must happen for the result to occur.
- "when" introduces a temporal occurrence. It describes that two things happen at the same time, but does not imply one causes the other.
You do realize this is just more support for the position that a Critical Hit and an auto-hit are separate things in the rules, right?
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Hmm, I was hoping that my dog walking example would make things a lot more obvious, but I can see that it's still not landing for some reason.
To be abundantly clear, the conclusion that you are drawing above is a logical fallacy. Hopefully another forum member who studies linguistics much more formally than I do will chime in with the correct terminology for precisely which type of logical fallacy this is, but rest assured, it is 100% a logical fallacy.
Don't you think it might be possible that my dog might bark at the birds at other times? Like in my backyard? And perhaps at times when my legs are not sore? Don't you think it might be possible that my legs might get sore during activities which are nowhere in the vicinity of my dog?
Just because I make a statement that if I walk my dog in the park my legs get sore and my dog barks at the birds is absolutely positively not enough information to be able to draw the conclusion that all events where my legs get sore occur when my dog barks at the birds or that all of the times that my dog barks at the birds my legs get sore. I apologize if this example just ended up causing more confusion. I'm just not sure how else to explain this at this point.
It's also another case where this doesn't matter too much because we can always just use the rule from the main text which does function correctly. I was just pointing out that the authors should update the Rules Glossary entry accordingly, but it's not a big deal.
Well, to me it's just an example of Exceptions Supersede General Rules to get next effect:
EDIT: for clarity.