I`ve had a small argument with our DM. He says that its unlogical thing that you can still hit an enemy with nat 20, when it has for example 25 AC. Maybe i`m wrong, but nat 20 it`s like an ultimate hit. Explain pls
The why is it's a fundamental rule that's been in the game for a long time and is part of the balance. Monsters are designed under the assumption that any attack roll will always hit 5% of the time and always miss 5% of the time. This applies to both attacks they take and make. The design also factors in the damage will be doubled. If you remove crits always hit, you break the balance of the game.
It may only seem illogical if you view D&D combat as a simulation, as a realistic representation. But it's not, it's an abstract model of the drama of combat. That's why hp doesn't represent exclusively physical damage and turns take place in order even though they're occurring simultaneously.
If someone wants an enemy that cannot be hit, the enemy needs to be Immune to the method of attack (and with a reasonable story and purpose for the immunity), not a high AC. EDIT: Yes. Still 5% automatic hit, but no damage when a target is Immune to the damage type. (Resistant is not the same thing, but I keep seeing people thinking they're the same.)
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
The why is it's a fundamental rule that's been in the game for a long time and is part of the balance. Monsters are designed under the assumption that any attack roll will always hit 5% of the time and always miss 5% of the time. This applies to both attacks they take and make. The design also factors in the damage will be doubled. If you remove crits always hit, you break the balance of the game.
It may only seem illogical if you view D&D combat as a simulation, as a realistic representation. But it's not, it's an abstract model of the drama of combat. That's why hp doesn't represent exclusively physical damage and turns take place in order even though they're occurring simultaneously.
Thank you. I`ll let him know about that. That`s true that he`s more into realism, but he thinks that this opportunity of nat 20 (in case of auto-succeed attack) is making the game more imbalanced. If 20 gives you an advantage (crit) why 1 is nothing much?
Or how can you still hit a crit when your characteristic modifier is -1 for examle. Like you have a nat 20 but with mod-1 it becomes 19, not 20. Or how you can still hit an Iron Gigant with anything when your mod -1 and his AC over than 20.
He says that DnD is all about giving an advantage for players. And even if its so, I think its nothing bad. At least somewhere life would be a little less bitter than it is.
The mechanics of a crit on 20 really doesn't matter, it affects both PCs and NPCs so, that balances the mechanic anyhow, as would any alternative rule. The rule of a miss on a nat 1 is substantial as well, some characters have double digits to hit yet, they can still miss a low AC target. Again, it all evens out.
While I see some point in asking why does everyone take a crit on 20(plenty of ways to avoid this magically)? How would he propose to crit anything with an AC over 20? Because, that should be possible, right?
While your example of a -1 modifier is a good argument against crits for all on a 20, a better one is: Why aren't you doing something else, that doesn't have a-1 modifier?
Hi I am a GM that this post is about. Firstly I wanted to say thank you for your reply.
I can see some logic in makeng auto hits on 20, but I am not realy ok with fact that PC with -3 to attack not only hits, but crits on nat 20. Also I dont understand why 1 is just auto miss and 20 is hit + crit. It is just unfair, i think.
And finaly if a 20 is a crit in attack rolls, why 1 on Saving Throws isnt a crit for a spellcaster/trap/tree falling on you etc. If you are falling into a pit with spikes rolling 1 is like falling with your head on a spike becouse you were unanable to dodge.
And also.... can you please explain your second point one more time? I simply didnt get it
I can see some logic in makeng auto hits on 20, but I am not realy ok with fact that PC with -3 to attack not only hits, but crits on nat 20. Also I dont understand why 1 is just auto miss and 20 is hit + crit. It is just unfair, i think.
There's always a chance. Look at it like this: You are lucky to hit the bad guy and manage to break his neck.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Semper in faecibus sumus, solo profundum variat" playing since 1986
Remember that these rules benefit players and monsters, so there's no unfairness. If anything, these rules benefit monsters more because monsters get a lot more attacks on average and tend to outnumber the players.
Ultimately AC and to hit bonuses are abstractions of swing swords and firing bows, and, even if you're really bad, there's always going to be a chance of a hit landing and there's always going to be a chance of a hit missing.
Their last point is yes, you could make an attack with a -1 to hit and still hit 5% of the time, but why would a player do that and not instead do something that's got better odds of hitting.
But you dont break.... fine I see your point. You say that you hit "special place" where pain and damage is bigger and this makes sense, but dnd combat is arcade and if Monster Manual doesnt say anything about such places there is none. And this still doesnt work when you have -1 or less for an attack roll
But you dont break.... fine I see your point. You say that you hit "special place" where pain and damage is bigger and this makes sense, but dnd combat is arcade and if Monster Manual doesnt say anything about such places there is none. And this still doesnt work when you have -1 or less for an attack roll
Critical hits aren't about hitting weak points or critical locations. They're about lucky blows; a sword blow landing in just the right way to cut a little deeper, or a spear thrust that drives the enemy back hard enough to stumble them.
It's important to remember the following: hit points are not wound points. An attack can land and do 10 points of damage to a creature with a maximum of 20, but that doesn't mean you've physically injured them half as much as they can take. What it means is you've drained their luck, endurance, strength, etc. As such, an attack can hit without physically connecting, it just means you've drained the targets ability to keep fighting.
A -1 or -2 or -5 to hit just represents how likely you are to land a blow compared to even odds. Even with a -5, you still could get a lucky hit in that does damage; maybe you flail wildly and cause them to stumble and twist, falling onto your blade.
A bit of fundamental advice; if your preconceptions about the narrative of the game don't align with the rules, you need to adjust your preconceptions before adjusting the rules.
I dont think that it represents how likely I will hit. As you know you roll first and then add modifires. They dont change the results of your roll if you roll 20 or 1 and dont affect your luck becouse you even dont need to add them.
I dont think that it represents how likely I will hit. As you know you roll first and then add modifires. They dont change the results of your roll if you roll 20 or 1 and dont affect your luck becouse you even dont need to add them.
It explicitly represents that ever presence of luck (good or bad) that could lead to you landing that blow, or missing regardless.
The order in which you add modifiers doesn't relate to the narrative, it's just done in an order to make gameplay smooth.
The why is it's a fundamental rule that's been in the game for a long time and is part of the balance. Monsters are designed under the assumption that any attack roll will always hit 5% of the time and always miss 5% of the time. This applies to both attacks they take and make. The design also factors in the damage will be doubled. If you remove crits always hit, you break the balance of the game.
It may only seem illogical if you view D&D combat as a simulation, as a realistic representation. But it's not, it's an abstract model of the drama of combat. That's why hp doesn't represent exclusively physical damage and turns take place in order even though they're occurring simultaneously.
Thank you. I`ll let him know about that. That`s true that he`s more into realism, but he thinks that this opportunity of nat 20 (in case of auto-succeed attack) is making the game more imbalanced. If 20 gives you an advantage (crit) why 1 is nothing much?
Well, he's wrong. The game is EXPLICITLY balanced to deal with critical hits. And a 1 does give you the opposite, it always misses. Even if you are a 20th level fighter attacking a naked opponent, if you roll a 1, you miss. And since opponents also can crit, it's not an advantage that only players get.
Hi I am a GM that this post is about. Firstly I wanted to say thank you for your reply.
I can see some logic in makeng auto hits on 20, but I am not realy ok with fact that PC with -3 to attack not only hits, but crits on nat 20. Also I dont understand why 1 is just auto miss and 20 is hit + crit. It is just unfair, i think.
And finaly if a 20 is a crit in attack rolls, why 1 on Saving Throws isnt a crit for a spellcaster/trap/tree falling on you etc. If you are falling into a pit with spikes rolling 1 is like falling with your head on a spike becouse you were unanable to dodge.
And also.... can you please explain your second point one more time? I simply didnt get it
As explained multiple times, it's not unfair since everyone and anyone can do it.
But you dont break.... fine I see your point. You say that you hit "special place" where pain and damage is bigger and this makes sense, but dnd combat is arcade and if Monster Manual doesnt say anything about such places there is none. And this still doesnt work when you have -1 or less for an attack roll
Already explained to you, it's about those lucky shots that comes only so often. Page 194 of the Player's Handbook.
As Davedamon points out, just becuase you don't like the way this game handles things doesn't mean that the rules are wrong. It means that maybe this game isn't for you. Because according to this game, you are way wrong.
Keep in mind that D&D is a game, not a simulation. According to the rules, you can be brought to the very brink of death, but after a good night's sleep you're completely fine. So sacrificing some "realism" is thoroughly baked in.
I never said that rules are wrong. Rules cant be wrong but can be unrealistick and (just for my stupied head) dumb. DnD is a very unbalanced and in some places broken game. You can literally loose hitpoints just leveling up if you rolled 3 for Constitution. But still rules arent wrong. They are just dumb in sertain ways
1) Anyone who somehow manages to roll a 3 for a stat and puts it in Constitution deserves what they get :)
2) You can't actually lose HP by leveling, the PHB is explicit about that: "Each time you gain a level, you gain 1 additional Hit Die. Roll that Hit Die, add your Constitution modifier to the roll, and add the total (minimum of 1) to your hit point maximum."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I`ve had a small argument with our DM. He says that its unlogical thing that you can still hit an enemy with nat 20, when it has for example 25 AC. Maybe i`m wrong, but nat 20 it`s like an ultimate hit. Explain pls
IMHO your DM is a bad sport. There's only 5% chance of throwing a 20.
"Semper in faecibus sumus, solo profundum variat"
playing since 1986
The why is it's a fundamental rule that's been in the game for a long time and is part of the balance. Monsters are designed under the assumption that any attack roll will always hit 5% of the time and always miss 5% of the time. This applies to both attacks they take and make. The design also factors in the damage will be doubled. If you remove crits always hit, you break the balance of the game.
It may only seem illogical if you view D&D combat as a simulation, as a realistic representation. But it's not, it's an abstract model of the drama of combat. That's why hp doesn't represent exclusively physical damage and turns take place in order even though they're occurring simultaneously.
D&D Beyond moderator across forums, Discord, Twitch and YouTube. Always happy to help and willing to answer questions (or at least try). (he/him/his)
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Site Rules & Guidelines - Homebrew Rules - Looking for Players and Groups Rules
If someone wants an enemy that cannot be hit, the enemy needs to be Immune to the method of attack (and with a reasonable story and purpose for the immunity), not a high AC. EDIT: Yes. Still 5% automatic hit, but no damage when a target is Immune to the damage type. (Resistant is not the same thing, but I keep seeing people thinking they're the same.)
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Thank you, guys
Thank you. I`ll let him know about that. That`s true that he`s more into realism, but he thinks that this opportunity of nat 20 (in case of auto-succeed attack) is making the game more imbalanced. If 20 gives you an advantage (crit) why 1 is nothing much?
Or how can you still hit a crit when your characteristic modifier is -1 for examle. Like you have a nat 20 but with mod-1 it becomes 19, not 20. Or how you can still hit an Iron Gigant with anything when your mod -1 and his AC over than 20.
He says that DnD is all about giving an advantage for players. And even if its so, I think its nothing bad. At least somewhere life would be a little less bitter than it is.
The mechanics of a crit on 20 really doesn't matter, it affects both PCs and NPCs so, that balances the mechanic anyhow, as would any alternative rule. The rule of a miss on a nat 1 is substantial as well, some characters have double digits to hit yet, they can still miss a low AC target. Again, it all evens out.
While I see some point in asking why does everyone take a crit on 20(plenty of ways to avoid this magically)? How would he propose to crit anything with an AC over 20? Because, that should be possible, right?
While your example of a -1 modifier is a good argument against crits for all on a 20, a better one is: Why aren't you doing something else, that doesn't have a-1 modifier?
Hi I am a GM that this post is about. Firstly I wanted to say thank you for your reply.
I can see some logic in makeng auto hits on 20, but I am not realy ok with fact that PC with -3 to attack not only hits, but crits on nat 20. Also I dont understand why 1 is just auto miss and 20 is hit + crit. It is just unfair, i think.
And finaly if a 20 is a crit in attack rolls, why 1 on Saving Throws isnt a crit for a spellcaster/trap/tree falling on you etc. If you are falling into a pit with spikes rolling 1 is like falling with your head on a spike becouse you were unanable to dodge.
And also.... can you please explain your second point one more time? I simply didnt get it
There's always a chance. Look at it like this: You are lucky to hit the bad guy and manage to break his neck.
"Semper in faecibus sumus, solo profundum variat"
playing since 1986
Remember that these rules benefit players and monsters, so there's no unfairness. If anything, these rules benefit monsters more because monsters get a lot more attacks on average and tend to outnumber the players.
Ultimately AC and to hit bonuses are abstractions of swing swords and firing bows, and, even if you're really bad, there's always going to be a chance of a hit landing and there's always going to be a chance of a hit missing.
Their last point is yes, you could make an attack with a -1 to hit and still hit 5% of the time, but why would a player do that and not instead do something that's got better odds of hitting.
D&D Beyond moderator across forums, Discord, Twitch and YouTube. Always happy to help and willing to answer questions (or at least try). (he/him/his)
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Site Rules & Guidelines - Homebrew Rules - Looking for Players and Groups Rules
But you dont break.... fine I see your point. You say that you hit "special place" where pain and damage is bigger and this makes sense, but dnd combat is arcade and if Monster Manual doesnt say anything about such places there is none. And this still doesnt work when you have -1 or less for an attack roll
The -1 to hit does not stop a natural 20 on an attack roll from hitting.
My emphasis. There is (almost) nothing that stops a natural 20 on an attack roll from hitting.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Critical hits aren't about hitting weak points or critical locations. They're about lucky blows; a sword blow landing in just the right way to cut a little deeper, or a spear thrust that drives the enemy back hard enough to stumble them.
It's important to remember the following: hit points are not wound points. An attack can land and do 10 points of damage to a creature with a maximum of 20, but that doesn't mean you've physically injured them half as much as they can take. What it means is you've drained their luck, endurance, strength, etc. As such, an attack can hit without physically connecting, it just means you've drained the targets ability to keep fighting.
A -1 or -2 or -5 to hit just represents how likely you are to land a blow compared to even odds. Even with a -5, you still could get a lucky hit in that does damage; maybe you flail wildly and cause them to stumble and twist, falling onto your blade.
A bit of fundamental advice; if your preconceptions about the narrative of the game don't align with the rules, you need to adjust your preconceptions before adjusting the rules.
D&D Beyond moderator across forums, Discord, Twitch and YouTube. Always happy to help and willing to answer questions (or at least try). (he/him/his)
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Site Rules & Guidelines - Homebrew Rules - Looking for Players and Groups Rules
You may find some value in the information in these videos:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xZdS8lP-Sdo&list=PLlUk42GiU2guNzWBzxn7hs8MaV7ELLCP_&index=73&t=0s
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YDjD0Gjtgik
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
I dont think that it represents how likely I will hit. As you know you roll first and then add modifires. They dont change the results of your roll if you roll 20 or 1 and dont affect your luck becouse you even dont need to add them.
It explicitly represents that ever presence of luck (good or bad) that could lead to you landing that blow, or missing regardless.
The order in which you add modifiers doesn't relate to the narrative, it's just done in an order to make gameplay smooth.
D&D Beyond moderator across forums, Discord, Twitch and YouTube. Always happy to help and willing to answer questions (or at least try). (he/him/his)
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Site Rules & Guidelines - Homebrew Rules - Looking for Players and Groups Rules
Well, he's wrong. The game is EXPLICITLY balanced to deal with critical hits. And a 1 does give you the opposite, it always misses. Even if you are a 20th level fighter attacking a naked opponent, if you roll a 1, you miss. And since opponents also can crit, it's not an advantage that only players get.
As explained multiple times, it's not unfair since everyone and anyone can do it.
Already explained to you, it's about those lucky shots that comes only so often. Page 194 of the Player's Handbook.
As Davedamon points out, just becuase you don't like the way this game handles things doesn't mean that the rules are wrong. It means that maybe this game isn't for you. Because according to this game, you are way wrong.
Keep in mind that D&D is a game, not a simulation. According to the rules, you can be brought to the very brink of death, but after a good night's sleep you're completely fine. So sacrificing some "realism" is thoroughly baked in.
I never said that rules are wrong. Rules cant be wrong but can be unrealistick and (just for my stupied head) dumb. DnD is a very unbalanced and in some places broken game. You can literally loose hitpoints just leveling up if you rolled 3 for Constitution. But still rules arent wrong. They are just dumb in sertain ways
1) Anyone who somehow manages to roll a 3 for a stat and puts it in Constitution deserves what they get :)
2) You can't actually lose HP by leveling, the PHB is explicit about that: "Each time you gain a level, you gain 1 additional Hit Die. Roll that Hit Die, add your Constitution modifier to the roll, and add the total (minimum of 1) to your hit point maximum."