But they also specifically state that the confirmation roll is a an attack roll, and on an attack roll a 20 always hits. If your fonfirmation attack roll hits, it's a crit.
It's there in black and white.
Also, as has been stated upthread, it probably helps NPCs and monsters more.
It does not state anywhere that if the confirmation roll hits, it's a crit. It does state if you hit the target's AC it's a crit. They are two different things.
Unless there's an FAQ or other official clarification I've missed.
If the confirmation roll also results in a hit against the target's AC , your original hit is a critical hit.
Is a natural 20 on an attack roll a hit against the target's AC?
My point is that it doesn't state "if you hit the target's AC it's a hit". It says if the roll you made has a result that is a hit against the target's AC it's a crit. A natural 20 is automatically a hit against the target's AC, regardless of the value of the AC. Any attempt to argue otherwise is really rather silly.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The RAW is clear; it's a crit.
If you thought that such a shot is impossible it's within your rights to rule an auto-fail of the initial attack roll; no-one would quibble with that.
But you did allow that attack roll, therefore can't complain when he rolled a 20!
And, if you already allowed that shot to hit, you have no logical reason at that point to say that the arrow couldn't have nicked an artery!
The time to disallow it was before the shot had been attempted, not after the critical was confirmed!
At this piont you're essentially complaining about a situation that you ruled was okay, now are attempting to shift the blame from you (whose fault it is) onto the rules!
The RAW is clear; it's a crit.
If you thought that such a shot is impossible it's within your rights to rule an auto-fail of the initial attack roll; no-one would quibble with that.
But you did allow that attack roll, therefore can't complain when he rolled a 20!
And, if you already allowed that shot to hit, you have no logical reason at that point to say that the arrow couldn't have nicked an artery!
The time to disallow it was before the shot had been attempted, not after the critical was confirmed!
At this piont you're essentially complaining about a situation that you ruled was okay, now are attempting to shift the blame from you (whose fault it is) onto the rules!
Yep I agree,you ruled he could attack, he rolled and hit with a Nat 20, I'm afraid you will just have to live with it, mistakes happen but once its called it too late to gripe about it afterwards.
You should never have allowed the shot to take place in the first place if you thought it was impossible (which it would be). Bad judgement call not a rule question I think
i would say its a hit, but not a crit because his modifier couldnt hit the guys ac.. unless his ac was 20..
Out of curiosity, it is pristine and crystal-clear water? If not did the archer have any ability to negate concealment which could've given the arrow a miss chance? No matter what you make on an attack roll, a miss chance for concealment always comes before the attack roll. That could've changed the situation.
As for how would you describe that? Is the character religious? Does he follow a specific deity? A moment like that -- a one in a million shot -- is a very David and Goliath situation. It is something that is an unbelievable and remarkable achievement. Maybe the character could believe that his god allowed this shot to succeed.
Do the enemies of the fish-king have deities? If so perhaps they believe this assassination is the work of their own scheming prayers to their scaly fish pantheon.
Describe it as a one-in-a-million shot. An arrow hurtling over a thousand feet, using the flow of the current and the power of the archer to swim towards its target like a deadly underwater predator. The archer wouldn't even see if the arrow struck true until the water around his target began to grow cloudy and red with blood. Etc, etc.
I think moments like that are fantastic, defining moments for characters. If I let him take the shot, I'd be so happy for the player to have made it!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ LazarX: Lol RD has been very relaxed through the whole thread - let's not let our assumptions create that which we wish to avoid :)
The RAW question in the title has been clearly answered, and I've learnt where the underwater visual ranges are in the CRB - dare I say it, I consider this thread to be a great success!
i would say its a hit, but not a crit because his modifier couldnt hit the guys ac.. unless his ac was 20..
Ummm, did you read all the thread, with all the RAW evidence to the contrary?
I think moments like that are fantastic, defining moments for characters. If I let him take the shot, I'd be so happy for the player to have made it!
Me too!
|
In a practice session I just had a player take a shot at a sahuagin king with his bow, underwater, from 1,000 feet away. He rolled a natural 20 and hit automatically. He rolled another natural 20 to confirm the crit.
The total attack roll modifiers for range and for using a ranged weapon underwater make the sum of his attack roll, and roll to confirm, to less than 0 (WAY less than 0).
A natural 20 is an automatic hit, but is it also an auto-confirmation when rolled on the crit confirmation roll?
Did he just assassinate the king under the sea?
The problem is that there IS a 10 limit in range increments that you can pile on, and 1,000 feet underwater exceeds the 10 range increments which increment by 5 feet as that's how often the minuses pop up for underwater combat with a bow. Water is 800 times more resistant than air. You're not going to get the kind of range you'd get on land.
IF that's not enough, 1,000 feet is beyond vision range underwater. If you can't draw a bead on your target, you're not hitting at ALL no matter how many Nat 20's you roll.
And if 3d8 +3xStr is enough to take out the sahaugin king in one shot, he'd have been dead long ago.
Ranged Attacks Underwater: Thrown weapons are ineffective underwater, even when launched from land. Attacks with other ranged weapons take a –2 penalty on attack rolls for every 5 feet of water they pass through, in addition to the normal penalties for range.
It don't say anywhere that it is a range increment.
As an houserule I wouldn't allow someone to shot that far and limit the range to 50', but RAW the fire can shot that far, it they can pinpoint the target square.
Obviously with a 50% miss chance if you don't see the target.
Yar!
Also by RAW dead people can walk and make attack rolls.
Actually, RAW stands for Rules as Written, and there is nothing written about possible actions while "dead". Thus we must use common sense. To claim it is "written in the rules" (aka: RAW) that you can do something while in a specified state when no such thing is actually written is, well, an insubstantial claim.
However, if you really want to push this: it is also RAW that all player character Rogues must be female, as they are only refereed to as "she" and "her" in the Rogue writeup. This actually IS written.
EDIT: unless you're talking about being UN-dead, which is something else entirely.
~P
How would you even describe something like that? The arrow lazily floats towards the sahuagin king as he makes his speech, then at the presentation's conclusion, the sahuagin king yawns...thereby causing him to swallow and choke to death on the arrow that happened to float near the immediate vicinity of his mouth. :PI'm sure George Lucas asked the same question of Luke Skywalker's player when he tried hitting a 1m target flying at top speed down a narrow corridor with his targeting computer off, but Hamill rolled the two 20's and the rest is history.
But Hamill cheated using the force to make the d20s come up on a 20 twice.
|
|
Yar!
Also by RAW dead people can walk and make attack rolls.Actually, RAW stands for Rules as Written, and there is nothing written about possible actions while "dead". Thus we must use common sense. To claim it is "written in the rules" (aka: RAW) that you can do something while in a specified state when no such thing is actually written is, well, an insubstantial claim.
However, if you really want to push this: it is also RAW that all player character Rogues must be female, as they are only refereed to as "she" and "her" in the Rogue writeup. This actually IS written.
~P
Actually, good point. There is nothing written, and therefore we must use common sense to apply real world knowledge to the condition. I posit that the same application of common sense should be used with written rules that are applied in situations they were not intended to be used.
Yar!
Actually, good point. There is nothing written, and therefore we must use common sense to apply real world knowledge to the condition. I posit that the same application of common sense should be used with written rules that are applied in situations they were not intended to be used.
This I can agree with.
^_^
~P
|
|
Under normal circumstances, I would agree. However, the DM in this scenario already allowed the player to make the attempt. To change his mind after the character succeeded would not be fair to the player.
Well, in that particular instance, that is true: the GM gave the green light so whatever is written in the book is completely irrelevant.
Yar.
the GM gave the green light so whatever is written in the book is completely irrelevant.
But a GM can still try to make rulings based on what is written, to make allowances for risky/heroic/impossible actions while still keeping the bulk of the rules intact, and/or to determine how a particular allowance will interact with the game world based on the rest of the rules still being maintained. A single allowance should not equate to throwing the entire rulebook away. A single change/alteration/allowance for a single action does not invalidate the entire game system.
In this particular instance, the GM said "Yes, you can target the creature and fire your bow underwater", which was then followed by "but, I'm unsure of how the rules dictate the outcome of your rolls. Let me go to the paizo forums and see if a discussion there can bring about an answer".
Now, if we remove the allowance (of being able to see that far underwater and the "muddy waters" of shooting a bow underwater), we still have a valid rules question: "Does a natural 20 on the confirmation roll for a potential crit make it a confirmed crit, even if modifiers to the roll would make the result not hit the targets AC?"
The RAW answer appears to be "Yes, a natural 20 on an attack roll is always a hit, regardless of the target's AC or the modifiers to your roll".
~P
I'm pretty sure that range increments are shortened underwater; and underwater crossbow uses range increments of 20' underwater, and that statement is phrased in a way that it's longer than usual.
Yar!
The rules for Underwater Combat are located HERE (Environment chapter).
(Unless it is clarified in another source that I am currently unaware of) There is nothing written about shortened range increments, only increased penalties (and completely negating thrown weapons). However, such a house rule would not be out of line to implement. Just be sure to make such clear before any attempts at underwater combat are made (such would be the decent thing to do).
~P
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"If the confirmation roll also results in a hit against the target's AC..."
"When you make an attack roll and get a natural 20 (the d20 shows 20), you hit regardless of your target's Armor Class..."
Just reposting this, because everybody seems to be ignoring it.
If the first roll is a natural 20, it ignores AC.
But the second roll (to confirm) does not ignore AC, so it doesn't auto-confirm.
It's (at best) up to the GM as to which of the two apparently contradictory clauses takes precedence.
Rolling that natural 20 allows you to hit an otherwise-impossible target; I don't feel that ruling that a critical hit is impossible is being all that unfair to the players.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Regular attack rolls are against the target's AC too. They autohit on a 20 because all attack rolls autohit on a 20.
There is no contradiction.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
(bangs head on desk)
THE CRITICAL ROLL IS AN ATTACK ROLL! 20s ON ATTACK ROLLS ARE ALWAYS A SUCCESS! A NATURAL 20 HITS AGAINST ANY AC!
edit: I am here because I like to be. Just trying all caps and seeing if that helps, since this has been stated about 10 times now.
|
|
Now, if we remove the allowance (of being able to see that far underwater and the "muddy waters" of shooting a bow underwater), we still have a valid rules question: "Does a natural 20 on the confirmation roll for a potential crit make it a confirmed crit, even if modifiers to the roll would make the result not hit the targets AC?"
The RAW answer appears to be "Yes, a natural 20 on an attack roll is always a hit, regardless of the target's AC or the modifiers to your roll".
~P
Sure. If a peasant is fighting an Ancient Red Dragon, the peasant still has a chance (an extremely small chance) to hit the dragon with his pitchfork. This is the context in which the "natural roll of 20 always hits" rule was written.
Shooting a longbow underwater (with no magical assistance to propel the arrow) at RAW longbow ranges takes the "natural 20" rule out of context (as well as the longbow range-increment rule). There are no rules to tell us what the range increment is of a longbow when shot underwater. Therefore, we must rely on common sense application of real-world knowledge. Common sense tells us that it is physically impossible for such a projectile to travel the distance indicated. In that case, no, a natural 20 would not hit the target at that distance because the projectile wouldn't even travel that far to begin with.
There are no rules to tell us what the range increment is of a longbow when shot underwater.
Yes there is. There is nothing at all that contradicts the general rule that the range increment of a longbow is 100 ft and that the maximum range is 10 range increments. There are rules adding additional attack penalties per 5 feet underwater, but it is specifically stated that these are in addition to the range increment penalties.
General rule trumps lack of a rule.
How would you even describe something like that? The arrow lazily floats towards the sahuagin king as he makes his speech, then at the presentation's conclusion, the sahuagin king yawns...thereby causing him to swallow and choke to death on the arrow that happened to float near the immediate vicinity of his mouth. :P
Why would a single crit kill him?
Is this a hypothetical?
Yar.
HangarFlying: uhm, yeah. Of course. But the initial question was not about range increments, it was about if a natural 20 on the confirmation roll was a crit or not, regardless of modifiers. Even the text of mine that you quoted says as much: (paraphrasing) "if you ignore any special circumstances, you still have a valid rules question about natural 20's on confirmation rolls."
I mean, we've already covered this. We know that in this case there was an allowance made to be able to target something and shoot that far underwater. Now given that allowance, what do the rules say about natural 20's on confirmation rolls? It was then stated that is likely to never even happen, therefor the question of a natural 20 on a confirmation roll is moot, but that does not actually invalidate the question itself, nor does it invalidate the question as it relates the specific circumstance in which this case is based around because that allowance, in this case, was made.
At this point, I'm not sure what position you are trying to present. First it was a comment about how silly RAW can be. Then it was agreeing with me that sometimes you gotta use common sense. Then it was that making any allowance to the rules means the entirety of the rules are irrelevant. Now it seems to be that the premise of this thread is completely dismissible because common sense applied to one aspect of a particular circumstance presented as a lead in to the rules question asked invalidates the rules question altogether (note: these are not your exact word. I am paraphrasing and typing out the intent that I am getting from your words).
I say it isn't that black and white, and it is possible to look at this question in many circumstances, both common and rare, both in games without any lenience in what can and cannot be done within the confines of the rules, and in games where some allowances are sometimes made but a base in the rules is wished to be maintained, both using the example (with the allowances assumed with them) presented in the OP, and ignoring that example completely, taking the question on it's own and even adding different circumstances to it.
In the post of mine that you quote, you only quoted the last two lines. What about the first few before that? Do you not agree with that? I do hope it was not intentionally ignored so as to continue an argument without taking it into account.
~P
So is a natural 20 on critical confirmation considered a hit, even when the total sum is less than the target's AC?
Not nearly so cut and dry I think.
Seems 100% clear to me.
Also: "total sum" is redundant. And repetitive. ;-)
|
|
Regular attack rolls are against the target's AC too. They autohit on a 20 because all attack rolls autohit on a 20.
There is no contradiction.
There would be no contradiction if the description of the confirmation roll did not include the qualifier "against the target's AC".
It is possible to read this as a specific rule (about confirmation rolls) that overrides the more general rule that a natural 20 always hits, ignoring AC.
So is the quoted qualifier just fluff, and unnecessary, or it it there for a reason? Rule how you like, but don't claim there's no ambiguity.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder where else we can find the "against AC" language?
Attack Roll
An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.
When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver. The DC of this maneuver is your target's Combat Maneuver Defense. Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll.
Oh hey it's almost as if every attack roll is explicitly against some specific target number or something.
|
|
Yar.
HangarFlying: uhm, yeah. Of course. But the initial question was not about range increments, it was about if a natural 20 on the confirmation roll was a crit or not, regardless of modifiers. Even the text of mine that you quoted says as much: (paraphrasing) "if you ignore any special circumstances, you still have a valid rules question about natural 20's on confirmation rolls."
I mean, we've already covered this. We know that in this case there was an allowance made to be able to target something and shoot that far underwater. Now given that allowance, what do the rules say about natural 20's on confirmation rolls? It was then stated that is likely to never even happen, therefor the question of a natural 20 on a confirmation roll is moot, but that does not actually invalidate the question itself, nor does it invalidate the question as it relates the specific circumstance in which this case is based around because that allowance, in this case, was made.
At this point, I'm not sure what position you are trying to present. First it was a comment about how silly RAW can be. Then it was agreeing with me that sometimes you gotta use common sense. Then it was that making any allowance to the rules means the entirety of the rules are irrelevant. Now it seems to be that the premise of this thread is completely dismissible because common sense applied to one aspect of a particular circumstance presented as a lead in to the rules question asked invalidates the rules question altogether (note: these are not your exact word. I am paraphrasing and typing out the intent that I am getting from your words).
I say it isn't that black and white, and it is possible to look at this question in many circumstances, both common and rare, both in games without any lenience in what can and cannot be done within the confines of the rules, and in games where some allowances are sometimes made but a base in the rules is wished to be maintained, both using the example (with the allowances assumed with them) presented in...
I see what you're saying. I'm fixating on whether or not a bow can be fired underwater at it's normal range, rather than focusing on the actual question of whether or not a natural 20 on the confirmation roll automatically hits even if that natural 20 does not meet or exceed the defender's AC.
To that specific question, I would argue that the second natural 20 would allow critical damage due to the fact that in order to confirm a critical hit, you need a hit against the target's AC. Since a natural 20 is a hit regardless of what the defender's AC is, I think the conditions for a critical hit are satisfied.
The RAW is clear; it's a crit.
If you thought that such a shot is impossible it's within your rights to rule an auto-fail of the initial attack roll; no-one would quibble with that.
But you did allow that attack roll, therefore can't complain when he rolled a 20!
And, if you already allowed that shot to hit, you have no logical reason at that point to say that the arrow couldn't have nicked an artery!
The time to disallow it was before the shot had been attempted, not after the critical was confirmed!
At this piont you're essentially complaining about a situation that you ruled was okay, now are attempting to shift the blame from you (whose fault it is) onto the rules!
While in this circumstance, where you are invoking a little less common or obvious rules, I would think it best to tell the player up front, but I don't think it a requirement on impossible attempts. If a character tried to throw a rock at someone out of their max range, I would have no problem telling them after the roll "apparently you misjudged your own ability, you now see you have no chance of hitting from this distance"
I could see the original post playing out that the GM didn't really know which rule was the go-to answer for making it an impossible shot off the top of his head. But he did think it improbable enough to tell the player to just roll. The line of thought being that he could play the odds of being able to justify almost every outcome as a miss and keep the pace going. Does taking a gamble to make the game pace fun mean stupid things should happen? If it was some mook, probably just keep the pace, but if you were assassinating some king I think I might have to do a quick rule study after the fact to figure out exactly why it wouldn't work.
Yar!
Cool. I'm glad we were able to come to an understanding with each other.
As to your point of fixation, I do agree. RAW as I understand it is that a bow CAN be fired that far underwater, but suffers massive penalties (normal range penalties plus an addition -2 for every 5' of distance). My common sense regarding the matter would say that without a source of self propulsion, even that shouldn't be possible.
I'm not sure exactly how I would rule it yet, but I do recognize that it would be a house rule. As such (and as I mentioned in a previous post), I would be sure to inform my group of the modified ruling prior to any event that would rely upon it.
~P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like how a harpoon - which is a weapon specifically designed and used for underwater hunting as a thrown weapon - cannot be used underwater by the rules of pathfinder.
|
|
One thing I would see needing to happen would be the maximum range of the arrow being adjusted for underwater. No matter what you roll, an arrow will only go so far before it stops being lethal. Also, 1000 feet is far to see in pristine water, let alone ocean water. Without constant propulsion, I don't see a stick traveling that far in water. The world record for a normal bow(hand held) shot is 1592 feet, and that is through the air.
I like how a harpoon - which is a weapon specifically designed and used for underwater hunting as a thrown weapon - cannot be used underwater by the rules of pathfinder.
My players have made this observation as well.
Regular attack rolls are against the target's AC too. They autohit on a 20 because all attack rolls autohit on a 20.
There is no contradiction.
There would be no contradiction if the description of the confirmation roll did not include the qualifier "against the target's AC".
It is possible to read this as a specific rule (about confirmation rolls) that overrides the more general rule that a natural 20 always hits, ignoring AC.
So is the quoted qualifier just fluff, and unnecessary, or it it there for a reason? Rule how you like, but don't claim there's no ambiguity.
The rules for a regular attack roll include the qualifier about the target's AC as well.
An attack roll always hits on a 20. This is a specific rule about attack rolls not having to total the target's AC.
A crit confirmation roll is an attack roll.
The crit confirmation roll rule does not state that it's an exception to the very specific rule that a 20 on an attack roll always hits.
Thus a 20 on the confirmation roll always hits.
You're reading too much into the fact that the rules are ensuring we understand it's an attack roll by stating it is against the target's AC. Just like a regular attack roll.
|
I like how a harpoon - which is a weapon specifically designed and used for underwater hunting as a thrown weapon - cannot be used underwater by the rules of pathfinder.My players have made this observation as well.
Without noting that a harpoon is an air-to-water weapon, rather than a water-to-water weapon?
Harpoons are designed to attack things in water from a platform, not from a position underwater.
Note that spear guns, which, indeed, are designed for use underwater are projectile weapons, not thrown weapons.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm convinced many people see it one way, and I and at least a few others see it differently. To me, there is a solid and definable difference between "you hit regardless of your target's Armor Class" and "a hit against the target's AC." These phrases describe two different things. Sure, the confirmation roll is an attack roll, and a natural 20 automatically hits the target, but you don't have to hit the target to confirm a threatened critical. You have to hit the target's AC. This is clearly stated in the rules.
Group A: A nat 20 on a critical confirmation roll automatically confirms the crit, regardless of the target's AC.
Group B: A nat 20 has no bearing on the result of a critical confirmation roll, and to confirm the roll must hit the target's AC.
I'm in Group B, and consider those in Group A to be using an EXTREMELY popular house rule. Like other EXTREMELY popular house rules, it may be an official rule someday.
I like how a harpoon - which is a weapon specifically designed and used for underwater hunting as a thrown weapon - cannot be used underwater by the rules of pathfinder.My players have made this observation as well.Without noting that a harpoon is an air-to-water weapon, rather than a water-to-water weapon?
Harpoons are designed to attack things in water from a platform, not from a position underwater.
Note that spear guns, which, indeed, are designed for use underwater are projectile weapons, not thrown weapons.
Doesn't matter. The pathfinder rules specifically state that thrown weapons do not work underwater - even if thrown from land. The harpoon cannot work as intended according to pathfinder.
Unless you're hunting the white whale. You have to wait for it to show.
So if you're underwater, you can't throw it. If you're above water, everything has total cover relative to you.
No wonder my players were so upset.