|
We go withSo 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.
- First natural 20 is a possible crit
- Second natural 20 is auto confirm
- Third natural 20 is an auto kill
I am no probability or math expert however, the chances of that happening is very slim. Although it did happen one time when 3 Dragons were attacking a city. We were struggling to hit them and stay out of the fire/falling buildings. The gm has the city captain guard come in to do one round of attacks just to help us out(flanking) and the gm rolls:
and one shots the most powerful of the three dragons.
- 20
- 20
- 20
P.S. not sure if that is a home-brew rule but we have always used it. We have a similar one for rolling consecutive 1's which has not happened yet.
For subsequent die rolls, the probability is just multiplied.
Nat 20 = 1/20
2 Nat 20s = 1/20 x 1/20 = 1/400
3 Nat 20s = 1/20 x 1/20 x 1/20 = 1/8000
On Saturday in our PFS game the gunslinger rolled a nat 1 on 4 consecutive attack rolls.
1 in 160,000.
Not a happy teddy bear.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe when the 400 guys listening to the BEEG speech turn and fire their bows at the bard, scoring 19 hits and 1 critical, the players will stop saying how his it was awesome and start arguing that it should not be possible?Allowing impossible shots generally help the more numerous group, not the heroic characters.
If I were GMing that wouldn't occur. Why would you even want your players to argue over what is possible vs impossible? If they, and you, are having fun why rain on that parade?
The purpose of allowing the shot would be to give the players the sense their characters are heroic and can sometimes do the impossible. To then allow all of the minions to pull off the same shot does exactly the opposite instead giving the sense that even the BBEG's flunkies could pull it off. As bookrat said the old rule of thumb has been don't say no, determine difficulty.
Apparently that part has been handwaved for the PC, so it is only fair to handwave it for the minions.Who says the GM has to be fair to the minions? Forgive me if I am misreading you here but you seem to have an "its the GM vs the players" mentality here and viewing it as an unfair advantage against the GM personally if the characters are allowed to do this type stuff.
I am of the opinion that fair for the goose is fair for gander. I don't play the NPC and PC under different rules when I resolve their actions.
Apparently you play the other way.Heroic? Maybe, but plot armor don't make me feel heroic.
"Determine difficulty" is a bad rule of thumb if any difficulty level can be overcome with a natural roll of 20.
"You alway succeed 5% of the time" isn't heroic, is playing in a world where your skill don't matter much.
To address the OP:
Yes, auto hit.
Yes, auto confirmation.
There is no doubt in my mind about this, others have posted the rule and highlighted that the confirmation is the same as an attack roll, so is subject to the rules of a normal attack ALWAYS hitting on a natural 20. There are no if's, and's, or but's about this, this is in the rules as part of combat. This isn't a question regarding skill challenges, this is a question to attacks. Period.
I would say that as of the release of Ultimate Equipment, Longbows and Shortbows and Normal Crossbows of any kind are not permitted to be fired underwater. In UE, there are specific Crossbows that do allow players to shoot underwater with the following specific statements:
Underwater Heavy CrossbowAbove water, this weapon is identical to a heavy crossbow. You may use it underwater, where it has a range increment of 20 feet. It counts as a heavy crossbow for the purposes of proficiencies and special abilities.
Underwater light Crossbow
An underwater light crossbow functions like its normal counterpart above water, and can be used underwater. When fired underwater, the crossbow has a range increment of 20 feet. Anyone proficient with a normal light crossbow can use an underwater light crossbow.
I added the emphasis.
Since there are no corresponding Underwater Longbows or Shortbows, and the Light Crossbow and Heavy Crossbow do NOT say that they can't be used underwater (it is only implied within the text of the Underwater versions). It would imply that the only non-magical weapons that are allowed to fire underwater are those that specifically state as such.
Yar.
DrDeth: It does not matter if the event in the OP is hypothetical or based on an actual event. A valid question has been asked, and a valid discussion of the related rules have ensued. This is a good thing. Including an example event along side a question to illustrate the question "in action" is by some considered common practice and even proper method of presenting a question, as it aids those reading it with different learning styles. All that your asking of "if it is or is not" is doing is creating an out for people who do not like RD to dismiss him. And I, personally, find it offensive. Please stop.
~P
Yar!
I personally hate the concept that "if a feat/item is printed in some book that not everyone may have that does something, then without it the action it allows is impossible".
Perhaps if the "Underwater Crossbow" also included a line that said "Note: normally bows and crossbows cannot be used underwater. This is an errata to the CRB." Or something like that, I'd be more likely to agree with it's inclusion as proof that it is not normally possible. But from a RAW point of view - using the CRB as your primary source of the rules - the Underwater Combat section only lists Thrown Weapons as completely ineffective, then goes on the say that projectile weapons (bows, crossbows, blowguns, even slings) can be used underwater, but suffer vastly increased penalties.
~P
True, but also following that non-disallowed logic?!? Nowhere does it state that firearms are not permitted underwater. :)
Underwater crossbows, interplanetary teleport, strike back...all rules that LIMIT what you can do.
If gkhager's interpretation is to be believed, before the underwater crossbow you could make ranged attacks underwater. Before interplanetary teleport, greater teleport sufficed just fine for going to the moon, the sun, or other celestial body. Before Strike Back, it was a common fantasy staple for a hero to ready an action to strike the limb of a large creature attacking him (I never met a GM who would disallow such a thing before Pathfinder).
But because of these new rules, none of those things are allowed anymore. This is horrible game design. It only serves to limit the heroes and essentially makes it so no existing rule or character concept is safe from "stealth errata."
I HATE THOSE KINDS OF RULES!
|
|
Yar!
I personally hate the concept that "if a feat/item is printed in some book that not everyone may have that does something, then without it the action it allows is impossible".
Perhaps if the "Underwater Crossbow" also included a line that said "Note: normally bows and crossbows cannot be used underwater. This is an errata to the CRB." Or something like that, I'd be more likely to agree with it's inclusion as proof that it is not normally possible. But from a RAW point of view - using the CRB as your primary source of the rules - the Underwater Combat section only lists Thrown Weapons as completely ineffective, then goes on the say that projectile weapons (bows, crossbows, blowguns, even slings) can be used underwater, but suffer vastly increased penalties.
~P
I have started a tread to get some FAQ about the use of underwater missile weapons. It is here
My personal take is that the intention of the rule intention was to give a range increment of 5' to missile weapons used underwater unless they were some form of specialized weapon, but it don't say that.
Yar.
Indeed. Of course I don't have my books in front of me right now, don't feel like scouring the PRD for all relevant quotes, and am going to do the horrendous thing of mentioning real life, but in RL some firearms can function underwater and/or after being submersed in water.
All of that aside, it is a game, and a game with rules. It is also a game with many complex rules based in a fantasy world, and sometimes in order to make the game coherent as a game, some exceptions to reality need to be made. I'm not saying it makes sense, but within the confines of a single game and rules book, I understand why some things work the way they do.
My main/personal beef is for new players to the game who may only have access to a hard copy of the CRB and nothing else (sometimes not even the internet / the PRD / the SRD / these message boards). They have every right to play this game as anyone else does. Their games can only be played with the rules as written in the CRB, and that is the base that I use whenever I get involved in a rules discussion. Sometimes I go beyond that and include rules form other books, especially if the question is based on a rule presented in another book or is better covered by the supplement. But that is still what they are: supplements. I personally find that using them as the crux of disallowing an action not mentioned in the CRB or even to go against what is written in the CRB, especially in the case of a single feat or piece of gear that doesn't even truly clarify what the CRB says, but simply implies it, is grossly unfair to those learning the game with limited resources.
Perhaps it's only me, but that is the reason for my above post. The CRB does cover Underwater Combat, and while firearms were not in consideration during it's writing, bows and crossbows were, and the rules there specify how to deal with projectile weapons fired into and under water. What is written there does against what you are implying with the implied wording of the underwater crossbow.
EDIT: Ravingdork: I agree. Those new rules annoy the heck out of me. In regards to the new feat that allow actions, have a house rule in place that, on a case by case basis as discussed by my group, such actions are still possible, but having the feat that allows it will instead give a bonus to the action (akin the the improved combat maneuver feats). Still, when discussing RAW I will refer to the RAW. Even when it seems silly.
Diego Rossi: Awesome! *goes to check it out*
~P
I think that you are exactly correct in that statement Ravingdork. If the way they worded the new Underwater Crossbows versus the Normal Crossbows are an indication, then they have changed how underwater combat can be conducted (ranged weapon-wise at least).
In this instance though, I believe that they did not (until recently) put too much thought into viability of underwater combat. Thinking that not many people would be using it anyway due to the negative modifiers. But with the release of the Skull and Shackles AP and the Alluria underwater campaign setting books, they began to flesh-out this area of the game with rules.
Yes, Mr. Pirate :), I agree completely with you! If using the core rules only, then all of the various bows are legal with the listed negative modifiers.
That said, Pathfinder and Golarion are an evolving set of rules and once they published UE, it would appear that those original CRB rules changed (or at least were more defined). But as is stated other places on this forum, you may use whichever version of the rules you see fit.
Yar!
Indeed. Another reason I am a strong advocate of the FAQ system. They can help all involved with getting the most up to date clarifications on the rules, sometimes even errata, which end up in print at the next mass printing of the books in question.
*recommends going to Diego's thread about underwater combat with projectile weapons and hit the FAQ there so that this will get clarified, and if changed, possibly clarified in print as well for everyone's benefit*
^_^
~P
|
|
Underwater crossbows, interplanetary teleport, strike back...all rules that LIMIT what you can do.
If gkhager's interpretation is to be believed, before the underwater crossbow you could make ranged attacks underwater. Before interplanetary teleport, greater teleport sufficed just fine for going to the moon, the sun, or other celestial body. Before Strike Back, it was a common fantasy staple for a hero to ready an action to strike the limb of a large creature attacking him (I never met a GM who would disallow such a thing before Pathfinder).
But because of these new rules, none of those things are allowed anymore. This is horrible game design. It only serves to limit the heroes and essentially makes it so no existing rule or character concept is safe from "stealth errata."
I HATE THOSE KINDS OF RULES!
Similar problem with prestidigitation.
It can do all sorts of cool stuff, with the proviso that it can't replicate any other cantrip.
So, every time a new cantrip is published, something I could do with it I can no longer do with it!
I was lighting fires with it for years before the spark cantrip came out!
|
|
Yar.
Indeed. Of course I don't have my books in front of me right now, don't feel like scouring the PRD for all relevant quotes, and am going to do the horrendous thing of mentioning real life, but in RL some firearms can function underwater and/or after being submersed in water.
As a point of order, black powder firearms will not function underwater. Yes, modern firearms can function underwater, but the bullets do not travel anywhere close to their range when fired out of water: about two and a half feet in the case of this handgun and about four feet for an AR-15.
To continue beating the pile of bones and horsehide on the road ..
You're begging the question - it doesn't necessarily imply any such thing. As the rules for natural 20s specifically say that they ignore the target AC, you can't just say that a natural 20 obviously results in a hit against that AC.
If you choose to read it that way, then of course all your conclusions follow. But you can, instead, read it as:
If the confirmation would not only result in a hit if it were a regular attack roll (with a natural 20 ignoring AC), but would also actually result in a hit against the target's AC ..."
Now who is being dogmatic?
Nowhere does it say that it ignores AC as you keep saying. Rather you are intentionally loading your language to make your premise. At least my language and interpretation is based on context.
To the "also" line. The best case scenario of what happened, if the rules are to be interpreted as you say, is that the author was being pleonastic.
If the confirmation roll also results in a hit against the target's AC, your original hit is a critical hit.
written for your interpretation should say
If the confirmation roll results in a hit against the target's AC, your original hit is a critical hit.
It says everything you say it is supposed to mean and it does so without the extra word.....a word that you justify by adding more redundancy! Not only this, but you rearrange your adverb and verbs so that it could link two ideas that it could not otherwise link.
It didn't go without notice that you also snipped out the line in parenthesis, the line added for clarification by the author that supports what I have said in my "illogical" premise.
(The critical roll just needs to hit to give you a crit, it doesn't need to come up 20 again.)
If "hitting target's AC" meant what you wanted it to, the clarification line would need to say
(The critical roll needs to hit your target's AC to give you a crit, it doesn't matter if it comes up 20 again.)
|
It didn't go without notice that you also snipped out the line in parenthesis, the line added for clarification by the author that supports what I have said in my "illogical" premise.(The critical roll just needs to hit to give you a crit, it doesn't need to come up 20 again.)
That's because that line has nothing to do with the topic under discussion here, so doesn't in any way support your viewpoint; it's there to address the misconception that you always need to back up any critical threat with a second one in order to confirm a critical hit. Nobody here is claiming that, so the line in question doesn't add anything to the discussion.
That's because that line has nothing to do with the topic under discussion here, so doesn't in any way support your viewpoint; it's there to address the misconception that you always need to back up any critical threat with a second one in order to confirm a critical hit. Nobody here is claiming that, so the line in question doesn't add anything to the discussion.
It didn't go without notice that you also snipped out the line in parenthesis, the line added for clarification by the author that supports what I have said in my "illogical" premise.(The critical roll just needs to hit to give you a crit, it doesn't need to come up 20 again.)
If you ignore the first half of the sentence which uses clear concise wording that answers the OP and says the exact thing I have been arguing, and only consider the second half of the sentence important (despite it being horribly worded for your interpretation as I stated in my last post that didn't make it into your quote) then I would agree. It doesn't add anything to the discussion.
|
|
If you ignore the first half of the sentence which uses clear concise wording that answers the OP and says the exact thing I have been arguing . . .
And here we are again - proof by assertion.
That "clear concise wording that answers the OP and says the exact thing you have been arguing" is not clear, and doesn't unambiguously support your interpretation, no matter how many times you repeat that claim.
If the wording were "clear and concise", and didn't contain the phrase "against the target's AC", there would be no discussion. It's the very presence of that qualifier that leads to uncertainty as to just what is being said.
And here we are again - proof by assertion.
That "clear concise wording that answers the OP and says the exact thing you have been arguing" is not clear, and doesn't unambiguously support your interpretation, no matter how many times you repeat that claim.
If the wording were "clear and concise", and didn't contain the phrase "against the target's AC", there would be no discussion. It's the very presence of that qualifier that leads to uncertainty as to just what is being said.
The clear concise clarification sentence I am referring to does not contain the the phrase "against the target's AC."
(The critical roll just needs to hit to give you a crit, it doesn't need to come up 20 again.)
Discussion over?
So you're claiming that the 'hit' needed, in that parenthetical statement, is in fact something different from the 'hit' defined in the immediately preceding sentence, against the target's AC?I think the discussion might as well be over - at this point it's of little or no interest to anyone else.
No, I am claiming the hit defined the in parenthetical statement that works congruently with previous "also" language, is talking about the exact same thing as the "hit" in the sentence before it. The parenthetical is the clarification for the preceding sentence, the preceding sentence is not the clarification for the parenthetical.
and yes this has become quite tiresome
So basically you are saying (enter Tiger Woods robot voice)
For subsequent die rolls, the probability is just multiplied.
Nat 20 = 1/20
2 Nat 20s = 1/20 x 1/20 = 1/400
3 Nat 20s = 1/20 x 1/20 x 1/20 = 1/8000
- The table looks good
- My rolls feel good
- I like my chances!
Unless you are using a roll-down die, I do not fell this would happen often. In fact the game it happened in we were playing once a week for almost two years before it happened.
Underwater crossbows, interplanetary teleport, strike back...all rules that LIMIT what you can do.
If gkhager's interpretation is to be believed, before the underwater crossbow you could make ranged attacks underwater. Before interplanetary teleport, greater teleport sufficed just fine for going to the moon, the sun, or other celestial body. Before Strike Back, it was a common fantasy staple for a hero to ready an action to strike the limb of a large creature attacking him (I never met a GM who would disallow such a thing before Pathfinder).
But because of these new rules, none of those things are allowed anymore. This is horrible game design. It only serves to limit the heroes and essentially makes it so no existing rule or character concept is safe from "stealth errata."
I HATE THOSE KINDS OF RULES!
Yeah it's like the feat that lets you blind someone by reflecting light off your blade. Thought that was exactly what dirty trick was for.
I somewhat agree with you about later books' feats and abilities affecting what you can do in a CRB-only game -- that is, taking something away from you and then selling it back. Strike Back is the main offender here; we had been doing that ever since 3.5, and even then it felt really limiting. Then I got into Pathfinder and was told I couldn't do that anymore unless I wanted to pay for it.
Now that I think about it, it gets worse. I like characters with Jump or Acrobatics but don't usually stock effective ranged weaponry, so when I get into combat with a flying opponent and receive a haste I like to get a running start, leap dozens of feet into the air and make a single attack (attack of opportunities be damned). Now I've seen an ability somewhere that lets me do that.
I've had similar arguments with players over abilities like Acrobatic Charge and Rhino Charge. They felt these were things they should do out of the box. However, I've seen what Charge is capable of, and I'm not crazy about removing its every meaningful limitation.
On the rest, I think I solidly disagree with you that it's a problem.
More briefly, for bows and crossbows ... it just doesn't make sense to me. I don't feel like somebody's taking something away from me and then selling it back by publishing underwater crossbows, because I never imagined that regular ranged weaponry would effectively fire underwater. I can choke down the idea of firing 100 feet underwater, but more than that really treads on my suspension of disbelief. If you tell me your character engaged in an oceanic firefight at a 1000-foot range I'm going to think "Wow, you must have some really neat training or enchantments to pull that off."
Yes, perhaps at the beginning of Pathfinder you could have legally used teleport, greater to go to Akiton; you can see it after all. But if a player of mine had tried that two years ago I would have been surprised and clueless on what to do, not even having read a paragraph on the planet beforehand. It might be worse for them than better, since I wouldn't necessarily know it had an atmosphere that would allow them to cast a return spell before dying of exposure.
Take a look at plane shift. Every one of these planes could be its own campaign setting. It stands to reason that they each have their own geographies, their own bastions and ruins, their own resources and trade networks, religions, wars, history, local threats, waiting cataclysms and powerful personalities. Every plane can have as much or more content as Golarion if a GM chooses (and likely does, since I'm comparing infinite planes with a single world inside of a plane).
But plane shift also requires a very special material components -- a tuned fork, which is effectively a plot key. You can't just take the spell, look your GM dead in the eye and say "I'm casting a spell to travel to one of the possibly-infinite planes of existence. Run something for me."
I'll concede that teleport, greater already gives you a lot of freedom in that direction. It's not like a GM has material prepared for every square inch of Golarion. But there's still a lot more material available for that than whole other planets.
I'm on the fence about blinding somebody with your blade being a feat, instead of just a Dirty Trick maneuver. Dirty Trick isn't really consistent with the other combat maneuvers since it's a bunch of abilities all packed into one -- no matter what monster you fight, Dirty Trick will probably be effective against it somehow, whereas high-CR enemies tend to be immune or resistant to handfuls of other maneuvers (so too bad if you invested in them). But I don't know if I think Dirty Trick should be streamlined, or the other maneuvers should be widened by some degree.
|
GM: Ok, you guys had both arms and legs chained in manacles by the Evil Warlord Minions, when the Evil Warlord shows himself to you and..
Player: I punch him in the face!
GM: You are restrained, on a brick wall, 10ft of him - in CHAINS!
Player: Just tell the difficulty! *Roll a 20* Yay!
GM: Well, you punched him in the face...
NOT in my table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GM: Ok, you guys had both arms and legs chained in manacles by the Evil Warlord Minions, when the Evil Warlord shows himself to you and..
Player: I punch him in the face!
GM: You are restrained, on a brick wall, 10ft of him - in CHAINS!
Player: Just tell the difficulty! *Roll a 20* Yay!
GM: Well, you punched him in the face...NOT in my table.
Evil Warlord was dumb enough to get within a 5-foot step, he got slugged in the chops.
That the PC in question was almost certainly summarily executed should drive the point home in short order. ;)
GM: Ok, you guys had both arms and legs chained in manacles by the Evil Warlord Minions, when the Evil Warlord shows himself to you and..
Player: I punch him in the face!
GM: You are restrained, on a brick wall, 10ft of him - in CHAINS!
Player: Just tell the difficulty! *Roll a 20* Yay!
GM: Well, you punched him in the face...NOT in my table.
10 feet from him? He's out of the character's reach. Even if he was in range, the prisoner might still be able to headbutt or kick. Have you read Wizard's First Rule? There's a scene when our main character is caught in chains, but before he's taken away he lets up one swift kick and gets a boot right to the jaw of his antagonist, nearly taking off the tongue. It was sweet justice.
|
|
If an arrow can swim it`s way out of 5000ft of water and strike true (not even a canon ball could do this in real world, not even modern harpoons), surely a punch from an chained man can go far further than 5ft (1000ft, perhaps?) Provided the amount of difficulty is imposed (a natural 20 solves anything). Heroic? I dont think so. Cartoonesque, certainly.
Personally, I would have had the sahuagin king lose an eye. The cinematic would have been awesome and the party gets a new, powerful enemy.
1000 feet of water, even pretty clear water, would probably give at least partial concealment, if not total concealment, would it not?
It has already been addressed upthread that the rules of underwater visibility should not have allowed the sahaugin to be targeted in the first place. So no, the shot wasn't legal from that standpoint.
It still remains true that if an attack roll is allowed (unlike Darklrd Morius's example), a 20 will always confirm a crit in the same way that a 20 will always hit.
You guys make very valid points: the rules clearly state a natural 20 on an attack roll is a critical threat and a confirmation roll is then made. So if I am a large creature, and on my grapple combat maneuver check (an attack roll, CRB 199) I roll a natural 20, I would get to roll to confirm with the same bonuses (presumably better, since I am large). Say I confirm with this. What is my weapon multiplier? I thought it might be using the unarmed strike multiplier, but http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5lcom&page=4 says that grapple doesn't use a weapon, not even unarmed strikes. Additionally, reading the SRD, I am unable to pinpoint text that says we use the multiplier on our weapon to determine how many times to roll the critical damage dice. So, does the previous question even matter?
A crit means you get to multiply damage. The grapple check doesn't cause damage. So you can multiply it by whatever you like, it's still 0 damage.
A crit means you get to multiply damage.
Where I'm looking they say critically striking involves rolling the damage dice multiple times, adding the results; nothing regarding multiplication. Source?
Sorry, bad wording. Yes, you multiply the number of dice you roll and static bonuses.
As in 1d8+1 becomes 2d8+2 with x2 weapons.
It's still irrelevant because a grapple check never causes damage. It allows you to perform another action, inflict damage, but that is as a result of maintaining the grapple, and specifically noted as a separate action.
Repeat: a grapple check never deals damage.
Sorry, bad wording. Yes, you multiply the number of dice you roll and static bonuses.
As in 1d8+1 becomes 2d8+2 with x2 weapons.
It's still irrelevant because a grapple check never causes damage. It allows you to perform another action, inflict damage, but that is as a result of maintaining the grapple, and specifically noted as a separate action.
Repeat: a grapple check never deals damage.
Okay, but the Holy Vindicator's class feature:
Divine Wrath (Sp): At 4th level, when a vindicator confirms a critical hit, he may sacrifice a prepared 1st-level spell or available 1st-level spell slot to invoke doom upon the target as an immediate action (using the vindicator’s caster level). The save DC is increased by +2 if his weapon has a ×3 damage multiplier, or by +4 if it is ×4.
What is the damage multiplier for a grapple?
CMB checks have a specific rule that replaces the general critical hit rule, that a 20 always succeeds (unless trying to escape ropes or something?) and a one always fails.
Don't have CRB with me, but it's right there in the Combat Maneuvre section.
So, despite the CMB check being an attack roll, it has a specific rule that replaces the general crit rule, and thus doesn't score crits.
No dice for your Holy Vindicator.
CMB checks have a specific rule that replaces the general critical hit rule, that a 20 always succeeds (unless trying to escape ropes or something?) and a one always fails.
Don't have CRB with me, but it's right there in the Combat Maneuvre section.
So, despite the CMB check being an attack roll, it has a specific rule that replaces the general crit rule, and thus doesn't score crits.
No dice for your Holy Vindicator.
It says:
Rolling a natural 20 while attempting a combat maneuver is always a success (except when attempting to escape from bonds), while rolling a natural 1 is always a failure.
This appears to be consistent with the attack roll rules (except for the bonds), not an exception. Besides, it was stated previously in this thread that there are no exceptions to the attack roll mechanic; that was how it was decided 20 auto-succeeds.
No, it was decided that the 20 autoconfirms because the rules for confirming don't provide an exception.
If someone said there are absolutely, positively no exceptions to 20 being a crit on an attack roll, it wasn't me, and it didn't affect the discussion much at all. Maybe you could link to the post?
If you won't accept that, it should be obvious that a CMB check, as it never deals damages, doesn't have a damage multiplier for crits. So it's certainly not x3 or x4, which means the DC is unaffected for the Holy Vindicator's power.
There's no contradiction here. I believe the CMB rule, along with the fact that CMB rolls cannot cause damage, means that CMBs can't do crits, but if you disagree, your Vindicator can then still invoke doom at the regular DC.
|
|
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.
I have to agree with Dust Raven here. Yes they state that the confirmation is an attack roll, but they also state specifically that if that attack roll hits against the AC, not just a hit.
Critical Hits: When you make an attack roll and get a natural 20 (the d20 shows 20), you hit regardless of your target's Armor Class, and you have scored a “threat,” meaning the hit might be a critical hit (or “crit”). To find out if it's a critical hit, you immediately make an attempt to “confirm” the critical hit—another attack roll with all the same modifiers as the attack roll you just made. If the confirmation roll also results in a hit against the target's AC, your original hit is a critical hit. (The critical roll just needs to hit to give you a crit, it doesn't need to come up 20 again.) If the confirmation roll is a miss, then your hit is just a regular hit.
In addition, there are some times that you can't crit no matter what you do. Rolling a nat 20 against an earth elemental for example. You might as well skip the second roll because elementals are immune to critical hits. But that first nat 20 is a hit no matter what.
Rolling a single nat 20 is saying that you have been luck enough to find a weakness in the fighter's AC 50. But rolling a 20 with +21 bonuses means you are not good enough to exploit that weakness to its fullest. No critical hit, but you did cause some damage.
To me it is very clear that the second "attack roll" is specifically looking for a hit against the AC. If you can't do it, you can't do it. Very simple.
|
Looks like he is new and was browsing for stuff and came across it, probably did not realize it was a 3 year old thread when he posted.
My house rule is if you roll 3 nat 20s in a row you crit and do max damage (as if you rolled max on each dice) and bypass dr
this has happend a few times and is an awesome feeling for everyone at the table when it happens