So I know the DM has final say and I don't mind any homebrew rules, as long as they're stated homebrew, but my DM says that as RAW a nat 20 roll on the second roll from advantage can not be a crit 20 because it is not really a nat 20 roll but a modifed 20 roll. He claims this is RAW and not homebrew and yet I cant find anything in the PHb that says ether way. Has wizard made any comments on this and if so could you link me to the source. Alot of us are new players and we all really want to be as by the book for the starter set adventure at least.
Thanks in advance.
That's completely non-sensical. Your DM's rule makes it so you can't crit when you have advantage? If he doesn't realize how ridiculous that is, you need to find another DM. When you have advantage, you roll twice and take the higher, using that die to resolve the attack in all ways, including determining crits.
Zinnel wrote:
Yep, your DM is very wrong.
I get the feeling that s/he feels that advantage is too powerful. So s/he's having a knee jerk moment and is nerfing it out of hand. Point out that if you have disadvantage, does that mean that rolling a 1 isn't an automatic miss? Where does it say that this is the way it works? Try to discuss this with your DM and see where this is coming from.
Well kee jerk reactions have been pretty much the whole play through. One of the players wants to do something like use their rogue's cunning action to disengage and asist another party member and our DM says he cant cuz Bonus Actions must happen after you take an action. It took 30min to show him that the rogue's cunning action can used before or after his action. Most the PHb has been very clear on this but beause it gives no examples of the second roll of advantage still being able to crit 20 he cant be convenced.
Zinnel wrote:
Show him this thread? If there is ever any kind of legitimate disagreement about how to read the rules, someone makes the case here. WOTC is unlikely to comment on this situation because it is such an idiosyncratic reading and the rules aren't even slightly ambiguous about this. But you could tweet Mike Mearls and get an 'official' response that way perhaps.
Under your DM's 'interpretation,' is it simply impossible to get a critical hit when you have advantage? If you can't score a crit at all when you have advantage, that's obviously nonsense (why should having an advantage in combat make it *less* likely for you to score a critical hit? If my opponent can't see me, aren't I more likely to stab him in a devestating way?).
Or do you have to roll the 2 d20s separately and only get a crit if you roll on the first d20? If that's the deal, then he should know that there is no rule that says you roll the d20s separately. And it isn't like counting the second d20 radically changes your odds of criting -- it means with advantage, your odds go from 5% to 9.75%, so you still will score a critical hit less than two times in twenty when you have advantage.
I also don't understand how it took 30 minutes to establish that you can use a bonus action before your action. Should have taken 30 seconds to flip to page 189 of the players handbook to read "You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless that bonus action's timing is specified." What happened during the other 29 and a half minutes of this discussion?
Saelorn wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
Apart from the fact that (as has been pointed out) the PHB doesn't use the term "Natural 20," your DM is completely confused on what that term means. All "natural 20" means is that you rolled a 20 on the die, as opposed to the result of the roll, plus all modifiers being 20 (for example, you roll a 17 and have +3 modifier to hit, 17+3=20).
Does your DM's rule also apply to monsters? Monsters with advantage need nat 20 on the second roll to score crits as well?
Mind_Flayer_Monk wrote:
I think the DM is perhaps coming at this edition wrong (IMO). You should generally assume that the rules allow you to do cool things and don't penalize you and stack restrictions. What might sound overpowered from, say, a 3e perspective, is probably functioning as intended in 5e (and won't end up overpowered in this edition anyway.)
paulstrait wrote:
Yunru wrote:
TheGimper wrote:
From basic rules:
Advantage and
Disadvantage
Sometimes a special ability or spell tells you that you
have advantage or disadvantage on an ability check,
a saving throw, or an attack roll. When that happens,
you roll a second d20 when you make the roll. Use the
higher of the two rolls if you have advantage, and use
the lower roll if you have disadvantage.
Rolling 1 or 20
Sometimes fate blesses or curses a combatant, causing
the novice to hit and the veteran to miss.
If the d20 roll for an attack is a 20, the attack hits
regardless of any modifiers or the target’s AC. In
addition, the attack is a critical hit, as explained later
in this chapter.
If the d20 roll for an attack is a 1, the attack misses
regardless of any modifiers or the target’s AC.
Yup, looks pretty clear to me. Roll two dice. If you have advantage you use the higher roll. If the higher roll just happens to be a 20, then you crit. There is nothing in the rules that states that you seperate the (dis)advantage d20 from the regular d20. There is nothing in the rules that states you cannot use the (dis)advantage d20 for the automatic hit or miss.
Jamwes wrote:
Ask him to post here to explain his reasons. If nothing else, it might help impress upon him how idiosyncratic his interpretation is.
It seems unlikely that the DMG would make a clarification like that, to be honest.
If the rule is in the PHB, I don't think they would reprint the same rule but with different or added wording in the DMG.
Looks like Mearls answered this question (I suspect someone from this thread may have asked him) -- I wonder if this will satisfy Zinnel's DM:
Jerry Hunter @huntinglabrats 8h8 hours ago
@mikemearls A player had advantage on an attack and rolled the first die a 15 and the second a 20, does he get a crit on the attack?
0 replies 0 retweets 0 favorites
I know the Twitter handle is supposed to read "Hunting Lab Rats" but did anyone else think it was "Hunting LA Brats" and was slightly concerned?
(sorry for the de-rail)
paulstrait wrote:
Playing devils advocate for a moment. Isn't this one of those cases where the book doesn't specifically specify whether you can crit with advantage or disadvantage. It doesn't say u can. It doesn't say u can't.
I would disagree -- the book says you use whichever d20 is higher, and then it says you crit if the d20 you use hits 20. Or, in other words, it isn't a coincidence that everyone but Zinnel's DM read this the same way.
Jay_Ibero_911 wrote:
Timborama wrote:
Huntsman57 wrote:
Yesterday, my table had some statistically improbable rolls.
One player rolled double nat. 20 (1/400 chance). He then rolled another double nat 20 (1/160,000) immediately following it (I was watching both rolls). Sadly, this was just before the start of session and so these rolls did not count.
Later in the night, another player made an attack roll with disadvantage and rolled - double nat 20.... (1/400; combined odds: 1/64,000,000) Critical hit with disadvantage FTW.
Finally, I was rolling initiative for my monsters (I was the DM). I rolled two dice for initiative (as I had two different groups of monsters) - and got....double nat. 20 (1/400)
I think my math is off, because statistically - the odds of rolling 4 pairs of double-nat 20 (8 total) is:
1/25,600,000,000 (1: 25 trillion, 600 billion) - which seems astronomically high.
Perhaps that statistic only applies to them being rolled in sequence without any other roll in between (as in, 8 natural 20s in sequence). Still, in that regard - the player at my table rolled 4 20s in a row, for a 1/160,000 chance which is impressive enough.
Whatever you guys were smoking, I want some 
Noctaem wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Kalani wrote:
A friend of mine, during 4E rolled a natural 1. She used an encounter power to reroll and got a natural 1. She then used a daily power to reroll and got another natural 1. She then accepted her fate...
Noctaem wrote: