Adent Champion. Rules lawyers required

[TDarien]

The argument that the omission of the word "can" in the PP feature makes no difference to the application of precision is valid. However, if this is the case, if it supposed to work exactly like all the other powers and feats that say "you can score a critical hit on X", WHY is there a need for different wording? Obviously there was some rules oversight involved. Either precision was overlooked and the intent is that doubles equals an critical hit regardless of whether the roll would have hit, or the wording on the multitude of other examples was overlooked.

Personally I think it more likely that precision was overlooked and the intent of the power is that "you score a critical hit" is meant to be different than "you CAN score a critical hit".

 

[DracoSuave]

The argument that the omission of the word "can" in the PP feature makes no difference to the application of precision. However, if this is the case, if it supposed to work exactly like all the other powers and feats that say "you can score a critical hit on X", WHY is there a need for different wording?

Because it's a different rules template. The other abilities are all 'You can score a critical hit on a natural x-20'. This ability isn't an ability of that exact type. It doesn't describe a range between x and 20 wherein criticals are now allowed to occur, but instead says a different sort of situation that allows a critical to occur.

So, of course the wording is going to be different.

The first case is 'You can do blah when you roll blah'. The second is 'Whenever blah, do blah if blah except blah.'

The other question is, does the word 'can' refer to the potential to crit, or does it simply mean 'Hey buddy. You see that rule over there? You know how it says you can't do something? Well I'm saying you can.'

Is it mentioning potentiality, or is it simply giving you permission to crit?

And the language isn't so formal in D&D books that a 'may' vs 'can' argument comes up.

Especially considering that 'may' can also be used in both senses.

Obviously there was some rules oversight involved. Either precision was overlooked and the intent is that doubles equals an critical hit regardless of whether the roll would have hit, or the wording on the multitude of other examples was overlooked.

Or those examples have subtle differences that mean that the rules templating for them are not the same as the rules templating for this, new, unique ability. There's other differences in how the ability is written as well. Does the ability function differently because it starts with the word 'Whenever'?

The only other instance of a critical hit that isn't roll-range based -was- Tempuscheese, but the situation involved in that was 'You hit' and so it isn't necessarily the same deal.

Personally I think it more likely that precision was overlooked and the intent of the power is that "you score a critical hit" is meant to be different than "you CAN score a critical hit".

The rules templating is totally different between the two, the word can is a very minor difference, given that the -order- and -layout- of the two templates are not even close to similiar. The first is a mention of a single condition, the third is a damn pretzel of triple conditionality. Expecting it to read the same is an exercise in failed expectations.

 

[Mirtek]

Its wording is ambiguios ("can" is a non definitive word)

In the normal world yes. In the world of D&D 4e officalese it doesn't matter as even definitive formulations have been rendered non definitive by further sources.

Maybe the author of this ability wated to have it turn every double roll into a hit/crit regardless of the AC being hit or not. Maybe the author of this ability thought that by writting "you score" instead of "you can score" he would leave no room for doubt. If this is the case he can thank his colleagues for diluting the distinction between "you can do" and "you do" so much with their previous powers that it just no longer matters in D&D 4e.

so the miss on double ones could only be there to say the ability lets you cirtically "hit" on any number. except on natural ones. because the clause at the end is there.

Yet in this case there is no mechanical reason to waste letters on adding this clause. If you have decided to let them hit on every double roll, for gods sake just let them hit on double 1 too if for no other reason than saving a few letters worth of space in the book. Adding the double 1 to the allowed hits is mechanically so unimportant that it just not worth wasting time to specifically exclude it if you actally allow 2/2, 3/3, ...

 

[ObsidianCrane]

I'm yet to see a person manage to explain where Holy Ardor says you automatically hit. Those words do not appear in the power at all, nor s there any text in the power that references those rules.

It says "critical hit" and then gives an if clause, and an exception.

The rules for critical hits are clear, they are only a critical hit if you would hit. Nothing in Holy Ardor explicitly over-rides this text. People are adding additional meaning to the text of Holy Ardor due to ommision of words, without allowing for different gramatical structure from other powers.

The presence of the "except on double 1's" part seems to be adding to the confusion, however that exception is likely present to clarify that the "you miss on a 1" rule is still in effect, other wise you get the following conflict.

General Rule: Automatic Miss - Miss on a 1.
Specfic Rule: Score a Critical Hit when rolling the same number on 2 dice.
Specific Rules References General Rule #2 - Critical Hits.
Critical Hits say that if you would hit with your result then your damage is maximised.

By putting in the exception the possible conflict between the Specific Rule of the power, and the General Rule of Missing on a Nat 1 is clarified.

This is the text for Holy Ardor:
Holy Ardor (11th level) : Whenever you make two attack rolls because of your oath of enmity, you score a critical hit if both dice have the same roll, except if both rolls are 1.


Here it is with the rules call outs added:
Holy Ardor (11th level) : Whenever you make two attack rolls because of your oath of enmity, you score a critical hit (Critical Hits pg 278) if both dice have the same roll (Precision page 278), except if both rolls are 1 (Automatic Miss).

Critical Hits Pg 278: When you roll a natural 20 and your total attack roll is high enough to hit your target’s defense, you score a critical hit, also known as a crit.

Do you say anywhere in the power that says your attack roll does not need to be high enough to hit your target's defense? (I do not.)

Critical Hit Damage: page 278
Natural 20: If you roll a 20 on the die when making an attack roll, you score a critical hit if your total attack roll is high enough to hit your target’s defense. If your attack roll is too low to score a critical hit, you still hit automatically.

Do you see anything in the power that says your roll is a natural 20? If no then this specific rule does not apply, if yes then it does. (I do not.)

Precision: Some class features and powers allow you to score a critical hit when you roll numbers other than 20 (only a natural 20 is an automatic hit).

Do you see a class feature allowing you to score a crtical hit when you roll a number other than 20? (I do) If yes then Precision applies, unless explicitly over-ridden. Note Precision expressly calls out the need for a Natural 20 to gain an automatic hit.

There is no point referencing how damage works for crits as it is irrelevant to the discussion.

The power at no time creates an explicit exception to the Automtic Hit rule which is found on page 276, and nor does it use language to explicitly over-ride the relevant specific elements of the general critical hit rules - Natural 20 or Precision.

The only way it does is if the game term of "critical hit" is seperated into its component words "critical" and "hit" which it doesn't have text to support.

 

[urzafrank]

Agreed. If they'd either used the word "can" or the word "automatic", then there would be no room for debate.

They didn't, so there is.

Cheers, -- N

If that is so and since WOTC considers the terms the same as stated in the PHB why do you not think of them as the same?

 

[Nifft]

If that is so and since WOTC considers the terms the same as stated in the PHB why do you not think of them as the same?

Would you mind posting the text you're talking about?

Thanks, -- N

 

[Mirtek]

Would you mind posting the text you're talking about

He's talking about movement powers, there's a lot of them that use either definitve or non-definitive wording, yet per PHB2 even definitive wordings are actually non-definitive.

E.g.:

Bond of Pursuit, Avenger Attack 1: [...]you can shift[....}

as opposed to

Overwhelming Strike, Avenger Attack 2: [...]you shift[...]


One non-definetivly worded, one definitively worded. Yet per PHB 2, page 219 they both are non-definitive.

 

[N8Ball]

He's talking about movement powers, there's a lot of them that use either definitve or non-definitive wording, yet per PHB2 even definitive wordings are actually non-definitive.

E.g.:

Bond of Pursuit, Avenger Attack 1: [...]you can shift[....}

as opposed to

Overwhelming Strike, Avenger Attack 2: [...]you shift[...]


One non-definetivly worded, one definitively worded. Yet per PHB 2, page 219 they both are non-definitive.

I see what you mean, but your comparison is not a perfect one.

With certain things like movement and applying forced movement there is an understood (and explicit in the case of forced movement) option on the players part. There is a choice to be made depending on the preference of the player (to use the full movement or some lesser amount).

With the application of hit rules and critical hit rules "can" should never be read as implying a preferential choice on the part of the player. It refers to a possibility of the event occuring, subject to other pertinent rules.

In the case of movement granting powers "can" refers to a player option, even though the option is assumed anyway. With more mechanical portions of the rules, "can" refers to a possibility of occurance. But we all know that hitting or critting it is not a player option, but a mechanical possibility depending on other factors of dice rolls, defenses, etc.

One of the fundamental bases for this debate is that we ALL agree that hitting and critting should be a definitive thing not an option. We're just arguing about the definition.

 

[Regicide]

This is why we can't have any nice things.

People arguing general and specific are wrong. There is no rules interplay here.

The PP gives you a critical hit, it says nothing about how to handle the critical hit. When you have a critical hit you then apply the critical hit rules which include precision and the fact that a critical hit can be a miss. No rule interplay, so there isn't any general and specific, both are specific about unrelated things.

Although Nifft's interpretation is the sensible one, it is, by RAW, the wrong one. Nifft's sensible intuition is that a critical hit is a hit, but that is not the case. Yet another example of how bad the 4E designers are. Critical hits not being hits. Utter incompetence. Fire the lot of them.

If you agree with Nifft go get the whiteout and marker that you've used to cover huge swaths of your PHB1 adding errata in and add "hit and" in front of "critical hit." Better yet grab a big black marker and black out the retarded precision section (pg 278 PHB1) of the critical hit rules.

 

[Nifft]

He's talking about movement powers, there's a lot of them that use either definitve or non-definitive wording, yet per PHB2 even definitive wordings are actually non-definitive.

Ah, I see. Yeah, it's not a perfect comparison.

But it's another example of why human beings need to interpret things reasonably.

There is no rules interplay here.

The PP gives you a critical hit, it says nothing about how to handle the critical hit. When you have a critical hit you then apply the critical hit rules which include precision and the fact that a critical hit can be a miss. No rule interplay, so there isn't any general and specific, both are specific about unrelated things.

Wait, really? Critical hits are unrelated to hits that are critical?

Secondly, if you're going to use my name to define a position, please let it be this one.

Thanks, -- N