Adent Champion. Rules lawyers required

[Flipguarder]

Really?

Oblivious, meet Sarcastic.

 

[Eldorian]

Really?

I don't think it needs to be rewritten.

No matter how many times Nifft screams out specific beats general, he will never be right that Ardent Power is more specific than Precision, because Precision REFERS to Ardent Power.

Just as "you cannot shift while prone" refers to every power in the game that lets you shift. A power which says, "You shift X squares, even if you are prone" is the only way out of that.

 

[Regicide]

But honestly, if you can't be arsed to at least skim the pages of this discussion, you're not treating those of us who typed those pages with a whole lot of respect.

Repeating arguments that have already been discussed isn't going to garner the quality of response you seem to want.

-- N

I read the thread, you're wrong. In fact you're not even making sense. You're treating precision as if it's some separate rule. It isn't. It is part of the crit rule, trying to separate it, pretend it's a general and ignore it when it isn't separate and it isn't general because it's not related. You can't ignore that a critical hit isn't always a hit, even the natural 20 that is a critical hit isn't necessarily a hit, read page 276. Maybe had you an argument you'd garner the quality of response you seem to want. I agree the rules SHOULDN'T be that way, but it's pretty clear they are.

 

[Artoomis]

I don't think it needs to be rewritten.

No matter how many times Nifft screams out specific beats general, he will never be right that Ardent Power is more specific than Precision, because Precision REFERS to Ardent Power.

Just as "you cannot shift while prone" refers to every power in the game that lets you shift. A power which says, "You shift X squares, even if you are prone" is the only way out of that.

There is some truth to this, but Ardent Power is very different.

It is not a case where a different value (18 or 18, say) gives you critical hit, but an entirely new rules gives one (two of the same roll).

Thus, perhaps Precision does not apply.

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).

Hmmm... is rolling matching numbers on two dice the same as "roll numbers other than 20?" As written, Precision may only apply when rolling a normal attack dice where your roll may or may not be a critical hit, as opposed to the new special case which is an entirely new mechanic for determining if you get a critical hit.

Plus, the "Precision applies" argument pretty much has a very weak argument over the reason that double ones is pointed out as not being a critical hit, since a one would always be a miss and this rule either would otherwise override that (making its mention needed) or, if a hit was first required for it to be a critical, that this is so incredibly unneeded as to be almost shocking in its inclusion.

To me, as written, you get a critical hit if you roll the same number twice in a row (a 4.75% chance ( a total of 19 possibilities out of 400 possible combinations).

Probabilities:

If we add in that you might critical anyway on a 19 or 20, then the added combinations that give you a critical are 17 out of 400, or 4.25% chance of getting a critical when you otherwise would not.

Otherwise, assuming an 11 needed to hit, the chance of a getting a critical on an 11-17 becomes 7 out of 400, or 1.75%.

Thus, the chance of a critical hit moves from 10% (19-20 on a d20) to either 11.75% or 14.25%.

One way is nearly insignificant, the other seems like a somewhat reasonable increase. Note that the amount of increase goes down the easier it is for you to get a critical hit otherwise, which seems right.

 

[N8Ball]

... even the natural 20 that is a critical hit isn't necessarily a hit, read page 276.

I hope you didn't really mean what you just wrote, because you got that significantly backwards.

The rules never say that a 20 IS a critical hit, they say it MIGHT be a critical hit (read page 276). You'll also find on that same page that a 20 IS a hit. Always.

But you have hit on the crux of mine and Nifft's argument. Page 276 and 277 both talk about critial hits in the form of:

IF (A and B) then X.
A = rolling a 20.
B = having a attack roll high enough to hit the defense
X = score a critical hit.

Pg 277 says this twice. Once in the opening text for Critical HitS, and once under "Natural 20". According to the general rules for critical hits, A and B MUST be met before X is implemented. That is how it's worded.

To imagine that A and B are contained within X doesn't make sense when X needs to be the conclusion. (Actually, it creates an infinite do-loop.)

 

[N8Ball]

Here are a couple definitions that I think are tripping some of us up.

General rules: Adventuring and Combat sections of the PHB and DMG (and small bits in other books)
This is how the game normally runs. How attacks are made, how movement and conditions are handled, actions types and when you can use them, etc. In the absence of contradictions, this gives us the baseline for how forced movement normally works, how cover and targeting normally works and so on. All the regular stuff.

Specific Rules: Racial abilities, Class, PP and ED features and powers and Feats.
These are the special sauce that break the general rules and provide exceptions to what is the normal way of doing things.
Not all feats and powers break the rules, skill training doesn't, Tide of Iron doesn't. It just has a push effect that is neatly described by the general rules.
But some powers and feats do. Dwarves use their second wind as a minor action despite how second wind normally works and Rogues with Fleeting Ghost can move quickly without the normal penalty. These are specific departures from the general rules, but it's ok because the standard was established. Specific beats general IF there is any conflict. (Yes, I know you don't think there's a conflict)

 

[Eldorian]

Hmmm... is rolling matching numbers on two dice the same as "roll numbers other than 20?" As written, Precision may only apply when rolling a normal attack dice where your roll may or may not be a critical hit, as opposed to the new special case which is an entirely new mechanic for determining if you get a critical hit.

Rolling matching numbers to crit is a different situation than rolling a 20 to crit. I can't believe people are still arguing this.

Plus, the "Precision applies" argument pretty much has a very weak argument over the reason that double ones is pointed out as not being a critical hit, since a one would always be a miss and this rule either would otherwise override that (making its mention needed) or, if a hit was first required for it to be a critical, that this is so incredibly unneeded as to be almost shocking in its inclusion.

Your argument is that they needlessly state a rule that's already in the book? So? Rules are repeated in DnD books. This shouldn't surprise you.


Also, I'm quite good at combinatorics, even going so far as to teach university classes on it, so I'm aware of the numbers, and I know that Ardent Power is not as good as critting on 19-20. But it's still good, and the rest of the paragon path is also pretty good.

If the paragon path just gave Avengers a crit range of 19-20, who here would argue that it ISN'T the best Avenger paragon path? There is a reason that Avenger optimization always goes for the 19-20 crit range.

I think Avengers should have to make potent sacrifices to get the 19-20 crit range, including grabbing strength they don't need, or multiclassing into powers that aren't as good.

 

[Eldorian]

Here are a couple definitions that I think are tripping some of us up.

I disagree with your definitions. Rules aren't either specific or general. It's merely a means of comparing two rules. The more specific rule is the rule that refers to the more general rule.

My interpretation is better: It allows conflicting, say, racial features/paragon path features to be resolved. For example, A dragonborn Fighter/Inner Dragon has the feature:

Dragonborn Fury (11th level): While you are bloodied, your racial bonus to attack rolls is +2, instead of +1.

This conflicts with the dragonborn's racial ability. But since Dragonborn Fury REFERENCES the dragonborn's racial ability, it is the more specific.

Obviously, no one has argued this paragon path's features, but the point remains that there is a conflict in rules (exception based games are almost entirely built of conflicts), and there is a way to resolve the conflict.

If anyone here has played the wargames Warmachine or Hordes, they know about the abilities "Stealth" and "Eyeless Sight".

A model with Stealth is automatically missed by ranged and magic attacks from over 5 inches away. A model with eyeless sight ignores stealth. Both rules are presented in the same way, as a line on the card (in the new, mark 2 rules, both are represented by an icon meaning the model has the rule stealth or Eyeless Sight). But since Eyeless Sight REFERENCES the rule Stealth, it takes effect.

 

[Madred]

sacrifices they ALL make.

care to print more paragon paths that will never see the light of day ?

it is already too late.. Avengers have some options to increase crit range. The question is: are the other PP, even if not giving a crit range as good, are worth it ?
so far, no. (aside from very few weird builds.. half elf ?).

 

[N8Ball]

... because Precision REFERS to Ardent Power.

How can that be? Precision was put out MORE THAN A YEAR before Holy Ardor. At best, precision mentions that there may be some exceptions to the normal critical hit criteria but doesn't refer to any of them specifically and it certainly didn't refer to any that didn't exist yet.

If anything, Holy Ardor refers to precision because it talks about critical hits and therefore modifies at least some of the rules therein, and we already agree on that because we know it modifies at least SOME of the critical hit criteria, we're just arguing about how much was modified.

Anyway, it offered no new restrictions or guidance on crits. The second part in parentheses simply reminded us of another rule, "Automatic Hit" that is not in the crit section, but in "Attack Results" on 276 (call that rule C in relation to my formula above).