Adent Champion. Rules lawyers required

[N8Ball]

It's that simple.

It is only that simple if I make the same assumptions that you do about the definition of "critical hit", but I'm not, so it isn't.

More importantly, you've mixed arguments between your logical equasions and what you wrote below them.

if (A or B) AND C
...
"Critical hit" is not equal to a hit. A crit can be a miss.

The logical equasion wasn't finished because it didn't have a "then" statement, but I'm going to go out on a limb as hope that you meant "then X" to be after the equasion. If that's the case then when "(A or B) and C" isn't true, you never arrive at X.

That is functionally different than saying that "a critical hit can be a miss". The first requires you to have a hitting roll before you declare a crit, the other declares the crit and then checks to see if you hit.

For the sake of clarity I will place the opposing argument (crit != hit) in logical form and we'll see how it jives with the rulebooks. (Please remember I'm trying to argue your position here, so please correct me if I put forth a paradigm that you don't agree with.)

A = roll a 20
B = an attack score high enough to hit the defense
C = roll a 19
D = roll doubles
E = Double ones
H = you hit
M = Max damage hit, plus extra damage
X = "Critical Hit" which includes the following: (If B, then M)
Z = miss

SO, the standard rules give us this form:
IF B then H
IF A then X and H
IF not H then Z

The logic returns H or Z and possibly M in either case.

This allows the game to score a hit that is not a crit but not (yet) a crit that is not a hit. (Prior to mastery feats there were not "crittable" numbers that were not also hits.)

Mastery feats included the line (anywhere before the last line)
IF C then X

This allows for an attack roll to be a 19, engage the X function and still miss, creating a max damage miss or in other words, a crit that misses.

Holy Ardor also adds a line to the list in the form of:
IF D and not E then X

This preserves your interpretation of the precision rule because it's built into X. This allowing you to roll double 2s and miss because B wasn't satisfied in the X function.

For my worthy opponenets in this debate, please look this over carefully. It took me a while to get this right, but I think it describes your position relatively well.

Thanks for being reasonable about the discussion...

You're quite welcome, I definitely appreciate the same from everyone. There's no way we could make any progress otherwise.

 

[Artoomis]

...For the sake of clarity...

Sorry but:

1. I don't think you are really introducing clarity.

2. It's trivally easy to put the opposing argument into the same terms and come out a winner, with your side the loser. Nothing is gained by using logic (if, and, or, then, etc.) here - it is the underlying assumptions that are in question.

 

[N8Ball]

Sorry but:

...Nothing is gained by using logic (if, and, or, then, etc.) here - it is the underlying assumptions that are in question.

We must find some common ground if we are to make any progress. If one side argues logic while another argues semantics we'll get nowhere. Heck, even arguing semantics versus semantics only got us 6 pages of repeating the same arguments.

Logic is a bit less subjective and I think may help to break the dam, so I'm trying to frame both sides into a logical form that we can compare.

I was simply trying to ask them if this is what they think and how they imagine the rules interact. I made several assumptions that I didn't agree with in there for the sake of understanding my opponents side of the argument.

 

[keterys]

Eh, I don't think discouraging him is particularly helpful there. The logic looked roughly correct from where I'm sitting.

I think the coolest part would be to find someone who tries to play it both ways with something like Reaping Strike or a daily. 'Well, I got two 2s, so that's a critical hit. Take... 67 damage. Oh, and a 2 also misses, so take another 5.'

After all, p276 Attack Results still requires that you compare the attack result to the hit and miss and you only automatically hit if you roll a 20 by the rules there, so... cake and eat it too?

But, maybe not, Precision specifically applies to whenever you roll 'numbers' other than 20, and I'm pretty sure a pair of twos are numbers other than 20, so any argument that Precision doesn't apply might equally make 'Maximum Damage' not apply. And now you're in a paradoxical situation where you rolled dice and no one knows what happened

I'm extremely willing to believe the _intent_ is for this ability to make the double 2s an automatic hit and crit. As soon as the WotC boards are up, I encourage someone who cares sufficiently (say, you've got a character with this paragon path) to submit an errata to clarify or fix the text.

 

[Artoomis]

We must find some common ground if we are to make any progress. If one side argues logic while another argues semantics we'll get nowhere. Heck, even arguing semantics versus semantics only got us 6 pages of repeating the same arguments.

Logic is a bit less subjective and I think may help to break the dam, so I'm trying to frame both sides into a logical form that we can compare.

I was simply trying to ask them if this is what they think and how they imagine the rules interact. I made several assumptions that I didn't agree with in there for the sake of understanding my opponents side of the argument.

Well, I don't think that helps, in my opinion, because I can re-state it another way:

A = roll a 20
B = an attack score high enough to hit the defense
C = roll a 19
D = roll doubles
E = Double ones
H = you hit
M = Max damage hit, plus extra damage
X = Critical Hit
Z = miss

Cutting right through it all, Holy Ardent creates a new situation where:

If D but not E, Then X, where H is irrelevant.

Or, I could re-state it as:

A = roll a 20
B = an attack score high enough to hit the defense
C = roll a number other than 20 that can still score a critical hit
D = roll doubles, but not double ones
H = you hit
M = Max damage hit, plus extra damage
X = Critical Hit

Then we get:

The general rule is If B then H and if not B than not H

For critical hits, before Holy Ardent

If (A or C) and B then X

For critical hits after Holy Ardent new situation

If ((A or C) and B) or D then X

But we could spend forever on this and get nowhere. Our focus should be on whether rolling doubles is the same as rolling numbers other than 20.

The trick of properly applying logic (or, for that matter, statistics) is to first get solid agreement on the assuptions. In other words, a good argument starts wqiht a good foundation.

The foundation here is the answer to the question of whether rolling doubles is the same as rolling numbers other than 20.

 

[abyssaldeath]

Eh, I don't think discouraging him is particularly helpful there. The logic looked roughly correct from where I'm sitting.

I think the coolest part would be to find someone who tries to play it both ways with something like Reaping Strike or a daily. 'Well, I got two 2s, so that's a critical hit. Take... 67 damage. Oh, and a 2 also misses, so take another 5.'

After all, p276 Attack Results still requires that you compare the attack result to the hit and miss and you only automatically hit if you roll a 20 by the rules there, so... cake and eat it too?

But, maybe not, Precision specifically applies to whenever you roll 'numbers' other than 20, and I'm pretty sure a pair of twos are numbers other than 20, so any argument that Precision doesn't apply might equally make 'Maximum Damage' not apply. And now you're in a paradoxical situation where you rolled dice and no one knows what happened

I'm extremely willing to believe the _intent_ is for this ability to make the double 2s an automatic hit and crit. As soon as the WotC boards are up, I encourage someone who cares sufficiently (say, you've got a character with this paragon path) to submit an errata to clarify or fix the text.

My buddy played one in a marathon session this weekend(17 hours of DnD, woooo). We were playing it that 2 identical rolls were a automatic crit(hit). He never rolled doubles that would have missed if it weren't a crit so it was never an issue. He did roll double ones though. It was quite humorous.

There already is a thread in the Divine Power errata forum on the WotC boards.

 

[DracoSuave]

The foundation here is the answer to the question of whether rolling doubles is the same as rolling numbers other than 20.

1 in 20 outcomes (when doubles are successfully rolled) it is the same as rolling 20.

19 in 20 outcomes it is impossible not to roll a number other than 20 when making doubles.

 

[N8Ball]

But we could spend forever on this and get nowhere. Our focus should be on whether rolling doubles is the same as rolling numbers other than 20.

I disagree. The question about whether doubles = "numbers other than 20" is a question that pertains to the argument, but it's far less foundational than our disagreement on what a critical hit is. I may argue your position in the future, but right now I'm just trying to pin down what each of us is actually saying in terms more precise than vernacular english.

Also, I'm not saying you did anything wrong but correctly combining logical functions as you have gets tricky and leaves too much room for errors. I used simpler equasions that layer their logic on each other to more closely match the words in the PHB. This also makes it easier to see if we've written them correctly.

The question remains whether or not Draco and Flip agree with my interpretation of their logic.

 

[Artoomis]

1 in 20 outcomes (when doubles are successfully rolled) it is the same as rolling 20.

19 in 20 outcomes it is impossible not to roll a number other than 20 when making doubles.

I am sorry, I could not follow this or undertsand your point. Could you re-state this another way?

 

[Artoomis]

I disagree. The question about whether doubles = "numbers other than 20" is a question that pertains to the argument, but it's far less foundational than our disagreement on what a critical hit is...

But you won't really get there, I think, without answering the question of whether double = number other than 20 or not.,

For we know, as re-stated for the rules compendium, exactly what a critical hit is, without regard to Holy Ardor:

"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.

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).

Maximum Damage: Rather than roll damage, determine the maximum damage you can roll with your attack. This is your critical damage. (Attacks that don’t deal damage still don’t deal damage on a critical hit.)

Extra Damage: Magic weapons and implements, as well as high crit weapons, can increase the damage you deal when you score a critical hit. If this extra damage is a die roll, it’s not automatically maximum damage; you add the result of the roll."

The first two paragraphs are relevant as they determine if an attack is a critical hit or not, the second two only deal with damage, which is out of scope for this argument.

Thus, pre-Holy Ardor, the logic is simple:

Hit = attack roll meets or exceed defense score
PotentialCrit = roll on a die is high enough to be a critical hit (20, or, per Precision, a lower number)
Critical = Score a Critical Hit (get max damage, etc.)

If PotentialCrit and Hit then Critical.

The rule post-Holy Ardor is more difficult because one must first decide if Holy Ardor creates a new situation or not.

If so, then:

Hit = attack roll meets or exceed defense score
PotentialCrit = roll on a die is high enough to be a critical hit (20, or, per Precision, a lower number)
Critical = Score a Critical Hit (get max damage, etc.)
Doubles = Holy Ardor power used and doubles rolled, (except for double ones)

If (PotentialCrit and Hit) OR Doubles, then Critical.

If not, then

Hit = attack roll meets or exceed defense score
PotentialCrit = roll on a die is high enough to be a critical hit (20, or, per Precision, a lower number) OR Holy Ardor power used and doubles rolled, (except for double ones)
Critical = Score a Critical Hit (get max damage, etc.)

If PotentialCrit and Hit then Critical.

And so, once again, the key point becomes whether or not Holy Ardor doubles is simply another potential critical hit or creates a new category where one scores a critical hit even on a low attack roll (by rolling doubles).