Adent Champion. Rules lawyers required

[Artoomis]

BTW, I have submitted the following to CustServ:

There has been much discussion around the Arden Champion's Holy Ardor power which reads:

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.

The question comes down to whether this a new exception (specific rule) that overrides the rules on determining a critical hit such that any doubles (other than when both rolls are 1) will be a critical hit, even if that number would have otherwise been a miss on the attack die.

If you would, please, give not only the answer as to whether this creates a new auto-critical situation (regardless od whether the roll would have hit), but also why, that would be greatly appreciated.

Also, please submit this for a FAQ or rules update as appropriate.

See http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4t...-adent-champion-rules-lawyers-required-7.html for much discussion of this power.

 

[DracoSuave]

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

Precision, in my interpretation, is a rule that applies when you have a situation where you rolled something other than a 20 and scored a critical hit. This situation must occur with Holy Ardor 19 out of 20 times.

In the 20th time, Holy Ardor doesn't have a meaningful effect anyways, so it doesn't matter, as you've already satisfied the natural 20 rules.

So the statement then is... prove that you've done something -other- than roll a number other than 20 when rolling Holy Ardor and applying it's effect. (and obviously, 20/20 is ruled out as a counterargument already)

 

[N8Ball]

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).

I follow your logic and I happen to agree with it, but they won't because you've made assumptions that they disagree with.... Specificly, the definition of Critical hit. You define it as a max damage hit, they define it similarly but include the possibility of a miss.

The end of any argument is not valid unless the assumptions are valid. So then, we must establish the definitions of contentious terms explicitly before we can talk about them with any rigor.

This is a bottleneck in the argument, and it must be dealt with first.

 

[DracoSuave]

I follow your logic and I happen to agree with it, but they won't because you've made assumptions that they disagree with.... Specificly, the definition of Critical hit. You define it as a max damage hit, they define it similarly but include the possibility of a miss.

No, we define 'score a critical hit' as something that Precision applies to, and therefore trumps. We do not assume that it hits, we assume that a rule exists that tells you 'wait, no, that might not hit, hang on a minute.'

It's a subtly different argument. However, it -creates a situation- where you can 'score a critical hit' and still not hit. But that's a product of the argument, and not the point of the argument itself which is:

Holy Ardor is a feature that allows you to score a critical hit on numbers other than a 20.
Precision is a rule that applies when you are allowed to score a critical hit on numbers other than a 20.

Therefore, Precision applies to Holy Ardor.


Hense why the discussion on whether Holy Ardor is a 'numbers other than 20' case.

 

[Flipguarder]

Precision, in my interpretation, is a rule that applies when you have a situation where you rolled something other than a 20 and scored a critical hit. This situation must occur with Holy Ardor 19 out of 20 times.

In the 20th time, Holy Ardor doesn't have a meaningful effect anyways, so it doesn't matter, as you've already satisfied the natural 20 rules.

So the statement then is... prove that you've done something -other- than roll a number other than 20 when rolling Holy Ardor and applying it's effect. (and obviously, 20/20 is ruled out as a counterargument already)

If you roll 2 18s, according to holy ardor, you critically hit. That is explicitly a situation in which you crit without rolling a twenty. I have no idea what you are trying to prove.

 

[DracoSuave]

If you roll 2 18s, according to holy ardor, you critically hit. That is explicitly a situation in which you crit without rolling a twenty. I have no idea what you are trying to prove.

By brute force, that Holy Ardor is a feature that allows you to roll critical hits on numbers other than 20.

 

[Flipguarder]

By brute force, that Holy Ardor is a feature that allows you to roll critical hits on numbers other than 20.

I have a hard time believing someone would argue against this. Any takers?

 

[N8Ball]

It's a subtly different argument. However, it -creates a situation- where you can 'score a critical hit' and still not hit.

So you define "critical hit" as a situation that requires other tests (successful attack roll) to determine the outcome (max damage or miss), right?

It seems that that is functionally identical to calling "Critical hit" the function X which includes the precision rules within it, since every time you refer to X, you must then test to see if precision has been satisfied, and thereby making the determination of max damage or miss.

 

[N8Ball]

I have a hard time believing someone would argue against this. Any takers?

Actually, no. I agree with that statement wholeheartedly.

I was hesitating to post this agreement because I'm relatively sure that somebody is going to rage all over me tell me how this can't jive with my own arguments rather than actually listen to my argument to it's conclusion as see if it holds any water.

....But the thread has been pretty reasoned and civil so far so I'm showing some of my cards in spite of my reservations.

 

[DracoSuave]

So you define "critical hit" as a situation that requires other tests (successful attack roll) to determine the outcome (max damage or miss), right?

I am not defining critical hit. And notice, I'm not talking about 'critical hit'.

I'm discussing the term 'score a critical hit' which is the crux of this, and your, argument. The definition and rules for 'score a critical hit' include Precision as part of their baggage.

It seems that that is functionally identical to calling "Critical hit" the function X which includes the precision rules within it, since every time you refer to X, you must then test to see if precision has been satisfied, and thereby making the determination of max damage or miss.

Perhaps. But that is not what I'm doing, exactly. I'm doing this:

It is stated that you can X in certain abnormal circumstances. However in that very same statement, it -additionally- states that if you do not Y, you cannot Z in abnormal circumstances, and without Z, you cannot X. Therefore, if in those abnormal circumstances, even if the ability says you X, and without fail X, X -itself- is telling you you must also Y, or you didn't -actually- X.