Adent Champion. Rules lawyers required

[Flipguarder]

My whole argument comes from two things:

1. I believe precision is a rule intended to denote that the only way to automatically hit a target is by rolling a 20. (Yes I'm just completely ignoring the idea of crits here.)
2. When an Avenger with Holy Ardor rolls two attack rolls and each are the same number (excepting 20), but separately they would not hit the target, it is not an automatic hit. Because only 20s are automatic hits.

 

[N8Ball]

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.

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 X in abnormal circumstances. 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.

We can't very well have a useful argument unless we agree on the terms we're using. That's why I'm stuck on defining the terms, because they're so central to everything about the discussion.

Very well, so we'll define X as "scoring a critical hit" instead.
And you believe that "scoring a critical hit" includes Y (precision rules) and can have 2 outcomes, either a miss or max damage.

Is that right?

 

[Flipguarder]

We can't very well have a useful argument unless we agree on the terms we're using. That's why I'm stuck on defining the terms, because they're so central to everything about the discussion.

Very well, so we'll define X as "scoring a critical hit" instead.
And you believe that "scoring a critical hit" includes Y (precision rules) and can have 2 outcomes, either a miss or max damage.

Is that right?

As far as I can tell, yes that is what I believe. I understand that this goes against standard definition of hit, but them's the rules.

 

[DracoSuave]

We can't very well have a useful argument unless we agree on the terms we're using. That's why I'm stuck on defining the terms, because they're so central to everything about the discussion.

Very well, so we'll define X as "scoring a critical hit" instead.
And you believe that "scoring a critical hit" includes Y (precision rules) and can have 2 outcomes, either a miss or max damage.

Is that right?

If X occurs in abnormal circumstances (not rolling a natural 20) and those abnormal circumstances do not dictate otherwise, then yes. This is for the same reason that forced movement has rules that imply when it can and cannot work, why conditions say when you can and cannot do things, etc.

 

[Artoomis]

I hate to get picky over terminology, especially when I don't think it matters to the point that my learned opposition is making, but:

"Score a critical hit" is when you have passed whatever tests exist and actually get to do the critical damage.

Per the Rules Compendium:

"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."

This, of course, still leaves open the question of whether Holy Ardor sets up an entirely new condition (roll two matching numbers on two d20) or falls under "roll numbers other than 20."

So , basically, the question comes down to whether "roll numbers other than 20" is all-inclusive of any situation or whether the context of rolling a single value excludes the new situation of using "doubles."

 

[Flipguarder]

I hate to get picky over terminology, especially when I don't think it matters to the point that my learned opposition is making, but:

"Score a critical hit" is when you have passed whatever tests exist and actually get to do the critical damage.

Per the Rules Compendium:

"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."

This, of course, still leaves open the question of whether Holy Ardor sets up an entirely new condition (roll two matching numbers on two d20) or falls under "roll numbers other than 20."

So , basically, the question comes down to whether "roll numbers other than 20" is all-inclusive of any situation or whether the context of rolling a single value excludes the new situation of using "doubles."

I see NO reason to create an entirely new condition for critting in this scenario. Could you give me any?

 

[Artoomis]

Oh my... I just realized that the terminology used on Holy Ardor is not ambiguous as i thought.

"Ardent Champion: "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.""

"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"

The language is very specific around the phrase "score a critical hit."

It looks to me like "score a critical hit" can only mean one thing - you have actually scored one, and get to do the critical damage. This means the omission of the word "can" in Holy Ardor is very, very significant. Of course it could be a simple oversight or typo, but, as written, it is a more specific rule than "Precision" and overrides it.

A search in the Rules Compendium for "score a critical hit" gives interesting results. Here's a few:

A high crit weapon deals more damage when you score a critical hit with it....

Aberrant Bane (11th level): Your attacks against bloodied aberrant creatures can score critical hits on rolls of 19–20.

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.

Lethal Action (11th level): If you spend an action point to make an attack against your oath of enmity target, the attack can score a critical hit on a roll of 18–20.

Wild Push (16th level): Whenever you score a critical hit with a melee attack while you are raging, you push the target a number of squares equal to your Strength modifier.

Dominating Presence (16th level): Whenever you score a critical hit, your allies gain a +2 bonus...

Volley Fire (16th level): If you score a critical hit with a ranged bard attack power...

Deeds not Words (16th level): When you bloody an enemy, reduce an enemy to 0 hit points, or score a critical hit with a melee attack...

Illuminating Attacks (11th level): Your powers that have the radiant keyword can now score a critical hit with a natural die roll of 19 or 20.

 

[Artoomis]

I see NO reason to create an entirely new condition for critting in this scenario. Could you give me any?

I don't need a reason, just the fact that WotC created this brand new scenario when they created Holy Ardor.

Whether I agree with it or not, or understand why they did this or not, is not the point. I am just looking at what's published and trying to determine what it means.

 

[Flipguarder]

I'm sorry for everyone who disagrees, but "Only a 20 is an automatic hit" is applicable, precise, exact, and overriding in this scenario.

 

[N8Ball]

If X occurs in abnormal circumstances (not rolling a natural 20) and those abnormal circumstances do not dictate otherwise, then yes.

Absolutely true. Specific unusual circumstances can change the basic rules. everyone agrees with that.

Per the Rules Compendium:

"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."

Artoomis makes a good point here though. The rules have the requirement of a successful attack roll before you score a critical hit. Requiring that "scoring a critical hit" again checks to see if you hit is redundant - not logically contradictory, I'll give you that, but it's certainly not needed in the standard case.

Also, allowing "score a critical hit" to include some misses creates some serious unintended consequences.

Suppose I "score a critical hit" but miss on a big monster. With that interpretation, there are TONS of powers that could kick off on that miss, like Font of Radiance, Triumphant Attack and a slew of item powers that trigger off of "scoring a critical hit".

Then, you have the trouble of the other examples and text on critical hits throughout the book.

A high crit weapon deals more damage when you score a critical hit with it. A critical hit deals maximum weapon damage and an extra...

A critical hit deals maximum damage and some powers and magic items have an extra effect on a critical hit.

If she scores a critical hit, she deals maximum damage of 23 points and adds 2D6 thunder damage from her thundering longsword.

The very beginning section on critical hits also makes the point that the term "crit" is synonymous with scoring a critical hit.

For those reasons (and others already listed in this thread) I believe that the term crit, critical hit and score a critical hit are virtually interchangeable and simply describe the maximum damage hit we all know and love.

However, all is not lost! Precision still has a place, but you may not be surprised to hear that my interpretation is slightly different than yours. I hope that you will find it consistent with the rest of my argument.

Unfortunately, I'm off to GM Shadowrun right now so I'll be back in about 5 hours. I apologise for making you wait on my take on precision (that's a long post too). Duty calls.