Search results

Your analogy isn't quite perfect. "get into space" is the result. If you want to write it like this then it would be a nice analogy. "What physics says is that only a rocket can achieve escape velocity. That does not necessarily imply that achieving escape velocity is the only way to get into...

You don't have incontrovertable proof. You have a conclusion that follows from different assumptions you've made. I backed up my assumptions with several quotes on critical hit from the rulebook. You've backed up your assumption that a crit can miss by reading Precision to mean that there...

The rules that pertain to failure explicitly exempt what case? That you don't miss when you qualify for a hit? That's not explicit anywhere in the Miss: section, it's understood. And that's why the "automatic hit" rule works, because we know that once you have a hit, you don't miss, so you...

Respectfully, Bob, I think there is some progress being made. The recent discussion with Flipguarder on the subject of "automatic hit" was progress since we came to an understanding that at least those explicit terms were not required. CovertOps Stated that he "finally" saw where I was...

Well, that's the exact same argument for when you roll a 20 that does not hit the defense. -> "Automatic hit" says I succeeded (in getting a hit), -> 'Therefore, we apply all the rules applying to success (hits).' -> 'Because we apply all the rules applying to success, the rules applying to...

Wow. You're making a lot of assumptions about my thought process there. I assure you, my analysis was much more rigorous that you suggest, and started with evidence not assumptions. But I did arrive at my assumptions before I started this discussion, as did you. But just to be thorough I did...

Are you saying the the player with mastery has a choice in the matter concerning his die roll of 19? I'm not ignoring the evidence, I looked at it and did not come to that conclusion, given the assumptions that I started with. And my assumptions form the basis for an internally consistent...

So do we agree that "can" works differently in situations of player permission versus possible outcomes as adjudicated by the rules? like Critical hit = hit? There's lots of evidence for it, and it is the simplest understanding of it. It seems very intuitive and simple, and if you follow the...

OK then, I misunderstood what he meant by adjudicate. That is consistent with earlier arguments. YES! I agree with this whole statement wholeheartedly. I like the way you argue, Flipguarder. Very clean and cutting right to the heart of the matter. I'll explain how it skips in a sec, but...

Wait, so you're saying that rolling doubles alone with Holy Ardor DOES NOT allow you expressly to "score a critical hit"? Because that's a fundamentally different argument than the previous arguments that have been made which are that some critical hits are misses. It does skip the normal...

Your example make an error that my example does not. All elephants (the subset) things that are grey (the superset) just because you fall into the superset does not mean that you fall into the subset. BUT My example was of the form: I am an elephant, therefore I am grey, I said GREY, Not...

I'm glad that my point is getting through, even if we disagree on my underlying assumptions. I believe the term we're looking for is inclusion, and it applies to all forms of logical determination. If I have a BMW 323i, then it necessarily follows that I have a car, since all BMW 323i are...

Excellent post. Here is my evidence: Critical hit is a subset of hit, Supported by the following: -> Critical Hit is an entry indented under hit. -> The basic requirements for a crit include hitting before you get there, not after. I.E. crit is the destination, not an intermediate step. ->...

Samir, you and I are about 98% on the same page, especially with your points about non-contradiction ("crit and not crit" cannot be true), and your "can hit on 1" hypothetical example. There is only one nuance I would disagree with and that is this: The section on critical hits says that...

Not all critical hits have to be "automatic hits" That has been true since the first mastery feat. And anyway, an "automatic hit" is not defined as "a hit that would otherwise miss if you compared attack scores". It is sometimes that, but 20s that hit are also technically "automatic hits"...

I missed this fact before, but this is a pretty relevant observation. We already agree that Hit and Miss are mutually exclusive events. Nobody is arguing that a hit can be a miss. And Critical hit is indented under Hit implying that it is a subset of Hit. The section does not fully describe...

Samir's claim is supported by my arguments and examples in previous posts. And crits do deal "Maximum Damage" as defined by the section of the same name under crits. But as you point out, "Maximum damage" can still be 0. I do appreciate your logical walk through though. It really helps to see...

Wait, so you're saying that when you ""score a critical hit" but miss that you don't get to do things that trigger on "scoring a critical hit"? Your interpretation here seems rife with contradiction. Either you satisfied the feat by scoring a critical hit, or you didn't because you didn't score...

Holy Ardor does not need to because we already have situations where you can crit or just hit without ignoring it. Holy Ardor can do the same without ignoring it or changing it. Precision is not ignored either, since it simply states that "precision" feats and features (that are described by...

That is damn funny... and not even any repeat posters in the group. Reminds me of Statler and Waldorf from the muppets, great stuff.