Adent Champion. Rules lawyers required

[shadowoflameth]

DracoSuave is correct. Per the PHB, only a natural 20 is an automatic hit. If a natural 20 is not a high enough numerical result to hit, then you still score a normal hit, (not a critical hit). Powers and feats that give you the ability to critical hit on 19, 18 or lower still do give you this feature, and only a few very specific powers make any hit an automatic critical. Natural ones by the way, in the era off 4th edition, are not automatic misses, the 3e fumble is gone. With this ability however, ones are not automatic criticals if you roll two of them. Conversely, the 1:400 chance of rolling a pair of natural 20s would make the effect of the second roll a moot point.

 

[urzafrank]

The term automatic hit is a term in the PHB. The part in Precision is just a reminder of the automatic hit rules. No where does Holy Ardor refer to that rule and how it would it would conflict so as result it does not. Automatic Hit and Critical Hit are not the same terms and since the PHB does not combine them why are some of the posters on this Board doing so?

 

[Dan'L]

Let's try this:

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).

When rolling two 2s what have you got?

1. Two attack rolls, neither of which hit.
2. Doubles, which Holy Ardor says "score a critical hit."

So now what?

So now:
- I've got two dice.
- The dice have rolled "2" on each.
- "2s" are "numbers."
- Holy Ardor says "score a critical hit" because I have rolled these "numbers"
- Holy Ardor is a "feature"
- Precision says "Some class features and powers" (like Holy Ardor) "allow you to score a critical hit when you roll" (like what I did with the two dice) "numbers other than 20." (like 2s)

Therefore, Precision applies.

Or are you arguing that 2's are not numbers, simply because there is more than one of them? Because, frankly, that's what it reads like from this corner.

-Dan'L

 

[Eldorian]

Let's try this:




So now:
- I've got two dice.
- The dice have rolled "2" on each.
- "2s" are "numbers."
- Holy Ardor says "score a critical hit" because I have rolled these "numbers"
- Holy Ardor is a "feature"
- Precision says "Some class features and powers" (like Holy Ardor) "allow you to score a critical hit when you roll" (like what I did with the two dice) "numbers other than 20." (like 2s)

Therefore, Precision applies.

Or are you arguing that 2's are not numbers, simply because there is more than one of them? Because, frankly, that's what it reads like from this corner.

-Dan'L

In bizarre mathlogic world, 2s, that is, (2,2) is an ordered pair, and therefore not a number. Fortunately, you didn't roll (2,2). You rolled 2, twice. Then your class feature kicks in and says you rolled a 2. This 2 "scored a critical hit" because of Holy Ardor. Precision says you still miss.

We don't want dnd rules to be written in mathlogic world. Because in mathlogic world, all "or"s are inclusive, "any" and "every" are the same word, and a doughnut is a coffee cup.

 

[pascalnz]

dear god

in 4th ed YOU MISS ON ONES. always.

this is for you shadowoftheflame read the darn section .

 

[Artoomis]

Yes, it is true that the rolls on the two dice are numbers.

However, it is also that all other rules (other than Holy Ardor) are in the context of rolling a number (sometimes picking the best or worst of mutiple rolls) on a d20.

Holy Ardor creates an entirely new situation of using a "doubles" result on two dice.

Holy Ardor also says "you score a critical hit" on a doubles - except double ones.

"You score a critical hit" is an unambiguous game term that means you have actually passed whatever tests exist (like, for example, hitting with a high enough value on the attack die) and you may apply the damage for the critical hit.

Since that is the case, Holy Ardor has created a new exception to the previous rules on Crtical Hits where you only score a crtical hit if you roll a 20 (or sometimes less if granted by a class feature or power) 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.

However, I do not discount all of my learned opponents' arguments entirely - I see the validity of them and maintain that both interpretations have validity and therfore clarification from WotC is required - especially if it is important for, say RPGA play.

 

[keterys]

"You score a critical hit" is an unambiguous game term that means you have actually passed whatever tests exist (like, for example, hitting with a high enough value on the attack die) and you may apply the damage for the critical hit.

You really haven't shown this to be the case... and as far as I can tell, it's the entire crux of your argument. I think that's essentially why you're not seeing eye to eye with any of the dissenters. Your apple is their orange.

However, I do not discount all of my learned opponents' arguments entirely - I see the validity of them and maintain that both interpretations have validity and therfore clarification from WotC is required - especially if it is important for, say RPGA play.

Being blunt... don't try to do it at an LFR game without prior acceptance from the DM. It'd just be asking for trouble, so avoiding it in advance is a good idea.

 

[Artoomis]

You really haven't shown this to be the case... and as far as I can tell, it's the entire crux of your argument. I think that's essentially why you're not seeing eye to eye with any of the dissenters. Your apple is their orange.

I did show this, by quoting the Critical Hit rules and not being able to find any exception to where "you score a critical hit" means anything other than actually getting the critical hit - meaning you get to apply the critical damage. Note that a different phrase, "you can score a critical hit," is used in instances where the normal roll of 20 is modified to be a 19/20 or and 18/19/20.

Also note that while this is important to my argument, it is also (perhaps equally) important that this is a new situation of using a "doubles" roll as opposed to looking to the result on an attack roll.

Being blunt... don't try to do it at an LFR game without prior acceptance from the DM. It'd just be asking for trouble, so avoiding it in advance is a good idea.

Quite right. that's why clarification from WotC is needed - as it is in every instance where the rules, as written, support two (or more) justifiable alternative intepretations.

The whole point of a common understanding how the rules are written is really about RPGA games and consistency. For other games, well, it is not so important, really. The DM and the group just agree amongst themselves (with the DM being final arbiter, of course).

That said, in an LFR game, it could, as written, be run either way and be correct.

 

[keterys]

Unfortunately, no... it could _either_ be a critical that misses (which is a very paradoxical thing) or it could just be a miss (because of precision). You still haven't overcome the 'automatic hit' barrier, so your power still Misses because it failed to hit the defense.

Critical hits are not automatic hits. Nothing gets past that. Again, I'd be extremely willing to believe it's intended that this ability count as an automatic hit, but it just doesn't.

 

[N8Ball]

Unfortunately, no... it could _either_ be a critical that misses (which is a very paradoxical thing)

First of all "score a critical hit" = "crit" = "critical hit". Pg 278 is explicit about that much.

The understanding of what a critical hit is must also allow for a distinction between permissive language when determining crits, as is used on page 276:

If you roll a 20 your attack roll might be a critical hit.

** This allowance is what makes it possible to define critical hits like the book does in a number of places, specifically, "Critical hits:" pg 276, the Valanae example pg 276, and the section on High Crit, pg 217. (Which I quoted on page 9 of this thread). Each of these defines "critical hit" in definitive terms without qualification. There are no, "if", "might", "can", "allow" or any permissive language in any of those. That say what it IS and what you DO when you get a crit.

Every one of these examples talk about or define a critical hit as though it IS a hit, and assumes a definition of critical hit that is not paradoxical, but internally consistent.

What about Mastery feats then? Don't they say you crit on 19s and 20s? Not exactly.

First of all, even the basic rules don't say that you crit on a 20, they say you MIGHT crit, IF you satisfy the other conditions required apart from the number on the die. So then, the mastery feats also folllow this same paradigm, by allowing you to get a crit on a 19 or 20, but not guaranteeing it, just like the good ole 20. I know Draco will hate me saying this, but that's why the "can" is in those feats, so they read permissively instead of definitively.

The examples of "can" (or lack thereof) in all the movement powers involve player choice (a choice that is explicitly granted in the case of forced movement). There are no choices here, nor should there be. This is mehanical rule adjudication, and the difference between permissive language and definitive language is meaningful and should be acknowledged.

Precision still has it's place, and will be respected. But what I've just said may need to be digested first.