Adent Champion. Rules lawyers required

[CovertOps]

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.

You cannot quote the general rules and then claim that they prove that some feature can now ignore the general rules. That is a circular argument. If that is the basis of your logic then we will get nowhere.

We have already been over the presence/absence of the word "can" and that has absolutely no effect on the meaning. "you score a critical" and "you can score a critical" are identical in meaning and function in that they both refer to the general rules on criticals. Any other reading of such insignificant stylistic changes in grammar is simply ridiculous. If WotC has to be that precise in it's wording of rules they better hire a lawyer and make the whole rulebook unreadable.

And I will keep coming back to the basic failure to understand exception based design in 4e. A specific rule does NOT get to ignore the general rules UNLESS it SPECIFICALLY says that it can. "Score a critical hit" does not say anything about ignoring the auto-hit rules therefore it does not ignore those rules. "Score a critical hit" does not say anything about ignoring precision so it does not.

 

[Dan'L]

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

So, then, would you consider that the "newly created situation" of rolling doubles then still also qualifies as "roll(ing) numbers?" And that if these numbers are not 20, then it further would qualify to "roll(ing) numbers other than 20?" I really only bring this up because of your incessant insistence that this is new situation is somehow not governed by Precision, simply because it is new and different than 18/19-20. I don't think it's the crux of the matter, in any case.

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

But unless you're using different dice than 99.99%* of the players out there, those "doubles" also qualify as "numbers." New situation, same old rules applicability.

(*okay, this statistic I just completely made up, but you get the idea.)

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

Yes, it does. However, it does not allow you to "hit" on a double. In 4ed, as has been shown, "critical hit" and "hit" are distinctly separate (though sometimes related) terms with different meanings.

"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.

This is incorrect. Nowhere in the rules that I have in my PHB, or that you have quoted from your PHB or the Compendium, actually indicate that scoring a critical hit allows you to apply the damage.

The only places that I have found that allow you to apply damage are when you hit, when you miss with miss effects, or when other specific condition effects allow it(such as zones). "Critical Hits" is not one of these places. Let's examine another key portion of the critical hit rules:

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.)

So what does this allow for upon scoring a critical hit? Only for determining a damage amount, not for applying the damage. Attacks that miss are attacks that "don't deal damage" (unless there is a miss effect/effect to the contrary*)(relevant rules for a miss found on PHB p.276) and therefore by Critical Hit Damage rules "still don't deal damage."

So let's go back and look at Holy Ardor one more time. Does it give a rule with a new condition for determining if you score a critical hit? Yes. Does it give a rule with a new condition for determining if you hit? No. For determining if you hit, and then by extension determining if you actually get to apply that wonderful critical hit max damage, you still must use your Oath of Enmity rules as before. If your 2 from rolling double 2s doesn't add up to enough to equal or exceed the target's appropriate defense value then, as written, it's not a hit. Critical Hit: yes, Hit: no.

More to the point, if your total attack roll is lower than the target's defense value then the attack is a "Miss," and by the rules of attack results, an attack that misses (normally) deals no damage, and "attacks that don't deal damage" (such as attacks with a "miss" result and no "miss" damage effects) "still don't deal damage on a critical hit."

(*It is certainly arguable, though, that if you have Holy Ardor, roll double 2s, miss with a daily power that has a 1/2 damage miss effect then you get to apply 1/2 of your maximum damage and extra damage for the crit.)

-Dan'L

 

[Flipguarder]

There is only one mechanic for an automatic hit, rolling a 20. There is no room for interpretation in that, I don't care how many 2s you roll. Just because you ALSO get a critical hit on a 20 does in no way mean that any critical hit is an automatic hit.

I (rolling a 20) eat apples (automatic hit)
I (rolling a 20) ride bikes (critical hit)
You (holy ardor rolling two 2s) ride bikes (critical hit)

This does not in any way mean that you eat apples. I am the only one who gets to eat apples, end of discussion. But you can ride bikes all you want. I don't care about that.

I'm quoting myself because I think some people in this thread need to read it.


There is only one way in all of D&D to automatically hit on an attack roll in which you actually have to roll a dice. An obscure path towards critical hits that omits the word "can" does not change this.

 

[CovertOps]

@N8Ball:

I reference to my previous post I will have to admit one change. The definitive or permissive forms will count within the general rule itself. So within the rules on critical hits it DOES matter if you have the definitive or permissive clauses because that is the only way to be able to define the cases given.

As to any power or feature anywhere else my statement still stands. There is no difference between "score a critical hit" and "you can score a critical hit". Both refer to the general critical hit rules and are simply a stylistic change in grammar with no change in meaning. If this difference were allowed to make the power read differently you could break the exception based design of 4e without having to explicitly state how you're breaking the general rule and what the limits are on breaking said rule. This is the same as my other example "You shift 3 squares" vs. "You can shift 3 squares". Both phrases require you to refer to the general rules on shifting otherwise you could start shifting while prone without specifically saying "you shift 3 squares even if prone"

Edit: changing slide for shift as keterys has rightly pointed out my mistake.

Also if there is a difference between "you shift 3 squares" and "you can shift 3 squares" I'd like to point out that you don't get to pick and choose which general rules on shifting you can or can't ignore and you wind up in the silly situation where you are REQUIRED to shift 3 squares even tho the general rules (which you are ignoring) allow you to not shift at all.

 

[keterys]

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

Absolutely. That's my objection to Artoomis' theory.

Fwiw, it would help if people stop referring to not being able to slide while prone - you're thinking of shifting. Also, 1 does automiss (PHB276). Please don't refer to other rules incorrectly when trying to argue a rule. It's going to muddy the issue up quite a bit

 

[N8Ball]

@N8Ball:
As to any power or feature anywhere else my statement still stands. There is no difference between "score a critical hit" and "you can score a critical hit".

That understanding is only possible if you define a crit as a possible miss, which doesn't agree with the three quotes I referenced. The definition of a crit is consistent within the basic rules (those examples), The feats and features in question only change how you get there, not what it IS.

"You slide 3 squares" vs. "You can slide 3 squares". Both phrases require you to refer to the general rules on sliding otherwise you could start sliding while prone without specifically saying "you slide 3 squares even if prone"

I agree completely, and the general rules on crits include the precision section, which I believe isn't affected by holy ardor or mastery feats. We agree on that.

I'll tell you how I think precision plays into it if we can come to terms on what a crit is and isn't before we include the precision rule. Then we will put precision back into it and see how it changes things.

 

[abyssaldeath]

I'll tell you how I think precision plays into it if we can come to terms on what a crit is and isn't before we include the precision rule. Then we will put precision back into it and see how it changes things.

A crit is when you roll a natural 20 and your total attack roll is high enough to hit your target’s defense you deal maximum damage.

 

[Flipguarder]

N8ball, before we even need to define critical hit, I would need you to provide me any situation in which a critical hit is an automatic hit, without rolling a 20. Otherwise it doesn't matter if we define "critical hit" "score a critical hit" or "can critical hit" because all three fail to automatically hit without some precedent.

 

[CovertOps]

That understanding is only possible if you define a crit as a possible miss, which doesn't agree with the three quotes I referenced. The definition of a crit is consistent within the basic rules (those examples), The feats and features in question only change how you get there, not what it IS.



I agree completely, and the general rules on crits include the precision section, which I believe isn't affected by holy ardor or mastery feats. We agree on that.

I'll tell you how I think precision plays into it if we can come to terms on what a crit is and isn't before we include the precision rule. Then we will put precision back into it and see how it changes things.

I'm not clear how you can have your cake and eat it too. You disagree with my assertion that the word "can" has no change in meaning in regards to criticals, but turn around and agree it does not change the meaning with regards to another effect (shifting in this case). You'll need to pick one before we can continue.

And for reference I define "[you can] score a critical hit" as refer to the general rules on critical hits when it is used in features such as Holy Ardor or the dagger master PP feature which includes the possibility that you can both critical and miss. The usage and context matter because if you had the phrase "you score a critical hit" within the critical hit rules then it might be referring to the actual case where you do max damage etc. What this means is that there is more than one meaning to "score a critical hit" and context/usage matter (but NOT the use of the word "can").

 

[CovertOps]

Ok N8Ball...I see what you mean. Let me revise my definition of critical hit.

Within the context of the critical hit rules themselves the term refers to a hit that does max damage and whatever else is defined about the damage aspect of a crit. In this case the use of the word "can" does make a difference. Also in this context there is no such thing as a "crit" that "misses".

In ANY other location in the rules critical hit refers to the critical hit rules. This is the section where the use or lack thereof of the word "can" makes absolutely no difference. In this context you can have a "crit" that "misses" and it is in this context that this whole thread has raged on for 10 pages. This is the context of usage in the feature "Holy Ardor".

These comments do not change my position in any way as the first part does not have any bearing on the debate about Holy Ardor.