Adent Champion. Rules lawyers required

[DracoSuave]

very long post

I'm going to sum up the problem with this argument in one very simple way.

You've argued that we're making assumptions, and that Precision only applies to possible critical hits.

I rebut with this simple statement:

You've assumed, despite evidence to the contrary, that 'score a critical hit' is not itself a situation that is a 'possible critical hit.'

'Score' in the context of critical hits is not a signal of a definate critical hit. Precision itself calls the term by name, and without dint of an altering verb implying possibility, only that of permission.

Therefore, the burden of proof is on you to prove that Holy Ardor is an automatic hit. What you've supplied simply isn't good enough, and doesn't hold to be true, as proven by counterexample.

Furthermore, you've committed a fallacy, that just because other examples work correctly, that removing a single word will create the opposite intention. This itself is disproven by showing examples where that specific word's presence or absense has no impact on the situation.

So, the burden of proof is therefore on you, to prove with a means other than pointing out the absense of the word 'can' (a method that is disproven), that the ability provides an automatic hit. If you can do this, you have a case that it is an exception to the Precision rules. If you cannot do this, you do not have a case.

It is as simple as that. Because now you're assuming that your premise is true despite the fact that premise is proven false. If you wish to present your conclusion, you require a new argument with new premises.

 

[N8Ball]

Right. It's just a little bit below that on p. 276, under the heading "Miss" where it explicitly states: "If your attack roll is lower than the attack score, the attack misses."

- The only exception found to this rule of "miss" is the aforementioned "Automatic Hit."

- There is nothing in Holy Ardor that says rolling doubles is a "Hit," only a "Critical Hit," and these have been shown to be explicitly separate, though related, game terms.

And I have shown the term "critical hit" to be encompased by "hit" through examples and direct quotes from the book. (and it makes sense)

There is nothing in the section outlining the details of "Critical Hits" on PHB p. 278 which allows a critical hit to be an automatic hit or to apply it's maximum damage without also meeting the criteria for a "Hit."

As I explained, "automatic hit" is a sometimes-coincident result with critical hit, and NEVER a criteria for it. Looking for that wording is would be the basis for the faulty causation argument mentioned. But we agree that is not there, we know that there are crits that are not automatic hits and automatic hits that are not crits.

Obviously "Automatic hit" has never been a requirement for a crit just as it is not even a requirement for a hit. The two may be coincident, but that is simple correlation due to similar requirements. They are not at all dependent on each other.

But the criteria for achieving a crit are modified by feats and features. The end result of satisfying those new or modified criteria is also a critical hit.

If a power or feature said you simply hit, then you would hit regardless of the normal requirements and restrictions on hitting. And what's more, you'd hit even if you didn't have the word "automatic" in front of it, because although the "Hit:" section has requirements on hitting (just like critting), it also defines what a hit is (just like critting) and so a "hit" could be applied no matter what you rolled.

 

[abyssaldeath]

This is for sure one way to GET a crit, but once you get there, what is it? It's a maximum damage hit. (sometimes with extras as applied by the crit rules and other features that do whatever "when you score a critical hit".)

You asked for the definition of a critical hit before moving on to precision. That is the most basic definition of a crit. Without the precision rules there is no other way because the precision rules tell you how the other ways work..

 

[abyssaldeath]

Obviously "Automatic hit" has never been a requirement for a crit just as it is not even a requirement for a hit. The two may be coincident, but that is simple correlation due to similar requirements. They are not at all dependent on each other.

That is very true, but what you are missing is that without the automatic hit you can not crit without rolling high enough to hit.

 

[ChaosMage]

That is very true, but what you are missing is that without the automatic hit you can not crit without rolling high enough to hit.

Even with an automatic hit you cannot crit without rolling high enough to hit.

 

[abyssaldeath]

Sorry, you are right. I'm getting my thoughts all twisted up. My mistake just further proves that you need to roll high enough to hit in order to crit.

 

[CovertOps]

Even with an automatic hit you cannot crit without rolling high enough to hit.

I don't think anyone is trying to argue that automatic hit and critical hit are the same rules. They are separate rules that describe the requirements for two independent situations.

It's really fairly simple. If you treat all references to critical hits as a reference to the critical hit rules, except where that reference would create a circular reference (such as within the critical hit rules themselves), then you will be fine. Note that a rule or power can reference the critical hit rules, and as in many examples I have put forth, and then provide a specific way in which that power can ignore the general rules. So far nothing existing does this and this is the basis of exception based design.

I have yet to see anyone on the opposite side try to oppose this argument and frankly this is the only one that matters. Does Holy Ardor SPECIFICALLY give a way to ignore either the automatic hit rule or the Precision rule and provide alternate rules to use in their place? If you're not willing to oppose this basic mechanic of how the rules are structured then there is nothing left to discuss. Specific trumps general. It has been said by both sides. Everyone seems to agree with this, but no one who thinks that Holy Ardor gives you an auto-hit and auto-crit has provided the specific rule that overrides the general rules to prove this assertion. Instead we jump through hoops, stand on one foot, point our hand to the northern start and if we twitch our nose just right we can arrive at a nonsensical result that violates the most basic rule of 4e.

 

[keterys]

Given the CustServ response, any reason this really needs to continue?

 

[Nifft]

Given the CustServ response, any reason this really needs to continue?

Nobody trusts them!

Cheers, -- N

 

[Samir]

Still lurking. I'm just popping in to summarize what I think is the most important point.

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.

Notice that scoring a critical hit is not a test, it is the result of succeeding a test. It's analogous to the difference between making an attack and hitting.

Holy Ardor says on a double roll, you "score a critical hit."

So what happens when you double roll? That's right, you score a critical hit. What happens when you score a critical hit? You determine critical damage, and deal it.

Maximum Damage: Rather than roll damage,
determine the maximum damage you can roll with
your attack. This is your critical damage.

Holy Ardor obeys the critical hit rules just fine. It just skips a few steps, much like Agile Opportunist skips a few steps when it allows you to make an opportunity attack.

It seems pretty clear to me.