Adent Champion. Rules lawyers required

[Nifft]

In a nutshell. At this point I think it's just discussion for the sake of discussion. It's absolutely impossible to prove one way or another because of the way the ability is phrased.

If people see that this needs to be re-written for clarity, my work here is done.

Cheers, -- N

 

[N8Ball]

This is all very simple. Can anyone explain to me how Holy Ardor changes a critical hit, which regardless of your opinion is not an automatic hit, into an automatic hit?

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"

Plus, achieving a similar result as "automatic hit" through different means does not require one to call it an "automatic hit", even if there are some coincident results.

In other words, not saying "automatic hit" does not deny the possibility of arriving at similar results by other means.

1. Using OoE roll 2 dice and pick the larger of the 2 results (at this point it does not matter if you roll doubles).
2. Add your bonuses and check the targets defense to determine if you hit the target.
3. IF you indeed hit now go back and check if you rolled doubles (Holy Ardor), or rolled a 20.

Where does it state when you check doubles? It never says that it must be after (or dependent on) a successful hit roll. I want to check first, what's wrong with that?

And in reality, that's the more likely case anyway since noticing that 2 numbers are the same is a bit faster than addition to find an attack score.

The Critical Hit rules specifically only apply damage if the roll is in fact a hit.

The basic rules say that you only crit if you hit. You always apply "maximum damage" when you crit.

Nothing in Holy Ardor creates an exception to the hit and miss rules (the most general rules on attack success or failure). Nothing in Holy Ardor makes an exception to the Automatic Hit rules. As a result nothing in Holy Ardor creates a the wished for "Automatic Crit".

There is no such thing as an "automatic crit" at least not as a game term. Saying that Holy ardor doesn't achieve this undefined thing isn't really meaningful. Holy Ardor achieves Crits, and you apply them when you get them.

The power clarifies that its exception to the need for a Natural 20 to start checking for a critical hit does not also create an exception to the Natrual 1 rule.

The fact it is an exlicit exception to the Natural 20 rule to start checking for a Critical Hit, is why the Precision rule applies to it (because that is what Precision says it is for).

I agree completely. Holy Ardor fully bypasses the "Natural 20" rule which has TWO requirements, one of which is a successful attack roll.

Precision applies, but does not deny anything. It only states that Holy Ardor doesn't add to the rule that 20 is an "automatic hit". But we already know that hits and crits are available by other means.

 

[Flipguarder]

Not all critical hits have to be "automatic hits" That has been true since the first mastery feat.

agreed. But to say that rolling two 2's while having holy ardor hits for some other reason than reaching the defense you are targeting, you need some evidence that this is true. Saying that "scoring a critical hit must mean you hit" is nonsense to me. There has to be a mechanic for this "automatic" hit.

In other words, not saying "automatic hit" does not deny the possibility of arriving at similar results by other means.

I'm trying to think of any features, powers, or paths that automatically hit without giving you something like "treat the roll as though you had rolled 20." If you can think of any, please enlighten me. But as my memory stands now, rolling a 20 is the only way to automatically succeed at an attack roll.

 

[N8Ball]

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:

You can roll a critical hit without scoring one.

The section on critical hits says that "When (you meet requirements), you score a critical hit, also know as a crit."

I think you can roll a number that might be a crit (I call them "crittable" numbers), and then not score one.

But saying you "rolled a critical hit" before checking all the requirements of a crit confuses the issue a bit. The die roll is just one of the basic requirements.

 

[N8Ball]

agreed. But to say that rolling two 2's while having holy ardor hits for some other reason than reaching the defense you are targeting, you need some evidence that this is true. Saying that "scoring a critical hit must mean you hit" is nonsense to me.

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.

-> The descriptions of critical hit in 3 places
--> High crit,
--> Valanae example on 276
--> The critical hit entry under hits, first it says that you might crit and then it says what happends if you DO.

Each of these 3 parts talks about achieving a crit and offer no more requirements, they just describe an effect. The hit is assumed in every instance.

There has to be a mechanic for this "automatic" hit.

I'm trying to think of any features, powers, or paths that automatically hit without giving you something like "treat the roll as though you had rolled 20." If you can think of any, please enlighten me. But as my memory stands now, rolling a 20 is the only way to automatically succeed at an attack roll.

I appreciate you putting 'automatic' in quotes. It makes your statement much clearer.

It does beg the question what you mean by "automatic" because "automatic" isn't really defined either. It's just amplifying and provides no explicit requirements or implications.

We agree that rolling a 20 lets you "automatically" succeed on a attack roll.

Following that form and use of the word "automatically",
A lets you "automatically" succeed on an attack roll.

You could just as easily replace A with B and the statement would still be true according to the rules, where B is "have an attack roll high enough to hit". So A is not the only way to "automatically" hit. (NOTE: We're not talking about "automatic hit" rules, we're simply using "automatic" as an adjective (or adverb).)

Yes, I know it's a tautology, but the point is that "automatically" doesn't come with any mechanical weight.

In the case of Holy Ardor, (using the logical terms defined on page 8)
(D and not E) gives you X
since X is a subset of H
(D and not E) logically achieve H

The seams in my argument are if you can show elements of X that fall outside H, but if you acknowledge permissive language in the crit abilities, that becomes a pretty tight seam.

 

[Flipguarder]

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.

-> The descriptions of critical hit in 3 places
--> High crit,
--> Valanae example on 276
--> The critical hit entry under hits, first it says that you might crit and then it says what happends if you DO.

Each of these 3 parts talks about achieving a crit and offer no more requirements, they just describe an effect. The hit is assumed in every instance.

I appreciate you putting 'automatic' in quotes. It makes your statement much clearer.

It does beg the question what you mean by "automatic" because "automatic" isn't really defined either. It's just amplifying and provides no explicit requirements or implications.

We agree that rolling a 20 lets you "automatically" succeed on a attack roll.

Following that form and use of the word "automatically",
A lets you "automatically" succeed on an attack roll.

You could just as easily replace A with B and the statement would still be true according to the rules, where B is "have an attack roll high enough to hit". So A is not the only way to "automatically" hit. (NOTE: We're not talking about "automatic hit" rules, we're simply using "automatic" as an adjective (or adverb).)

Yes, I know it's a tautology, but the point is that "automatically" doesn't come with any mechanical weight.

In the case of Holy Ardor, (using the logical terms defined on page 8)
(D and not E) gives you X
since X is a subset of H
(D and not E) logically achieve H

The seams in my argument are if you can show elements of X that fall outside H, but if you acknowledge permissive language in the crit abilities, that becomes a pretty tight seam.

Honestly the use of non-related rules concerning what happens on a hit, and then concluding that a crit assumes you hit, and then using the lack of the word "can" inside the phrasing of Holy Ardor to assume it is a successful critical hit, and therefore "automatically" hits seems like a VERY narrow bridge to me.

At the very least I'd need clarification before believing that was RAI.

 

[Samir]

The section on critical hits says that "When (you meet requirements), you score a critical hit, also know as a crit."

I think you can roll a number that might be a crit (I call them "crittable" numbers), and then not score one.

But saying you "rolled a critical hit" before checking all the requirements of a crit confuses the issue a bit. The die roll is just one of the basic requirements.

Correct. Perhaps I should have clarified, by "rolling a critical hit" I meant "achieving a roll on a die that allows you to score a critical hit."

Though I wouldn't call it a requirement, I'd call it a trigger, since there are other ways to score critical hits that don't involve that particular event.

If people see that this needs to be re-written for clarity, my work here is done.

Cheers, -- N

I think most agree with at least this much, but as I said, it's discussion for the sake of discussion.

 

[CovertOps]

I'm reminded of a scene from a very funny movie "My Cousin Vinnie" near the beginning. Joe Pecshi is trying to tell the judge that his clients are innocent at the arraignment and the judge (Fred Gwynn) starts talking to him about procedure, saying "It sounds to me like you want to skip the arraignment, go straight to trial, skip that, and go straight to an acquittal. Here in (wherever they were) we have a procedure...".

I finally see what your argument is N8Ball, even though I still completely disagree with it. You are suggesting that the the wording of Holy Ardor "score a critical hit" grants you a critical hit and BECAUSE critical hit is a subset of hit it is therefore already a hit. That is called implied meaning. Implied meaning is NOT good enough in exception based design. You MUST specifically override any rule that does not apply to the given situation. If the hit rules don't apply then they need to be called out such as "...and a roll of doubles is a hit even if it does not beat the defense of the target, except in the case of double 1's". Exception based design does not allow you to imply anything or you break the whole system and start arguing about the phrasing of things like the presence/absence of the word "can".

 

[N8Ball]

I finally see what your argument is N8Ball,... critical hit is a subset of hit it is therefore already a hit. That is called implied meaning. Implied meaning is NOT good enough in exception based design. You MUST specifically override any rule that does not apply to the given situation.

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 cars.

If the hit rules don't apply then they need to be called out such as "...and a roll of doubles is a hit even if it does not beat the defense of the target, except in the case of double 1's". Exception based design does not allow you to imply anything or you break the whole system and start arguing about the phrasing of things like the presence/absence of the word "can".

Part of the issue is that the hit rules do not say "you cannot get a hit any other way than this". They say "this is how you get a hit" and in the absence of any other ways, it becomes the only way. (until another way is created)

Once you have an ability that says, "if you do Q, you hit" (like in one of Samir's examples) you have overridden the basic rule without having to say "even though this is not how you normally do it." Exceptions do not need to be so verbose.

 

[CovertOps]

Exceptions do not need to be so verbose.

In an exception based system yes they do. We're not talking about a literal math subset as your link implies. We're talking about game rules and to assume that they have some sort of math subset like capability where if you are part of a subset you are part of it's larger superset is just as much nonsense as the following:

All elephants are grey. I am grey. Therefore I am an elephant.

An exception is a case that is allowed to do something different. The whole point of an exception is that it has to say what it can do differently. If it doesn't say what it can do then it has to follow the norm.

You asked up thread why I had my steps in the order they were in and who was to say when you could check for doubles. My answer is if you don't do it in that order then you wind up with your (in my opinion) nonsensical argument about a crit that is a miss and how that can't possibly be. If we're going to go with your assertion that all crits are hit math subset theory then you have to determine if you hit FIRST. Then you don't wind up with the nonsense result you abhor of a crit that missed even though other PP features can have that same exact case happen to them by rolling an 18 (crit) and missing.