Adent Champion. Rules lawyers required

[Artoomis]

Then apply those rules. Precision is one of them. If you claim that it is defined in the rules, then you -must- apply the rules you have just admitted apply to this situation. ...

This is where you get it wrong.

The "normal" critical hit rules tells you what it takes to "score a critical hit."

This feature changes that and gives a new mechanic for how to "score a critical hit." It creates an exception to the "normal" critical hit rules.

It's really that simple.

 

[N8Ball]

No, what he's saying is "scoring a critical hit" through Holy Ardor does not forgo the rules for adjudicating critical hits. Which includes determining whether or not the attack hits.

OK then, I misunderstood what he meant by adjudicate. That is consistent with earlier arguments.

Yes, but it must provide SOME sort of mechanic for skipping the whole "attack roll needs to meet the targeted defense" thing. We both admit it does not qualify for the "automatic hit" described in the precision rule (because it doesn't act as though it was rolled 20), and that's all fine and good. As you say, it doesn't need to. But it does need SOME way of hitting without the attack roll hitting the targeted defense.

YES! I agree with this whole statement wholeheartedly.

It seems that you think "scoring a critical hit" skips all o' that. We would like to know why, because there doesn't seem to be precedent for this. You would think that if it were the case as you say, and this were an entirely new scenario of a critical hit that does not have precision apply to it.

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 first the rest of your post.

And you seem to use the omission of the word "can" (Which by the way, as a firm tactic of rule definition, has no precedence as well.) as your single piece of evidence.

I would say your position is shaky at best.

OK then, the differences in the two camps stem from 2 assumptions.
1) A critical hit is necessarily a hit
2) The permissive or definitive language surrounding critical hit feats features and rules is important. ("can", "might", "allow", possible etc.)

The opposite camp also has two assumptions that form the basis for their argument (I will sum them up to the best of my ability, please correct any glaring errors)
1) The language "can" or "allow" in feats and features is just as definitive as saying that "you score a critical hit"
2) Scoring a critical hit does not necessarily mean that you hit.

Each pair of assumptions is related too closely to split them up, as one assumptions naturally leads to it's pair.

The whole "can" thing may be shaky, but it stems from crit = hit (which I think is pretty solid), and nobody has yet addressed the differences I pointed out about their examples on "can" powers. (all the other "can" examples involve player choice, unlike the crit rules which only involve rule adjudication, not choice, so the comparison may be apples to oranges)

So given the assumptions that I have made, the "crit = hit" (supported elsewhere) IS the mechanic for skipping the need for an attack roll that doesn't otherwise hit the defense.

And you're right, there is no prescedent for this type of mechanic, because IF the assumptions I've made are correct, then this is the first rule since "automatic hit" that allows you to not hit the defense and still hit. That kind of newness isn't outlawed, but it doesn't have prescedents, so I understand the cry for wanting it to be described as "automatic hit" even though that's not entirely appropriate.

 

[DracoSuave]

Not just that (though that's pretty big, given that they use the word "can" in every other place that modifies the critical hit rules), but also the new mechanic of rolling doubles. That, and the mention of rolling ones being an exception.

I think its more than a coincidence that the new mechanic (rilling doubles) is accompanied by the language that omits the word "can."

I am perfectly ready to accept that leaving the word "can" out may have been an error, but that's an RAI vs. RAW argument. As written, it really is astonishingly clear language - roll doubles score a critical hit.

Except that in every other precident, the word 'can' does not affect whether or not a power breaks the rules. Because 'can' is not refering to permission of the -power- or the -rules- to do what the ability states, but permission of the -player- to do what the ability states. IT is not permitting the rules to work, it is permitting -you- to take an exception to those rules.

However, that is not necessary. If an ability states an expression, you already -have- permission to take that exception. So abilities have appeared using both terminologies while working -exactly the same-.

So the precident exists as to what the ommission of the word 'can' means. It means -nothing- with regard to how rules work.

All you have is an attempt to draw an assumption based on an analysis of what you believe the abilities means. However the strength of this assumption is -not- as strong as a conclusion based on applying the rules as they are. Which work. And describe the situation elegantly. And don't create special exceptions where one requires psychic powers to channel 'the will of the designers.' You have speculation, but that is not the same as -evidence- which is provided on paper in the PHB.

Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation that fits the -evidence- is often the best.

And in this case: Holy Ardor works the same as every other ability that alters crits, simply because that's the simplest way to look at it.

 

[Flipguarder]

I agree with dracosuave. I believe the omission of the word "can" while possibly important, is hardly enough to establish a RAW perspective on it. by RAW, precision applies, and by RAW you must roll high enough to hit.

 

[N8Ball]

Except that in every other precident, the word 'can' does not affect whether or not a power breaks the rules. Because 'can' is not refering to permission of the -power- or the -rules- to do what the ability states, but permission of the -player- to do what the ability states. IT is not permitting the rules to work, it is permitting -you- to take an exception to those rules.

So do we agree that "can" works differently in situations of player permission versus possible outcomes as adjudicated by the rules?

Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation that fits the -evidence- is often the best.

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 logic that follows from that assumption you'll show up on my side of the argument.

 

[DracoSuave]

This is where you get it wrong.

The "normal" critical hit rules tells you what it takes to "score a critical hit."

This I do not disagree with.

This feature changes that and gives a new mechanic for how to "score a critical hit." It creates an exception to the "normal" critical hit rules.

But it does not create an exception to -all- the critical hit rules. And that is where you have made a mistake.

See, that 'exception' was already openned up and defined by another rule, Precision. Precision says that other features exist that break that normal rule, and of those that do, -only- a natural 20 is an automatic hit.

So here's where you have to examine the -full- hierarchy of the ruleset and exceptions that apply.

You need to beat their defense on your attack roll to hit that target, otherwise, you miss that target.
Rolling a Natural 20 will automaticly hit the target.
Rolling a Natural 20 will score a critical hit.
Scoring a critical hit does not occur when your roll does not hit the target. However, the automatic hit rule for a natural 20 does apply.
There exists features that allow you to roll numbers other than natural 20. Those numbers never automatic hit.

That's the way it works. Precision doesn't except how rolling a natural 20 works. It also does not except how the attack roll mechanics work.

Automatic hit is defined, it is the situation where the number you roll -should miss- but it is resolved as a hit regardless.

Holy Ardor does present an exception to the rule on what can score a critical hit. However it does -not- present an exception to the rule on what can or cannot hit the target. Therefore, you resolve it as tho all pertinent rules it does not except apply. Precision, furthermore, is a rule that tells you how to adjudicate these exceptions. That rule -itself- tells you what you do in a situation such as this. Thus, Holy Ardor has to -specificly- be an exception to -that- rule in order to work differently.

An example of this in action is the push mechanic. Let's say you have an enemy between you and a solid wall, and you have an effect that tells you to push him 2 squares.

[W] [ ] [ ]
[W] [E] [Y]
[W] [ ] [ ]

You cannot push that enemy a single square, and for no other reason than a rule -within the push mechanic- says you cannot do so.

[ ] [W] [ ] [ ]
[Z] [W] [E] [Y]
[ ] [W] [ ] [ ]

If you have a rule that instead says 'you may push the enemy to square Z' does that change anything? No. Because the rule for how a push works -still applies.- Pushing to a location is an exception to how pushing a number of squares work. But it is NOT an exception to the restrictions on how push works in the first place.

This is intuitive. This makes sense.

Changing the parameters of how an effect works compared to other effects doesn't necessarily change all the rules on how that effect works--it only changes the rules of that effect with regerd to the explicit exceptions.

 

[DracoSuave]

So do we agree that "can" works differently in situations of player permission versus possible outcomes as adjudicated by the rules?

Given that the critical hit rules themselves use the term 'allow' with regard to the player, consistancy says, yes, they are different, and in this case, it is player-permissive.

like Critical hit = hit?

There's lots of evidence for it, and it is the simplest understanding of it.

Absolutely. However, Occum's Razor does not act as a bulwark against contrary evidence. It is not a method of evidence selection.

So when you have a evidence that declares you do not hit, Occum's Razor doesn't inform you to ignore it because it is 'simple.'

Quite the opposite. It informs you to take that evidence and form the simplest conclusion that -fits- the evidence.

It seems very intuitive and simple, and if you follow the logic that follows from that assumption you'll show up on my side of the argument.

That requires selectively forgetting the evidence that is in play, however, and by doing so, I am ignoring Occum's Razor. Occum's Razor forges from evidence, and creates assumptions, but does not create assumptions, and then forge evidence.

And that is the difference.

 

[shadowoflameth]

Exactly so. I hate burst some munchkin bubbles out there, but "score a critical hit" means as described in the PHB. The PHB says specifically that your roll must be high enough to beat the targets defense in order to hit unless you roll a natural 20. It also specifies that even if you have something that "scores a critical hit" on a roll other than 20, it is not a hit at all unless you beat the targets defense.

If you are rolling twice as the avenger against your oath target, you have a second chance to maybe roll a 20, and the higher result will be your attack roll, then if with this feature, you can potentially add another number to roll with your second die to "score a critical hit" (menaing follow the rules for a critical hit in the PHB, including the rule that says it is not a hit unless you beat the targets defense unless it is in fact a natural 20). that is together (3) chances to score a critical hit if you roll high enough, compared to the normal, (1) chance. Just as the daggermaster has (3) numbers that can do it. Yes, I know the math is different with two dice and this power instead of one, and aiming for 18-20 compared to aiming for the same result on both dice, but still, it isn't a lackluster power even though it does not alter the specifics of what happens when you "score a critical hit". Those specifics are spelled out in the PHB. If something different were supposed to happen, instead of saying, 'you score a critical hit" the power would say, "your attack hits regardless of the targets defense and is a critical hit".

 

[N8Ball]

Given that the critical hit rules themselves use the term 'allow' with regard to the player, consistancy says, yes, they are different, and in this case, it is player-permissive.

Are you saying the the player with mastery has a choice in the matter concerning his die roll of 19?

Absolutely. However, Occum's Razor does not act as a bulwark against contrary evidence. It is not a method of evidence selection.

So when you have a evidence that declares you do not hit, Occum's Razor doesn't inform you to ignore it because it is 'simple.'

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, supported and workable understanding of the crit rules. I have some thoughts on another comparison of the two theories on this subject, but that will have to wait till tomorrow.

 

[DracoSuave]

Are you saying the the player with mastery has a choice in the matter concerning his die roll of 19?

No, I'm allowed a critical hit. That's not the same thing at all.

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 that's the problem. You started with assumptions and chose the evidence to support it, rather than see all the evidence, and use Occum's Razor to come to your assumptions.

And my assumptions form the basis for an internally consistent, supported and workable understanding of the crit rules. I have some thoughts on another comparison of the two theories on this subject, but that will have to wait till tomorrow.

Internally consistant, except for the ignoring convenient rules to fit base assumptions.