Nifft
Penguin Herder
Sadly -- and it really is sad -- no munchkin would give this paragon path a second look, because even under the liberal "2+2=crit" interpretation, it just isn't competitive.
Cheers, -- N
Adent Champion. Rules lawyers required
- Thread starter BobTheNob
- Start date
Cheers, -- N
DracoSuave
First Post
The crit rate under non-liberal rules is approximately 12% at paragon, and 23% at epic. Daggermaster's crit rate is 26% with Avenger, but it does not include the bonus damage you get from a larger weapon, and it does not include the fact the paragon path -gives you free attacks- for every crit you make.
At epic, an Ardorvenger with Epic Master in Heavy Blades will out DPR a Daggervenger by a long shot. High Crit+Extra Attacks make the crits hit three times as hard as a Daggervenger, making up for the lesser crit rate at Paragon, and overtaking it at Epic.
ohh, don't go there with the daggermaster being poor.
avenger don't get weapon masteries without nerfing themselves. they do not want to spend the strength, it's pretty darn usless. so most get a jagged and are done with it.
daggermasters[not even the pure evil which is a half elf one more than 50% crit every round on an at will] can easily wield two weapons for reckless and the other chees.
look up blood iron as well.
arrgh ran out of time.
in a nutshell you can get better crits with a dagger master gernally. i.e. more damage.
avenger don't get weapon masteries without nerfing themselves. they do not want to spend the strength, it's pretty darn usless. so most get a jagged and are done with it.
daggermasters[not even the pure evil which is a half elf one more than 50% crit every round on an at will] can easily wield two weapons for reckless and the other chees.
look up blood iron as well.
arrgh ran out of time.
in a nutshell you can get better crits with a dagger master gernally. i.e. more damage.
To respond to some of the arguments about Precision, I was under the impression that it really has nothing to do with what people are saying. For full clarity, ill write out how I see the attack roll resolution process working out.
1.) Make your attack roll.
2.) Compare result to defenses:
Did you match or exceed the defenses?
Yes: Goto 3
No: Goto 4
3.) Is your roll in your crit range?
Yes: You score a crit
No: You hit.
4.) Did you roll a natural 20?
Yes: You hit
No: You miss
All precision does is say that the critical range in step 3 can be expanded, nothing else, it changes no other rules. Automatic hits and critical hits are mutually exclusive events, as they each depend on a different response to step 2, the checking of attack roll versus defense. Therefore, precision does not apply to this arguement at all. The question is if the definitive language of Holy Ardor allows the bypass of step 2, which I belive it does.
Even though many people don't like it, the key word really is can. Can allows the possibility, but does not necessitate. So all the previous feats and features that state "you can score a crit" upon certain results fall under precision and expand the possibilites for the positive reponse to step 3. Even the natural 20 remark under the critical hit rules follows this convention, stating that you can score a crit if you roll a natural 20 and your roll exceeds the target defense, and seperates the auto hit event from the crit event That is, it sets a base critical range of 20-20.
To simplify: there are 2 required flags in order to score a crit in the normal scenario:
Did your attack roll exceed the defenses?
Did you roll within your crit range?
If you answer yes to both these, then, and only then, did you actually score the crit.
Holy ardor bypasses this by creating an alternate path:
Did you roll doubles on your two attack rolls against your oath of emnity target?
Were they not double 1's?
If you answer yes to both these, then again, you score a crit, not you can score a crit.
1.) Make your attack roll.
2.) Compare result to defenses:
Did you match or exceed the defenses?
Yes: Goto 3
No: Goto 4
3.) Is your roll in your crit range?
Yes: You score a crit
No: You hit.
4.) Did you roll a natural 20?
Yes: You hit
No: You miss
All precision does is say that the critical range in step 3 can be expanded, nothing else, it changes no other rules. Automatic hits and critical hits are mutually exclusive events, as they each depend on a different response to step 2, the checking of attack roll versus defense. Therefore, precision does not apply to this arguement at all. The question is if the definitive language of Holy Ardor allows the bypass of step 2, which I belive it does.
Even though many people don't like it, the key word really is can. Can allows the possibility, but does not necessitate. So all the previous feats and features that state "you can score a crit" upon certain results fall under precision and expand the possibilites for the positive reponse to step 3. Even the natural 20 remark under the critical hit rules follows this convention, stating that you can score a crit if you roll a natural 20 and your roll exceeds the target defense, and seperates the auto hit event from the crit event That is, it sets a base critical range of 20-20.
To simplify: there are 2 required flags in order to score a crit in the normal scenario:
Did your attack roll exceed the defenses?
Did you roll within your crit range?
If you answer yes to both these, then, and only then, did you actually score the crit.
Holy ardor bypasses this by creating an alternate path:
Did you roll doubles on your two attack rolls against your oath of emnity target?
Were they not double 1's?
If you answer yes to both these, then again, you score a crit, not you can score a crit.
DracoSuave
First Post
And I have a build which requires only a single point into strength, and because Dex isn't a damage stat for most of an Avenger's stuff, but a support stat, higher doesn't mean as much as, say, a sorcerer which always applies it.
Dex doesn't have to start at 18 for a persuing avenger to be decent. Elf with an array of 16/16/13/10/10/9 can, by spending but a single point in Strength, end up with Epic Mastery, dishing out massive critical hits with their Oath. You'll then have 16 Str, 18 Wis, and 15 Dexterity, which is not at all bad.
And no, your Censure isn't your main damage source so it doesn't have to be maxxed out for you to win the game of DND. You'll take Armor Proficiency feats to make up for the slightly lesser Dexterity, and you'll make out -just fine.-
Champion of Prophecy (boosting Strength and Wisdom) works well with this, giving you more healing surge spending when you crit, and the whole package works out to be a nice offensive juggernaut.
So, you do more damage when you crit, and you do more damage when you don't crit.
N8Ball
Explorer
Wow. You're making a lot of assumptions about my thought process there.
I assure you, my analysis was much more rigorous that you suggest, and started with evidence not assumptions. But I did arrive at my assumptions before I started this discussion, as did you.
But just to be thorough I did a word search on EVERY instance of the words "critical hit" in the players handbook, and the latest errata for the PHB and DMG.
There are actually not that many references outside of feats and powers sections, but here they are.
Pg 217 - High Crit: "A critical hit deals..."
pg 276 - Critical Hit: "A critical hit deals..."
pg 276 - Example: "If she scores a critical hit, she deals..."
pg 278 - Critical hits "When... (criteria are met), you score a critical hit, also known as a crit." (this is mirrored under the Natural 20: section)
pg 278 - Critical hit damage/Maximum damage - (the result of scoring a critical hit) "...determine the maximum damage you can roll..."
SO, given this evidence, when presented with the question:
"What is a critical hit, and what does scoring a critical hit do?" (NOT "how do you get a crit")
I come to the following conclusion:
A critical hit is a hit that deals maximum damage and extra damage.
My other assumptions follow from this.
Now if there are any more insinuations that I'm being disingenuous with my arguments I will have to take offense.
Last edited:
DracoSuave
First Post
However, you've not included the evidence of when a critical hit -does not occur-.
For example, when you roll a 20 and do not roll high enough to hit.
A search of 'critical hit' find that.
A search of 'critical hit' also finds Precision.
The problem is, that all the evidence you've provided that tells you what a critical hit does is great... except that I have evidence provided that tells you when -not- to critical hit.
When dealing with a question of when you do or do not critical hit, that evidence becomes -extremely- weighty, as it pertains -directly- to the case and involves little speculation.
That's the point... is that you've -chosen- to ignore the evidence that relates -directly- to the issue so you can continue your assumptions based on evidence that is less directly related to the issue.
You've taken the evidence that says 'This is how you deal with success' and said its existance means you can ignore the evidence that says 'But this is when it does not work.'
And there is no evidence that belies or counters that evidence. The evidence that says 'it does not work' has yet to be countermanded directly. Instead, the return argument has been based upon a fallacy of assuming the success and skipping the failure points.
So here's your argument in a nutshell.
'The ability says you succeed.'
'Therefore, we apply all the rules applying to success.'
'Because we apply all the rules applying to success, the rules applying to possible failure cannot apply. After all, failure does not apply to success.'
'Because there are no rules applying failure, we succeed.'
This is a circular argument.
This is the opposing argument.
'The ability says you succeed.'
'The rule says that even if an ability says you succeed, it may fail under certain circumstances.'
'Therefore, in those circumstances, the ability fails.'
That is not a circular argument.
For example, when you roll a 20 and do not roll high enough to hit.
A search of 'critical hit' find that.
A search of 'critical hit' also finds Precision.
The problem is, that all the evidence you've provided that tells you what a critical hit does is great... except that I have evidence provided that tells you when -not- to critical hit.
When dealing with a question of when you do or do not critical hit, that evidence becomes -extremely- weighty, as it pertains -directly- to the case and involves little speculation.
That's the point... is that you've -chosen- to ignore the evidence that relates -directly- to the issue so you can continue your assumptions based on evidence that is less directly related to the issue.
You've taken the evidence that says 'This is how you deal with success' and said its existance means you can ignore the evidence that says 'But this is when it does not work.'
And there is no evidence that belies or counters that evidence. The evidence that says 'it does not work' has yet to be countermanded directly. Instead, the return argument has been based upon a fallacy of assuming the success and skipping the failure points.
So here's your argument in a nutshell.
'The ability says you succeed.'
'Therefore, we apply all the rules applying to success.'
'Because we apply all the rules applying to success, the rules applying to possible failure cannot apply. After all, failure does not apply to success.'
'Because there are no rules applying failure, we succeed.'
This is a circular argument.
This is the opposing argument.
'The ability says you succeed.'
'The rule says that even if an ability says you succeed, it may fail under certain circumstances.'
'Therefore, in those circumstances, the ability fails.'
That is not a circular argument.
ObsidianCrane
First Post
What DracoSuave just said.....
Now I'm happy to admit that the word "can" appearing in the power would have completly removed the need to even discuss it, or alternatively clear text that a double was both a hit (regardless of normal result) and a Critical would have done the same. But we have what we have and the simplest way of applying the power is to say it is covered by Precision.
Now I'm happy to admit that the word "can" appearing in the power would have completly removed the need to even discuss it, or alternatively clear text that a double was both a hit (regardless of normal result) and a Critical would have done the same. But we have what we have and the simplest way of applying the power is to say it is covered by Precision.
Last edited:
I cant believe this thread is still going! Guys, your arguments really are not that different to 100 posts ago (277 posts wow!).
Being the guy that started this thread, Im not sure which way to go. I actually find the arguments on both sides equally compelling and that neither really manages to refute the other. What did I get from raising this thread? Stalemate, thats what! So be it, I will await clarification from WOTC.
I think what we all need to do here is open our minds and accept the validity of the opposing arguments, or at minimum agree to disagree.
If nothing else, its been an interesting journey.
Being the guy that started this thread, Im not sure which way to go. I actually find the arguments on both sides equally compelling and that neither really manages to refute the other. What did I get from raising this thread? Stalemate, thats what! So be it, I will await clarification from WOTC.
I think what we all need to do here is open our minds and accept the validity of the opposing arguments, or at minimum agree to disagree.
If nothing else, its been an interesting journey.
N8Ball
Explorer
Well, that's the exact same argument for when you roll a 20 that does not hit the defense.
-> "Automatic hit" says I succeeded (in getting a hit),
-> 'Therefore, we apply all the rules applying to success (hits).'
-> 'Because we apply all the rules applying to success, the rules applying to possible failure (miss)
-> cannot apply. After all, failure does not apply to success.'
-> 'Because there are no rules applying failure(miss), we succeed.(hit)'
The miss rules do not include any caveats for rolling a 20, but we resolve that contradiction with the understanding that "when you hit, you don't miss"
That is the same procedure I'm using with Holy Ardor, I don't see why it should apply to "automatic hit" and not to this situation.
First, "when" was not part of my initial question.
Second, this is not a universal rule. This is an observation of how the existing rules interacted before Holy Ardor existed. I am not constrained by this statement, only the existing rules that created this situation as modified by Holy Ardor.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
