Adent Champion. Rules lawyers required

[N8Ball]

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.

Respectfully, Bob, I think there is some progress being made.

The recent discussion with Flipguarder on the subject of "automatic hit" was progress since we came to an understanding that at least those explicit terms were not required.

CovertOps Stated that he "finally" saw where I was comming from but disagreed with the assumptions I had made.

I acknowledged that one of my assumptions did not have much prescedent, but pointed out that this situation may be a new case that hasn't been since "automatic hit".

And even Dracosuave, despite his allegations on my lack of intellectual honesty, brings up a good point about the contradition that is involved with hitting on numbers not good enough to hit. As far as I can remember, nobody had yet pointed out that "automatic hit" has the exact same contradiction that is resolved by an understanding that isn't explicit, but that we all accept.

Of course there is some rehash of previous arguments, but there is new aspects of the issue being explored as well.

 

[Eldorian]

This thread has become ridiculous. Being verbose does not win your argument.

There have been many semantic arguments trying to state that Precision does not apply. There has been one argument that it does: It says it does.

Precision applies. It says it does in the same language as used by Holy Ardor. That is all you need to know.

 

[Turtlejay]

I stopped reading the arguments like 10 pages ago. I only check to see if anyone has anything different to bring (actual wotc employee, yet another custserv ruling). I like that several folks have tried to say that the debate is over. Usually they are not one of the 3 or 4 people still locked in a struggle to determine the TRUTH!.

Seriously though, I enjoy this, and I like that it has been civil, for the most part.

Jay

For the record, I think I'm leaning towards Precision applying now. But still bugged that things aren't more clear.

 

[CovertOps]

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)

(clarification)
1) "you can score a critical hit" is the same as "you score a critical hit" for feats and powers/features. Both refer back to the rules on hits/criticals.
2) There is already precedence for this as you can roll high enough to get a crit and still miss with some features (dagger master, Precision).
You left out:
3) Holy Ardor does not call out specifically that it hits even if it would normally miss thus giving itself an exemption from the normal hit rules. It grants itself a "critical hit", but that is not the same thing and cannot be implied as a hit. This breaks the exception based design of 4e.

 

[DracoSuave]

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)'

No, that works this way:

'The feature says I succeed.'
'The rules say I succeed.'
'The rules that pertain to possible failure in this endevor do not attempt to describe this particular case, and indeed, explicitly exempt this case.'
'Therefore, I succeed.'

The difference is that in the former case, assuming a hit, you've used the assumed conclusion that you succeed as a premise to prove that the rules for failure do not apply. However, if you do not assume success, then the rules for failure would apply, thus contradicting said argument.

-That- is what is circular about it.

 

[Artoomis]

There is no circular argument.

I'll demonstrate with an example:

Whenever you make two attack rolls because of your oath of enmity, you score a hit if both dice have the same roll, except if both rolls are 1.:

Same rule as Holy Ardor,, but with "hit" instead of "critical hit."

This would create a new rule where you'd hit with doubles - even though you did not beat or equal the defense score as required by the previously-existing rules.

ATTACK RESULTS
When you make an attack, compare your attack roll to the appropriate defense score of the target.
✦ Hit: If the attack roll is higher than or equal to the defense score, the attack hits and deals damage, has a special effect, or both.

That's because my example describes a NEW MECHANIC for getting a hit.

In the same way that

Whenever you make two attack rolls because of your oath of enmity, you score a critical hit if both dice have the same roll, except if both rolls are 1.:

describes a NEW MECHANIC for scoring a critical hit.

Its simple, straightforward language creates a new rule for when you get to "score a critical hit."

With Holy Ardor, you now "score a critical hit" if A:

Your higher die roll is high enough to potentially score a critical hit AND it meats or beats the defender's defense score.

OR

You roll doubles.

There really can be no doubt about that.

However, the doubt comes in on whether "scoring a critical hit" really means getting to apply critical damage or whether it really means you only have potentially scored a critical hit.

A look at the Critical Hit rules quickly confirms that scoring a critical hit means you do indeed get to apply Critical Hit damage.

It's a NEW RULE. As such, it is an exception to the other rules and DOES NOT NEED TO FOLLOW THE OLD RULE.

Finally, once again, I understand the opposing argument and see it as (almost ) equally valid. Why will those on the opposing side not say the same?

 

[DracoSuave]

There is no circular argument.

I'll demonstrate with an example:

Whenever you make two attack rolls because of your oath of enmity, you score a hit if both dice have the same roll, except if both rolls are 1.:

Same rule as Holy Ardor,, but with "hit" instead of "critical hit."

This would create a new rule where you'd hit with doubles - even though you did not beat or equal the defense score as required by the previously-existing rules.

ATTACK RESULTS
When you make an attack, compare your attack roll to the appropriate defense score of the target.
✦ Hit: If the attack roll is higher than or equal to the defense score, the attack hits and deals damage, has a special effect, or both.

That's because my example describes a NEW MECHANIC for getting a hit.

In the same way that

Whenever you make two attack rolls because of your oath of enmity, you score a critical hit if both dice have the same roll, except if both rolls are 1.:

describes a NEW MECHANIC for scoring a critical hit.

Its simple, straightforward language creates a new rule for when you get to "score a critical hit."

With Holy Ardor, you now "score a critical hit" if A:

Your higher die roll is high enough to potentially score a critical hit AND it meats or beats the defender's defense score.

OR

You roll doubles.

There really can be no doubt about that.

However, the doubt comes in on whether "scoring a critical hit" really means getting to apply critical damage or whether it really means you only have potentially scored a critical hit.

A look at the Critical Hit rules quickly confirms that scoring a critical hit means you do indeed get to apply Critical Hit damage.

It's a NEW RULE. As such, it is an exception to the other rules and DOES NOT NEED TO FOLLOW THE OLD RULE.

Finally, once again, I understand the opposing argument and see it as (almost ) equally valid. Why will those on the opposing side not say the same?

Here's the reason we don't, and it is simple.

Holy Ardor refers to abilities that score critical hits. The very thing you keep claiming puts it out of Precision's bailiwick (the fact it 'scores a critical hit') and the fact it does so with numbers other than a natural 20, are exactly what Precision describes.

Which means that you need a compelling reason to not involve Precision other than 'score a critical hit'.

 

[Flipguarder]

Here's the reason we don't, and it is simple.

Holy Ardor refers to abilities that score critical hits. The very thing you keep claiming puts it out of Precision's bailiwick (the fact it 'scores a critical hit') and the fact it does so with numbers other than a natural 20, are exactly what Precision describes.

Which means that you need a compelling reason to not involve Precision other than 'score a critical hit'.

But....BUT.... There's no "CAN"!

 

[DracoSuave]

But....BUT.... There's no "CAN"!

This is even more funny when I picture Citan saying it for some reason.

 

[N8Ball]

No, that works this way:

'The feature says I succeed.'
'The rules say I succeed.'
'The rules that pertain to possible failure in this endevor do not attempt to describe this particular case, and indeed, explicitly exempt this case.'
'Therefore, I succeed.'

The rules that pertain to failure explicitly exempt what case? That you don't miss when you qualify for a hit? That's not explicit anywhere in the Miss: section, it's understood.

And that's why the "automatic hit" rule works, because we know that once you have a hit, you don't miss, so you don't reference the miss rules.

...you've used the assumed conclusion that you succeed as a premise to prove that the rules for failure do not apply.

However, if you do not assume success, then the rules for failure would apply, thus contradicting said argument.

-That- is what is circular about it.

What you just described here is that you get a different result with different assumptions. That's not a circular argument. That's two arguments with different results.