Adent Champion. Rules lawyers required

[Artoomis]

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'.

Fair enough.

But Precision is in the context of rolling a number and attempting to score a critical hit.

This is distinguished from Holy Ardor in two ways

1. Holy Ardor gives an entirely new rule for "score a critical hit." The omission of "can," which, given the many other uses of the word "can" with the phrase "score a critical hit" appears to be deliberate, is compelling and calling it an oversight or assuming it has no meaning is not reading the plain text but interpreting it to remove meaning in an attempt to keep the context of a previous rule.

2. Holy Ardor is not about rolling a number, but rolling a pair of numbers, an entirely new mechanic.

When the new mechanic and the omission of the word "can" (plus the whole "roll double ones thing) are viewed together, my conclusion is that this is an entirely new situation that is a new way to "score a critical hit" as oppose to a change to the number needed (which is the context of Precision).

So, once again, while I do feel my position is the stronger one, I think we are both right.

Can you go so far as to agree we can both be right??

 

[abyssaldeath]

2. Holy Ardor is not about rolling a number, but rolling a pair of numbers, an entirely new mechanic.

This is a distinction you are making. Rolling a number or rolling a pair of numbers is still rolling numbers. Precision doesn't say "when you roll a number" it says "when you roll numbers". Roll an identical pair is rolling numbers and there for Holy Ardor has to follow the Precision rules because it does not make a specific(as in actually written down) exception. Just because this is the first time that rolling the same number twice give you the ability to crit doesn't mean that it some how creates a new mechanic for rolling crit. All it does is add a random element to getting a crit.

 

[Artoomis]

This is a distinction you are making. Rolling a number or rolling a pair of numbers is still rolling numbers. Precision doesn't say "when you roll a number" it says "when you roll numbers". Roll an identical pair is rolling numbers and there for Holy Ardor has to follow the Precision rules because it does not make a specific(as in actually written down) exception. Just because this is the first time that rolling the same number twice give you the ability to crit doesn't mean that it some how creates a new mechanic for rolling crit. All it does is add a random element to getting a crit.

You could be right.

And so could I.

Precision is in the context of making an attack roll (as is the whole critical hit section). Therefore its context is making an attack roll. Using the result of two attacks rolls as a pair (doubles) is an entirely new situation and has its own rule - it "scores a critical hit." With no ambiguity whatsoever.

Besides that, once you have actually "scored a critical hit," Precision no longer applies as that rule is applied before you have "scored a critical hit" but while still checking to see if you have indeed "scored a critical hit."

So, therefore, I say we are both right.

I also think my argument is stronger, but that is neither here nor there. The fact that we both have a legitimate argument that is base upon RAW and neither reading is far-fetched means to me that we need clarification from WotC.

 

[CovertOps]

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.

He is describing the same thing I've been saying all along in a different context.

What it comes down to is this one simple difference between our two viewpoints.

Those that say Holy Ardor grants a hit even if you don't beat the targets defense follow this line of logic:

1. I rolled doubles.
2. Holy Ardor states that I got a critical.
3. A critical is a subset of "Hit" therefore I hit.

Note that this step requires you to ASSUME that this assertion is true. We have incontrovertible proof that there are mechanics already in the system that allow you to have a critical and still miss so this is a very hard sell for us.

Those of us that believe the opposite:

1. I rolled doubles (ok we can agree here)
2. Holy Ardor states that I got a critical. (wow we even agree here)
3. Does Holy Ardor override the hit rules? No (Note that no assumption is needed to be made here)
4. Did I hit? Yes = critical No = miss.

@Artoomis: You can be right as soon as they add text to Holy Ardor that says "You hit even if you would normally miss" or similar phrasing. And yes I know that as far as you're concerned the "you score a critcal" IS the override, but I'm sorry I can't go with the assumption that is required to make that true. I'm also pretty sure that our position can be correct as far as you're concerned as soon as it says "you can score a critical hit".

Now which of those changes do you think is better. The addition of a single word or the addition of a specific rule override in an exception based system?

Besides that, once you have actually "scored a critical hit," Precision no longer applies as that rule is applied before you have "scored a critical hit" but while still checking to see if you have indeed "scored a critical hit."

Just so I'm clear. I'm not arguing Precision any longer. You get the critical hit. It quite clearly says that you do. However, Holy Ardor does nothing to override the basic HIT rules. Your position requires you to ASSUME that because you have a critical that therefore it is already a hit. Without specific wording within Holy Ardor to override the HIT rules (as I put above) I am not willing to accept that assumption and I'm pretty sure that neither are the rest of us arguing against this. 4e is exception based. Show me your exception (to the hit rules) without an assumption to get there and I'll support you 100%, but you can't because that's not what it says.

 

[CovertOps]

One other thought. In order to get from Critical Hit = Hit you have to reference (gasp) the Hit rules so now on the one hand you want to say that your "score a critical hit" automatically gives you a hit, but conveniently ignore the rest of the hit rules you are referencing because they don't fit your argument AND because your assertion is that "score a critical hit" overrides the normal "Hit" rules. If it overrides the normal hit rules then guess what...you can't make your claim that Crit = Hit.

 

[Artoomis]

...Just so I'm clear. I'm not arguing Precision any longer. You get the critical hit. ...

You case, the is based upon a logical fallacy.

Why?

Because if you score a critical hit, you are done and you apply the critical hit damage.

I guess what you are really saying is that you get a potential critical hit.

By definition, if you "score a critical hit" you get to apply the critical hit damage.

On the other hand, if you "can" score a critical hit you have only potentially scored one, and thus other rules about requirements for a critical hit can apply.

There is no such state as "scored a critical hit but cannot yet apply damage." You can, though, score high enough on the die to potentially score a critical hit, but you don't until after you check to be sure the attack roll is at least equal to the defense score.

Thus you cannot "score a critical hit" and yet not apply critical hit damage.

 

[N8Ball]

Note that this step requires you to ASSUME that this assertion is true. We have incontrovertible proof that there are mechanics already in the system that allow you to have a critical and still miss so this is a very hard sell for us.

You don't have incontrovertable proof. You have a conclusion that follows from different assumptions you've made. I backed up my assumptions with several quotes on critical hit from the rulebook.

You've backed up your assumption that a crit can miss by reading Precision to mean that there cannot be any way other than the "automatic hit" rule to create hit without rolling a good attack number, instead of accepting that some ability *might* make a a new way to do that by other means.

What precision says is that only a 20 is an "automatic hit". That does not necessarily imply that "automatic hit" is the only way to achieve the same result as an "automatic hit".

One other thought. In order to get from Critical Hit = Hit you have to reference (gasp) the Hit rules so now on the one hand you want to say that your "score a critical hit" automatically gives you a hit, but conveniently ignore the rest of the hit rules you are referencing because they don't fit your argument AND because your assertion is that "score a critical hit" overrides the normal "Hit" rules. If it overrides the normal hit rules then guess what...you can't make your claim that Crit = Hit.

The trouble is, that arguments also fits perfectly with "automatic hit" because the hit rules SEEM to contradict themselves in that when you get a 20, and automatically hit you can still qualify for the miss rules as written. The same mechanism that resolves this for ("automatic hit" = hit) resolves it for (crit = hit) in the case of Holy Ardor.

Given my assumptions, it should be noted that this (Holy Ardor) is the first case where a crit has been allowed without explicitly requiring a successful hit roll. That lack of prescedent (for a new crit mechanism) is part of the trouble here.

 

[Flipguarder]

What precision says is that only a 20 is an "automatic hit". That does not necessarily imply that "automatic hit" is the only way to achieve the same result as an "automatic hit"

Wow.... that is just ultimately false. You do understand that this is a complete and utter falsehood.

Different sentence, same wording.

"What physics says is that only a rocket can 'get into space'. That does not necessarily imply that 'getting into space' is the only way to achieve the same result as 'getting into space'"

How can you possibly automatically hit, without automatically hitting? Sure you can just plain hit, but you do HAVE to hit.

 

[CovertOps]

You case, the is based upon a logical fallacy.

Why?

Because if you score a critical hit, you are done and you apply the critical hit damage.

I guess what you are really saying is that you get a potential critical hit.

By definition, if you "score a critical hit" you get to apply the critical hit damage.

On the other hand, if you "can" score a critical hit you have only potentially scored one, and thus other rules about requirements for a critical hit can apply.

There is no such state as "scored a critical hit but cannot yet apply damage." You can, though, score high enough on the die to potentially score a critical hit, but you don't until after you check to be sure the attack roll is at least equal to the defense score.

Thus you cannot "score a critical hit" and yet not apply critical hit damage.

Without page 276 and 278 in the PHB a critical hit is nothing and means nothing. How did you know to apply max damage without reading the critical hit rules you so firmly want to ignore? A critical hit is first defined in the Hit rules on p276 which then sends you to p278 for more detailed info. For a power to state "you score a critical" and you to take that to mean "do max damage requires you to skip those rules in their totality and if you do that your "critical hit" is now undefined and means nothing. That is absurd in the extreme.

1. Holy Ardor: "You score a critical hit". (what is a critical hit? -> see p276 PHB to find out)
2. Oh wait...we have some rules here about our critical hit....let's find out if they apply...oh wait they do apply because the power I'm using doesn't say that they don't. (exception based design)

You seem intent on ignoring everything about the hit and critical hit rules and going straight to the sub-section and dealing damage. All those rules you are conveniently skipping define what a critical hit IS as well as what is required to have one. You can't pick what rules to use and which ones to ignore. They all apply unless specifically stated otherwise (again general vs. specific). The max damage clause comes with some riders, requirements, and other rules....if you want one you get them all whether you want them or not. Since Precision is simply a reminder of the normal hit rules you now have to go back and find out if your "crit" even hit the target and presto....a missing crit with no damage.

 

[Eldorian]

Fair enough.

But Precision is in the context of rolling a number and attempting to score a critical hit.

This is distinguished from Holy Ardor in two ways

1. Holy Ardor gives an entirely new rule for "score a critical hit." The omission of "can," which, given the many other uses of the word "can" with the phrase "score a critical hit" appears to be deliberate, is compelling and calling it an oversight or assuming it has no meaning is not reading the plain text but interpreting it to remove meaning in an attempt to keep the context of a previous rule.

You're not arguing the rules say, you're arguing what you think the rules were meant to say. And, I still disagree.

2. Holy Ardor is not about rolling a number, but rolling a pair of numbers, an entirely new mechanic.

When the new mechanic and the omission of the word "can" (plus the whole "roll double ones thing) are viewed together, my conclusion is that this is an entirely new situation that is a new way to "score a critical hit" as oppose to a change to the number needed (which is the context of Precision).

No. You're just making stuff up. Rolling a pair of numbers is rolling numbers, so precision still applies. And even if precision was about rolling A number (singular), the way that oath of enmity works, it still is rolling A number that isn't a 20 and scoring a critical hit, so precision STILL applies. Roll two 2s, pick the higher one, score a critical hit, that 2 is a number other than 20, precision applies.

You are REALLY stretching to even suggest that rolling doubles due to oath of enmity is different than rolling numbers other than 20.

So, once again, while I do feel my position is the stronger one, I think we are both right.

Can you go so far as to agree we can both be right??

No, I cannot agree. You are incorrect.

I'm out. This thread is pointless.