Adent Champion. Rules lawyers required

[Artoomis]

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.

Okay, so what is a critical hit?

Page 276: "If you roll a natural 20, you attack might be a critical hit (page278). A critical hit deals maximum damage...

So here we learn that if you get a critical hit, you deal maximum damage, and we learn it takes a 20 to possibly get a critical hit.

Page 278: Natural 20: If you roll a 20 on the die when making an attack roll, you score a critical hit if your total attack roll is high enough to hit your target’s defense. If your attack roll is too low to score a critical hit, you still hit automatically.

Precision: Some class features and powers allow you to score a critical hit when you roll numbers other than 20 (only a natural 20 is an automatic hit).

Damage section left out as not applicable to our conversation.

So here we learn that when you roll a natural 20, you "score a critical hit" if the attack roll is high enough to hit otherwise.

Precision notes that you might be able to score a critical hit with a number other than a 20, but the rule about having to hit the defense score still applies.

So, what changes with Holy Ardor?

First, Holy Ardor doe NOT change the number needed for a critical, that's still a 20 (or 19-02, or 18-20)

Second, Holy Ardor creates AN ENTIRELY NEW mechanic of rolling doubles to "score a critical hit."

Wow - so what does THAT mean?

The first two paragraphs on page 278 (Critical Hit) do not apply because Holy Ardor REDEFINES what it takes to "score a critical hit" when using Holy Ardor. The rules from page 276 "A critical hit deals maximum damage..."
still applies

Holy Ardor simply creates a new exception to the Critical Hit rules because it both creates a new mechanic (roll doubles) and gives a rule for the result of that new mechanic (score a critical hit).

Note that by the rules for Critical Hits it is not possible to ever score a critical hit and have that not be a hit. It is possible to score high enough to possibly be a critical hit and not get one, but that's not the Holy Ardor situation - Holy Ardor give a new way to "score a critical hit."

There is a LOT of misreading of "Precision."

Read in context, Precision simply tells you (re-phrased):

If you might score a Critical Hit due to some rule giving you that possibility on an 18 or 19, and you fail conifrm that is is indeed critical hit by failing to beat the defense score, that same 18 or 19 will not give you an automatic hit like a 20.

 

[Nifft]

One side: "it doesn't say automatic hit, so it's not a hit".

Other side: "it doesn't say can hit, so it is a hit".

And that's where we stand. Both sides are (to a degree) correct in their premises, since it says neither "can" nor "automatic". But neither can conclusively say that their chosen omission is decisive.

Cheers, -- N

 

[N8Ball]

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.

Your analogy isn't quite perfect. "get into space" is the result. If you want to write it like this then it would be a nice analogy.

"What physics says is that only a rocket can achieve escape velocity. That does not necessarily imply that achieving escape velocity is the only way to get into space.

I'll phrase it generically.

What (this authority) says is that only (this condition) satisfies (this mechanism). That does not necessarily imply that (mechanism) is the only way to achieve the same (result) as (mechanism) achieves.

"automatic hit" is a rule (mechanism) which when satisfied achieves a hit (the result).

 

[N8Ball]

One side: "it doesn't say automatic hit, so it's not a hit".

Other side: "it doesn't say can hit, so it is a hit".

And that's where we stand. Both sides are (to a degree) correct in their premises, since it says neither "can" nor "automatic". But neither can conclusively say that their chosen omission is decisive.

Cheers, -- N

That is a very nice summary.
I think we've run around the mechanics of the crit rules enough to form 2 pretty well developed paradigms about how the crit rules work.

The lowest level semantics and interactions on both sides of the argument have been discussed to an impressive level of detail.

One argument that has only been touched on briefly is the "fruit of this tree" argument. Draco and Samir touched on it a little bit but not at length.

This argument basicly says, "If everything you say is true, what are the logical implications and concequences of your position?"

SO, Let's look at where each camp takes us if we accept *all* of their assumptions. More specifically, what are the "bitter pills" that we have to swallow if we accept this paradigm.

I'll go first. And I would invite anyone else to show logical conclusions that are undesirable that flow from acceptance of these assumptions. I'm talking about pragmatic, game play implications, not more discussions on precision or "Can".

Given the assumptions that all crits are hits and that permissive language matters in crit features and feats. These are the bitter pills we must swallow:

(Obviously) Ardent Champions will hit and crit rolling double 2s regardless of the defense targeted. This IS a bitter pill to swallow, there's no two ways about it.
Even if the assumptions are followed and applied to all other feats, Holy Ardor is still the only way to hit with non-20, non-hitting attack numbers. That may be seem overpowered, silly, unfair, unbalanced, but that's where this path leads, and this is what we must accept IF we accept this argument.

I think there may be some other jagged little pills that follow from this camp, but I can't think of any, so I open it up to others observation. NOTE - if you do not keep the assumptions then the outcome is not the fruit of THIS tree.

Also, I would ask the opposing side to present their assumptions as clearly and concisely as they can, since I don't want to put words in anyone elses mouth.

 

[CovertOps]

That is a very nice summary.
I think we've run around the mechanics of the crit rules enough to form 2 pretty well developed paradigms about how the crit rules work.

The lowest level semantics and interactions on both sides of the argument have been discussed to an impressive level of detail.

One argument that has only been touched on briefly is the "fruit of this tree" argument. Draco and Samir touched on it a little bit but not at length.

This argument basicly says, "If everything you say is true, what are the logical implications and concequences of your position?"

SO, Let's look at where each camp takes us if we accept *all* of their assumptions. More specifically, what are the "bitter pills" that we have to swallow if we accept this paradigm.

I'll go first. And I would invite anyone else to show logical conclusions that are undesirable that flow from acceptance of these assumptions. I'm talking about pragmatic, game play implications, not more discussions on precision or "Can".

Given the assumptions that all crits are hits and that permissive language matters in crit features and feats. These are the bitter pills we must swallow:

(Obviously) Ardent Champions will hit and crit rolling double 2s regardless of the defense targeted. This IS a bitter pill to swallow, there's no two ways about it.
Even if the assumptions are followed and applied to all other feats, Holy Ardor is still the only way to hit with non-20, non-hitting attack numbers. That may be seem overpowered, silly, unfair, unbalanced, but that's where this path leads, and this is what we must accept IF we accept this argument.

I think there may be some other jagged little pills that follow from this camp, but I can't think of any, so I open it up to others observation. NOTE - if you do not keep the assumptions then the outcome is not the fruit of THIS tree.

Also, I would ask the opposing side to present their assumptions as clearly and concisely as they can, since I don't want to put words in anyone elses mouth.

If I accept your assertions as true the the following must also be true:

Power A:
Effect: You shift 3 squares.

General shift rules: You cannot shift while prone.

Power A now allows you to shift while prone because of the absence of the word "can". Because as we know the general rules don't apply if a power doesn't use the permissive form.

 

[DracoSuave]

Precision notes that you might be able to score a critical hit with a number other than a 20, but the rule about having to hit the defense score still applies.

So, what changes with Holy Ardor?

First, Holy Ardor doe NOT change the number needed for a critical, that's still a 20 (or 19-02, or 18-20)

[cut for brevity]

If you might score a Critical Hit due to some rule giving you that possibility on an 18 or 19, and you fail conifrm that is is indeed critical hit by failing to beat the defense score, that same 18 or 19 will not give you an automatic hit like a 20.

This is a valid refuttal of Precision if, and -only if-, Holy Ardor does not allow you to score a critical with numbers other than 20. This is because -that- is the satisfying clause for Precision.

It has already been proven, by rigourous brute force, that in 1 occurance, Holy Ardor explicitly forbids a hit, in 1 occurance, the natural 20 rule kicks in and Holy Ardor's irrelevant, and in 18 occurance, you have a situation where Holy Ardor has enabled you to score a critical hit with a number other than 20.

So, in non-trivial cases, Holy Ardor is, by dint of fact, a feature that allows you to score a critical on numbers other than 20.

Therefore, it satisfies Precision's requirements.

 

[DracoSuave]

One side: "it doesn't say automatic hit, so it's not a hit".

Other side: "it doesn't say can hit, so it is a hit".

And that's where we stand. Both sides are (to a degree) correct in their premises, since it says neither "can" nor "automatic". But neither can conclusively say that their chosen omission is decisive.

Cheers, -- N

But those premises are not in a vacuum. As well, there is the mechanic that already exists that determines hits. And, as well, that mechanic exists so that you do not need to be told how to hit or miss in 'non-standard' occurances that don't break those central rules.

So while the power omits the 'you hit' or 'you may not hit' mechanic, may other similiar mechanics also omit that statement, because it is implied that in the absense of contravening evidence, you go with the default condition.

And so, the ommision of definitive text declaring you -do- hit, along with contravening evidence in Precision stating that you do not apply the one special rule with crits that -could- apply, means that you should clearly exercise the default state.

 

[Nifft]

But those premises are not in a vacuum. As well, there is the mechanic that already exists that determines hits. And, as well, that mechanic exists so that you do not need to be told how to hit or miss in 'non-standard' occurances that don't break those central rules.

Exception-based design, dude. All specific rules are exceptional ("non-standard"). The whole system is designed so that you have simple central rules, and specific exceptions that override those central rules.

So while the power omits the 'you hit' or 'you may not hit' mechanic, may other similiar mechanics also omit that statement, because it is implied that in the absense of contravening evidence, you go with the default condition.

1/ Not a power, just a new rule.
2/ It doesn't omit "you hit". It actually says "you hit". Your beef is that it doesn't say "you automatically hit".

evidence in Precision stating that you do not apply the one special rule with crits that -could- apply, means that you should clearly exercise the default state.

Exactly, crits that could apply (e.g. when a rule says "you can crit", which this one does not). This one says you do crit.

But, this is too wordy. Just answer this one simple question:

If the rule said "you automatically score a critical hit", would you still object?

Cheers, -- N

 

[DracoSuave]

Exception-based design, dude. All specific rules are exceptional ("non-standard"). The whole system is designed so that you have simple central rules, and specific exceptions that override those central rules.

1/ Not a power, just a new rule.
2/ It doesn't omit "you hit". It actually says "you hit". Your beef is that it doesn't say "you automatically hit".

It is a feature, and the fact it is a new rule does not negate the fact that all powers and features are rules and they've worked within the framework just fine. A class feature is not inherently a rule of such newness that it requires abandoning the entire framework.

No, it does not say 'you hit'. It says, 'you score a critical hit' which is specific terminology refered to by the -very- rule that can deny you the ability to hit. Omitting the game terminology is as honest as me omitting a power that said:

'Targets: All creatures in burst
Attack: Strength vs AC
Hit: 1[W]+Strength damage and you shift 1 square for each target hit'

To the point where it said:

'Targets: All creatures in burst
...
Hit: ... you ... hit...

and using that as an argument to say that you automaticly hit with the power regardless of the hit result.

That's not a valid argument.

If the rule said "you automatically score a critical hit", would you still object?

That would be poor rules templating, but I would have -less- of an objection. In that case, you'd have a situation where there was an intent upon the designers to make the automatic nature of the hit clear. You could see a measure of effort to put forth the case that the hit was automatic, and that would be a plausible premise to put forth in an argument.

This situation, however, does not have the benefit of that statement. The word 'automaticly' does not appear, nor has there been any visible effort to put forth the idea that the attack automaticly hits. All such efforts have been speculated by non-designers to put forth their argument.

So it's not the same situation at all.

 

[DracoSuave]

Exactly, crits that could apply (e.g. when a rule says "you can crit", which this one does not). This one says you do crit.

This attack on the argument -is- dishonest. My rebuttal is 'Abilities that say you do something can be countermanded by rules that say you do not. Therefore, the use of the word 'could' is correct, as it is the subjunctive case, speaking of an event that -may- occur.'

My grammar is correct in this instance, and using -correct- grammar as endorsement of your case when that grammar clearly indicates that it not such an endorsement is a dishonest counter-argument.