Adent Champion. Rules lawyers required

[N8Ball]

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.

What? So you're saying that because he agreed with your clear articulation which used elements that we've been trying to get at for PAGES, that Nifft is dishonest for pointing that out?

That's not dishonest, that's just good debating.

You've been put in check, sir. Your move.

 

[Flipguarder]

My argument is that since there is no precedence for this kind of rule (in the way you are reading) and precision clearly shows that rules *like* this one need to actually hit without your reading being applied, there needs to be (and would be) clearer defining of what holy ardor meant, if in fact your interpretation is correct. As it stands, and the way it is written, it seems much more plausible that it DOES work like every other "crit-range" power.

Additionally, your reading of this rule puts an amount of stress and importance on the word "can" that also has no precedence (as far as I know). It also seems more likely to me that if the word was intended to have that much importance, there would be either typographical stress (such as a italics, bold or underlining) or additional clarification with parentheses.

I believe I understand your argument very well. Im just saying that so you wont repeat the same statements we've been going over and over. My statement was a overall summary of my stance in regard to your reading. May it be enlightening or enflaming, meh.

 

[N8Ball]

My argument is that since there is no precedence for this kind of rule (in the way you are reading) and precision clearly shows that rules *like* this one need to actually hit without your reading being applied, there needs to be (and would be) clearer defining of what holy ardor meant, if in fact your interpretation is correct. As it stands, and the way it is written, it seems much more plausible that it DOES work like every other "crit-range" power.

Additionally, your reading of this rule puts an amount of stress and importance on the word "can" that also has no precedence (as far as I know). It also seems more likely to me that if the word was intended to have that much importance, there would be either typographical stress (such as a italics, bold or underlining) or additional clarification with parentheses.

I believe I understand your argument very well. Im just saying that so you wont repeat the same statements we've been going over and over. My statement was a overall summary of my stance in regard to your reading. May it be enlightening or enflaming, meh.

Not at all enflaming. Actually a quite reasonable and well articulated summary on your issues with the precedent, and permissive language intrepretations of our position.

Such a well reasoned and level headed response suggests that you truly do understand our position. Thus, there is no need to explain our position any further. (at least to you, )

Your reservations on the subjects are heard and acknowledged, and certainly not without merit.

I feel that the mechanics of the rules are the purest form of rule adjudication which is why I have focused them so much in this discussion, but your thoughts on logical extensions of my assumptions would be appreciated. (see post 304)

 

[Flipguarder]

As painful as it is to do this, I'll try to list some of the bitter pills for my point of view.

1. If my interpretation is correct, then the word "can" in crit-range features such as weapon mastery is completely superfluous.
2. If my interpretation is correct, Holy Ardor becomes weaker (which is counter-intuitive, because it is already fairly weak)
3. If my interpretation is correct, then the last sentence of Precision becomes the defining sentence of the entire section. Worse even, it is in parentheses.

ARGH... that's all I can do. Arguing against oneself is fairly painful if they are honest.

 

[N8Ball]

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.

Well I didn't want to rehash old arguments too much but perhaps this point needs some better explanation. The difference here is in what rules are excepted by the power and what rules remain in force. (that excepted, with an "e", not an "a")

I mentioned before that movement generally has player choices involved crit adjudication does not, but that is not at issue in the case you presented.

Second, movement is resolved with some significant differences to resolving hits and crits. As written, all movement is adjudicated one square at a time, with multiple conditions being checked constantly. Movement can be interrupted mid-move or stopped completely. Resolving an attack roll is not a continuous process like moving.

Lastly and most importantly, the power you suggest creates an exception to the normal shift rules that say you only move 1 square (Pg 292) since it talks about shifting, but not to all the other rules in the other sections that apply to movement, like prone and immobilized.

Note - My crit = hit assumption is the basis for the normal hit rules being excepted in the case of Holy Ardor. Other rules that apply to crits still apply.

To draw an analogy to the Holy Ardor situation, if a Cleric ally had used the power Good Omens (Divine Oracle 12) which denys the possibility of a critical hit, then the Avenger would definitely not get a crit, much like the shift would not be allowed. Rules that are not excepted by the power still apply.

 

[N8Ball]

As painful as it is to do this, I'll try to list some of the bitter pills for my point of view.

1. If my interpretation is correct, then the word "can" in crit-range features such as weapon mastery is completely superfluous.
2. If my interpretation is correct, Holy Ardor becomes weaker (which is counter-intuitive, because it is already fairly weak)
3. If my interpretation is correct, then the last sentence of Precision becomes the defining sentence of the entire section. Worse even, it is in parentheses.

ARGH... that's all I can do. Arguing against oneself is fairly painful if they are honest.

Hah! True enough.
I appreciate the honesty with your own arguments, but I was asking if you could shoot some holes in my argument rather than your own. (we'll get you your argument after mine has been shot up ) Something in the vein of Covert Ops question to me.

Or even better if my assumptions create some really ridiculous situation that I hadn't realized with some other powers or feats. I would like the opportunity to explain or acknowledge any wonky power-feat-combo results that stem from my assumptions.

 

[Flipguarder]

It's not really my favorite form of argument. For yours it basically just establishes a bunch of precedences. And (in my view) completely negates the precision rule.

 

[DracoSuave]

Note - My crit = hit assumption is the basis for the normal hit rules being excepted in the case of Holy Ardor. Other rules that apply to crits still apply.

This is the problem with your argument in the nutshell tho. You've assumed that 'score a critical hit' is a hit, and you've used that as the basis of your argument that scoring a critical hit is a hit.

That's a blatantly circular argument.

Anyways... on to a different argument.

Daggervenger vs Ardorvenger.

Both are using Bloodiron weapons, a Execution Axe in the case of the Ardorvenger. Both will seek CA, and the Daggervenger will only use his Sneak Attack damage on his critical to maximise his effectiveness. Both will start with 18 Wisdom.

At level 11: 18 Wisdom becomes 21 Wisdom, with Expertise, and +3 weapon, and Combat advantage, =5+5+2+3+2 = +17 base to hit, +20 with a dagger, +19 with Execution Axe.

Iron Gorgon is a level 11 monster with 25 AC. Dagger needs 5 or better to hit, Exec needs 6.

So, out of 400 outcomes, Daggervenger will critical on 111 of them, and will otherwise hit with 273 of them.

On a hit, this Daggervenger will deal 1d4+10 damage (12.5 average), and on a crit, will deal 32+2X(3d10)+1d10 (32+7d10 | 70.5) damage. Not bad.

The Ardorvenger will crit with 53, and otherwise hit with 322 outcomes.

On a hit, the Ardorvenger will deal (1d10+2)+10 damage (brutal 2)[17,5], and will deal on a crit: 22+2X(3d10)+1d10+1d10+2) (24+8d10 | 68) damage.

Now, let's do a comparison.

Ardorvenger is worse for these attacks if:

[68(53)+322(17.5)]/400 < [70.5(111)+12.5(273)]/400

Which turns out to 9239 < 11238. So, yes, Ardorvenger does less damage per round at level 11.

-However-

This changes at level 16.

Bearing in mind that the bonuses to hit are constant between the roles, and the bonuses to damage from sources are constant, the big difference is in the size of the crits.

See, at that point, every time you crit you get a free attack. Had this been applied above, you'd have 9239*453/400 instead of 9239 in there. That would have made it 10139.8, instead of as close as it is now.

So while Ardor is less damaging over time, it is -certainly- not a bad damaging PP for an avenger at paragon level. You're certainly not 'sucking' at those levels. Then, when you get to epic, you take Eternal Defender. This changes the math -considerably- on the side of the Ardorvenger. While Daggermaster could theoreticly be dealing 2d6 with his weapon at-wills, the Eternal Ardorvenger is dealing... well instead of a 1d12 weapon with brutal 2, it's now a 2d6 weapon with brutal 2... so you're now looking at replacing 1d10+2 with 4d4+8.

Once you get to Epic, Ardorvenger is a -clear- winner over a Daggervenger.

Of course, this is only with at-wills. Once your [W] gets higher than 1, things change -dramaticly- as well.


This also doesn't take into account the possibility of a Rending Weapon, which gives you -more- attacks with criticals, but is only on an Axe. In this case, you'd be reducing the amount per critical for the Ardorvenger by 3d10+6, or 21.5/outcome, or 1182.5 total, for a total value of 9239, or 8056.5, or 20.14125 DPA.

However... you end up with higher effective DPR because every crit gives you a free attack. So, in 55/400 cases, you re-add in the DPR. And every time -that- crits, you again add in the DPR.

So...

d = 20.14125 + 55d/400
400d = 8056.5 + 55d
345d = 8056.5
d = 23.3521...
400d= 9340.

So a Rending Axe is better DPR for an Ardorvenger, and with the capacity to make -two- free attacks at level 16, and at epic being a 2d4+4 (effective) weapon...

This could actually get to be quite sick.

Oh yeah, Irresistable Ardor and Battle Rapture are not terrible powers as well. Unlike a Daggermaster's powers which are... not exactly great for you.

 

[Flipguarder]

This is the problem with your argument in the nutshell tho. You've assumed that 'score a critical hit' is a hit, and you've used that as the basis of your argument that scoring a critical hit is a hit.

That's a blatantly circular argument.

No actually a circular argument is much different. At it's worst, this is a false assumption.

A circular argument looks like this.

Milk is good because it is white.
Anything that is white is good, because milk is white.

EDIT: on second thought that might be a circular argument... lemme ponder that for a sec...

Naw it's not see. He's not using both statements as premises for one another, which is a circular argument. I think from your point of view, his failure is simply from a false premise. That being "A critical hit is always a hit.

 

[DracoSuave]

Hah! True enough.
I appreciate the honesty with your own arguments, but I was asking if you could shoot some holes in my argument rather than your own. (we'll get you your argument after mine has been shot up ) Something in the vein of Covert Ops question to me.

Or even better if my assumptions create some really ridiculous situation that I hadn't realized with some other powers or feats. I would like the opportunity to explain or acknowledge any wonky power-feat-combo results that stem from my assumptions.

Here's the big logical hole, the -big- problem if your assumption is correct.

It means that the designers are endevoring to create rules that require semantic examination of multiple source materials in order to divine their hidden meaning so that one can properly adjudicate the effect and understand -what the hell is going on here- rather than simply assuming that unless told otherwise, things work normally.

In otherwords, that the 4e designers have abandoned the attempts to clear and concise rule design in favor of arcane unreachable designs that their core audience cannot possibly learn to intuit.

That's a pretty big hole there.