Adent Champion. Rules lawyers required

[Flipguarder]

In my view, any specific ruling is equally problematic in those terms Draco. Think of it as though you were playing and had no idea what we have already talked about.

Player "I rolled two 2s on my attack rolls, sweet I crit."
DM "Ha, you hit on a two?"
Player "I don't need to."

DM "nope, see here in precision, all the crit-range rules don't give you automatic hits"
OR
Player "Look, see here under "Holy Ardor" You SCORE a critical hit, that means that you don't even need to go through precision, it hits because the feature says it hits."

After typing that... I think I see your point lol

 

[Nifft]

That's not a valid argument.

Yes, it is, and all your straw men won't make it otherwise.

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.

The longest and least committal way to agree so far.

This situation, however, does not have the benefit of that statement. The word 'automaticly' does not appear

Well spotted! In fact, that's rather my point.

Neither does the word "can".

If either did, this thread would be short.

Cheers, -- N

 

[CovertOps]

I have finally put my finger on what I think bothers me most about this.

Assertion: "Score a critical hit" = "hit"

How is this proven?

Normally in exception based design the power giving you the exception (Holy Ardor in this case) would tell you exactly how it lets you break the normal rules such as:

if you roll doubles...and you hit even if you don't roll high enough to beat the targets defense and that hit is a critical hit "

In this situation we have no such rules text to override the general rules on "hit" so instead the argument is essentially "the general rules on criticals prove that a critical is a hit". What this means is that instead of exception text in the new power, the new power is giving a "BRAND NEW MEANING TO THE EXISTING RULES" because the hit rules have never been used in such a way as to prove that a critical is a hit. The normal flow is did you hit? If so then maybe you got a critical and check these rules to find out. What this means is that you are using the general hit rules to prove that you hit and that IS a circular argument. The general rules on hit are not intended to prove that you hit, they instead tell you when you hit by meeting it's criteria.

So I guess my point is IF you can prove that Holy Ardor allows you to "hit" WITHOUT using the general rules for "hit" then you have a case. Otherwise you are suggesting that Holy Ardor is either changing the meaning of the general hit rules OR giving them a new way to be used that was never intended. Either of those cases is bad for exception based design as it breaks the entire system at it's base level.

 

[DracoSuave]

Yes, it is, and all your straw men won't make it otherwise.

Actually, it's a fallacy by misrepresentation, where you twist the meaning of a word from its correct context into an incorrect context.

An example of -exactly- what you're trying to do:

'You -could- have that sandwich if you had the money.'
'AHA you said I could have that sandwich! Gimme!'
'You don't have the money.'
'But you said I -could-!'

As should be obvious, it's not a valid nor even cogent argument to put forth, as it's based on incorrect premises, i.e., that the word 'could' was intended to indicate permissivity rather than subjunctivity, when the subjunctive intent should be obvious from context.

And an argument without correct premises is not a valid argument.

 

[N8Ball]

What this means is that instead of exception text in the new power, the new power is giving a "BRAND NEW MEANING TO THE EXISTING RULES" because the hit rules have never been used in such a way as to prove that a critical is a hit. The normal flow is did you hit? If so then maybe you got a critical and check these rules to find out. What this means is that you are using the general hit rules to prove that you hit and that IS a circular argument. The general rules on hit are not intended to prove that you hit, they instead tell you when you hit by meeting it's criteria.

So I guess my point is IF you can prove that Holy Ardor allows you to "hit" WITHOUT using the general rules for "hit" then you have a case.

I wasn't planning on getting back into it, but how can I refuse such a well articulated request for explanation? You present a well stated question that deserves a least a good effort at a worthy response.

(Note- my explanation relies on the "permissive" assumption defended elsewhere. I will attempt to answer your "bypass the hit rules" question)

You stated that the rules on crits have never been used before to declare a hit. This is absolutely true. In every instance prior to this, hitting was always a prerequisite. i.e the only paths to crit went through the hit rules.

Holy Ardor comes along and says you crit. It is unlike other similar powers like RRoT and Prophecy of Doom (Divine Oracle 11) that explicitly require you to hit before you can get a crit. Holy Ardor just says you crit.

So what part of it's requirements are outside the normal hit rules? Well the mechanic they provide in the rule is rolling doubles. There's nothing like that in the normal hit rules.

Because every crit ability to date either only changed the crittable numbers (but still used the other crit requirements) or explicitly required you to hit first, the hit rules were always used first, before a crit was declared. Holy Ardor doesn't follow this precedent, suggesting that it is a bit different than those precursor crit abilities.

The mechanic of satisfying Holy Ardor is entirely outside the normal hit rules. Natural 20 (auto hit) is the only other case I can think of that doesn't add something to the roll or compare the number to the defense to determine a hit. With Holy Ardor you're just seeing if the numbers are the same. That's pretty distinct and certainly doesn't modify anything in the normal hit rules, but satisfying that mechanic isn't dependent on the hit rules either. (unlike the RROT and PoD mechanics of achieving crits)

So the conclusion is that it's a new mechanic that isn't subordinate to the hit rules, but acts in tandem with them providing an alternate way to get a crit.

Otherwise you are suggesting that Holy Ardor is either changing the meaning of the general hit rules OR giving them a new way to be used that was never intended. Either of those cases is bad for exception based design as it breaks the entire system at it's base level.

Well, the intentions of the designers are kind of what we're debating here isn't it? But if there *were* a way to definitively determine that this was not what they intended then I could possibly agree with that part. As it is, I think the designers were trying to do something new as well as relying (too much?) on the common conception that a crit is a hit. I agree that such a new mechanic should have more explanation around it, regardless of who's right about it.

Because of the new mechanic, I don't think Holy Ardor changes any of the normal hit rules. In fact, I don't think it relies on them much at all except to tell us that crits are hits. After all, critical hit is a subheading of hit.

 

[DracoSuave]

I think the designers were trying to do something new as well as relying (too much?) on the common conception that a crit is a hit.

The problem with this 'common conception' is that it is counter-intuitive in the face of a rule that flat out says that you wouldn't. Which means that they chose to rely on a 'common conception' rather than a rule in the game.

That is not a good precedent to make, and it is somewhat antithetical to the directions of Wizards of the Coast game design in general.

But if there *were* a way to definitively determine that this was not what they intended then I could possibly agree with that part.

The fallacy in this line of thinking is that it makes the insinuation that a rule requires permission in order to work within its bailiwick. That's like saying that Basic Melee Attack needs a complete list of weapons in order for any of those weapons to be used with it. (But it doesn't -say- you can use a battleaxe!) Or that pushes can be towards you unless it says away from you. (But it doesn't -say- it has to follow the normal push rules!) Or that fire resistance doesn't work with fire damage. (But it doesn't -say- that fire resistance can work on it!)

When there -is- a rule written for a case, and that case follows the text of that rule, you do not need the case to tell you to apply that rule. The rule -existing- is case enough.

Because of the new mechanic, I don't think Holy Ardor changes any of the normal hit rules. In fact, I don't think it relies on them much at all except to tell us that crits are hits. After all, critical hit is a subheading of hit.

And so the part in the crit rules that remind you that what would be a crit cannot be a crit if it would not hit is -not- a reminder of the opposite?

I'm just curious as to why you skip out the only part of the crit rules that goes against what you say and claim it does not apply. I'm -trying- to establish what -exact- language that exists in Holy Ardor but is not directly referenced in Precision says 'This hits regardless of the roll.'

I know this seems repetative, but it's the one thing -you have not done-. And it's the -only- thing you need to do to prove your case. Not appealing to authority (with dubious speculation). Not inferring based on an irrelevant clause. Not with a circular argument. With a single piece of language that says that Holy Ardor hits, and is -not- referenced by Precision.

So, here's Holy Ardor again, and I've highlighted in green the parts not -directly- referenced by Precision, and -redded- out the parts referenced by Precision.

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

'Score a critical hit' is directly referenced by precision, so that which scores a critical hit satisfies one of Precision's conditions. The other is proven to produce rolls other than 20, so it satisfies the other one of Precision's twoconditions. That leaves you to find a hit within what is left, or a rule that says that Precision does not apply.

Good luck.

After all, critical hit is a subheading of hit.

And Critical Hit goes on to tell you that even if otherwise allowed, there are cases where they may not occur, and tells you what those cases are. Prove that Holy Ardor is not one of those cases. You've proven it scores a critical hit. No one is doubting that. Now prove that the rules for when critical hits -do not apply- when they otherwise would do not themselves apply.

That is where the burden of proof lies. The very crit rules themselves tell you that a crit doesn't equal a hit, automaticly. So prove then that Holy Ardor gets to ignore this.

 

[CovertOps]

Holy Ardor comes along and says you crit. It is unlike other similar powers like RRoT and Prophecy of Doom (Divine Oracle 11) that explicitly require you to hit before you can get a crit. Holy Ardor just says you crit.

So what part of it's requirements are outside the normal hit rules? Well the mechanic they provide in the rule is rolling doubles. There's nothing like that in the normal hit rules.

Because every crit ability to date either only changed the crittable numbers (but still used the other crit requirements) or explicitly required you to hit first, the hit rules were always used first, before a crit was declared. Holy Ardor doesn't follow this precedent, suggesting that it is a bit different than those precursor crit abilities.

The mechanic of satisfying Holy Ardor is entirely outside the normal hit rules. Natural 20 (auto hit) is the only other case I can think of that doesn't add something to the roll or compare the number to the defense to determine a hit. With Holy Ardor you're just seeing if the numbers are the same. That's pretty distinct and certainly doesn't modify anything in the normal hit rules, but satisfying that mechanic isn't dependent on the hit rules either. (unlike the RROT and PoD mechanics of achieving crits)

So the conclusion is that it's a new mechanic that isn't subordinate to the hit rules, but acts in tandem with them providing an alternate way to get a crit.

All of this misses the mark completely. I'm going to do two cases below to show the options the way I see it.

1. Holy Ardor provides a critical hit.
2. This overrides the normal hit rules.
3. Since this is the case we can no longer look at any of the hit rules to prove what Holy Ardor does or does not do. We must now rely only on the rules text within the power granting us an exception in order to determine the outcome.
4. Our result is now undefined because we no longer have a definition of critical hit or hit and there is no such definition in the text of Holy Ardor.


1. Holy Ardor provides a critical hit.
2. This does not override the normal hit rules.
3. Consult the normal hit rules to determine what a critical hit is.
4. A critical hit requires that we have hit the target so let's check if this is true.
5. If we hit, now apply the rules for crit that we were granted (max damage etc).

You are suggesting a modified form of the first case where you somehow get to both use the normal hit rules to prove that "critical" = "hit" and simultaneously ignore the requirements of a hit. You can't use the rules in such a fashion. Either you use the WHOLE rule or none of it (OR the power granting the exception tells you specifically what sections you get to ignore and how - but it should be noted that Holy Ardor does NOT do this). For this reason I asked you to prove what text (within the body of Holy Ardor) grants you a hit without needing to hit the defense of the target because if there were such text I could agree with your assertion as you have now given an alternate version of the hit rules and can now truly ignore the hit rules in their entirety.

 

[Flipguarder]

As a complete sidenote, I would like to say that this has been one of the healthiest, infotainmentiest, and most reasonable forum discussions I've ever had the pleasure of being a part of.

 

[Eldorian]

So, here's Holy Ardor again, and I've highlighted in green the parts not -directly- referenced by Precision, and -redded- out the parts referenced by Precision.

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

'Score a critical hit' is directly referenced by precision, so that which scores a critical hit satisfies one of Precision's conditions. The other is proven to produce rolls other than 20, so it satisfies the other one of Precision's twoconditions. That leaves you to find a hit within what is left, or a rule that says that Precision does not apply.

Good luck.

You just said in a novel what I said in an abstract. If they won't read the abstract, maybe they'll read the novel? I just can't get through.

 

[Kraydak]

I have finally put my finger on what I think bothers me most about this.

Assertion: "Score a critical hit" = "hit"

Given that the mechanics of critical hits don't care whether you are running the "hit" line or the "miss" line, there is no reason to believe that "Score a critical hit" = "hit". While it is true that, pre Ardent Champion, all critical hit triggers were also hits, there is no rule stating that that must be the case.

The "minimal contradiction"+"specific beats general" reading is: if you score doubles and hit, run a critical hit (maxed non-critical dependent damage dice, and trigger everything that triggers off crits) using any relevant "effect" lines and any relevant "hit" lines. If you score doubles (not 1s) and miss, run a critical hit using any relevant "effect" lines and any relevant "miss" lines. If you score double 1s, run any relevant "effect" lines and any relevant "miss" lines (but not as criticals).