Adent Champion. Rules lawyers required

[DracoSuave]

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.

Colors dude! Colors!

 

[N8Ball]

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.
...
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.

I see what you're saying, but I disagree that the Hit (or crit) section must be taken as a whole unit. The definitions of those terms (hit/crit) still apply. I don't think it's an all or nothing proposition as you suggest.

Also, Prophecy of Doom does not SPECIFICALLY spell out that a hitting ally does not need a 20 to crit (a normal requirement the power ignores), it just says they may "choose to make the attack a critial hit."

Both sections (hit and crit) do 2 things: One thing they do is tell you how you get a hit/crit NORMALLY. The other thing they do is tell you what a hit/crit IS. The latter part (definition) has never been skipped over by a rule, nor should it be in this case.

Like you pointed out, there are other feats that only change part of the requirements, and there are also abilities that let you crit if you meet the requirements of the ability (RRot and PoD). Once case modified the normal requirements (Mastery), one provided a new avenue for getting a crit altogether, thus bypassing the normal rules for getting a crit. (the new avenues happened to also explicitly require a hitting roll).

So even when abilities grant ways to bypass the normal requirements for things, the definitions of those things still apply.

 

[CovertOps]

I see what you're saying, but I disagree that the Hit (or crit) section must be taken as a whole unit. The definitions of those terms (hit/crit) still apply. I don't think it's an all or nothing proposition as you suggest.

If you are going to apply the rule (ie use it to prove your assertion of crit = hit noting that is has never been used in this fashion) then I have to stick with yes you are stuck with all parts of the rule and it's requirements. If you were only using it's definition then I'd agree, but you're not. Or alternatively show me some specific text in Holy Ardor that overrides the requirements of "hit".

 

[CovertOps]

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.

Seconded.

 

[N8Ball]

If you are going to apply the rule (ie use it to prove your assertion of crit = hit noting that is has never been used in this fashion) then I have to stick with yes you are stuck with all parts of the rule and it's requirements. If you were only using it's definition then I'd agree, but you're not. Or alternatively show me some specific text in Holy Ardor that overrides the requirements of "hit".

I'm not sure I fully understand your objection. There are plenty of examples where the normal requirements for something are overridden (like new ways to get opportunity attacks), but just because you skip the normal requirements, doesn't mean you need to also dispose of the rules on what that thing IS. You still need to know how to apply the thing the ability granted you, be it a critical hit or an opportunity attack. This is the same.


Could you elaborate on this part, I'm not sure what you mean here.

If you were only using it's definition then I'd agree, but you're not.

 

[CovertOps]

I'm not sure I fully understand your objection. There are plenty of examples where the normal requirements for something are overridden (like new ways to get opportunity attacks), but just because you skip the normal requirements, doesn't mean you need to also dispose of the rules on what that thing IS. You still need to know how to apply the thing the ability granted you, be it a critical hit or an opportunity attack. This is the same.


Could you elaborate on this part, I'm not sure what you mean here.

To use your car analogy from earlier:

I have a steering wheel, therefore I have a car.

The steering wheel represents your critical and the car represents a "hit". The steering wheel is a subset of "car", but just because you have one it does not necessarily follow that you have a car. The "definition" of a steering wheel may be that it is part of the car, but having one does not prove that you have the car.

My point (as it has been all along) is that you are using the general rules to prove something they were never intended to prove. For exception based design to work you have to follow one basic principle. The general rule ALWAYS applies unless specifically overridden by some other rule. Following this edict, (as it has been since this debate started) nothing in Holy Ardor says that you hit, therefore the hit rules (read this as requirements) still apply.

You on the other hand are taking the rules you were given "score a critical hit" and attempting to then use the general rules on hit to both prove that you hit AND that the requirements for hit don't apply even without a specific exemption. In essence you are attempting to use the general rules on hit to prove that the general rules on hit don't apply which is by it's very nature a circular argument.

Quite frankly you are wrong. All that is left is for you to accept it. Any other reading where you create a "brand new mechanic" would require even MORE override text detailing how the power works exactly and what rules it gets to ignore and how it gets to ignore them. If said power does not include such text, but you attempt to read it that way then you have broken the only principle I listed above for exception based design. If indeed WotC intended for Holy Ardor to grant you a hit even if you didn't beat the defense of the target then it needs errata to that effect. If rolling doubles is a "brand new mechanic" then it needs rules text detailing this "new mechanic" and exactly how it works. Your entire premise is that this "brand new mechanic" is somehow detailed in the general rules on hit which simply can't be true. The hit rules don't have any more or less meaning than they had a year ago when they came out.

 

[DracoSuave]

In essence you are attempting to use the general rules on hit to prove that the general rules on hit don't apply which is by it's very nature a circular argument.

Actually it's a contradiction of the form:

'The hit rules work, and therefore, by logical conclusion, the hit rules do not work'

which symbolicly is:

q <=> ~p <- p

q cannot be true for any value of p.

 

[Artoomis]

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).

...

Here's what I believe is a more accurate view:

1. Holy Ardor provides a new way to score a critical hit.
2. Since this is the case we can skip straight to applying critical damage.

1. Holy Ardor provides a potential critical hit (forcing the actual "score a critical hit" language to really mean "score a possible 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).

Which is truly the simpler interpretation?

It seems to me it is much simpler to use the first two steps above, and this is legitimate because "score a critical hit" means, well, "score a critical hit," not, "possibly score a critical hit."

Anyway, I am at a loss as why the folks here cannot simply agree that both arguments have solid foundations in the rules as written and therefore both sides can be correct.

I can understand arguing that one side or the other has the stronger argument, but that in no way means the other side is "wrong."

 

[N8Ball]

Draco, if you would like to put MY argument in logical form, then you must assume the things I assume (that the requirements and definition of a thing are distinct parts of the rules). What you described is not what I'm saying, so proving it wrong doesn't really say anything.

To use your car analogy from earlier:

I have a steering wheel, therefore I have a car.

The steering wheel represents your critical and the car represents a "hit". The steering wheel is a subset of "car", but just because you have one it does not necessarily follow that you have a car. The "definition" of a steering wheel may be that it is part of the car, but having one does not prove that you have the car.

Your analogy doesn't really describe the relationship I'm suggesting. A Critical hit is not a PART of a hit, nor is it something normally included IN a hit, like your steering wheel. I'm saying that it's a special TYPE of hit, so my analogy of a BMW 323i as a TYPE of car is much closer to what I'm suggesting. You are free to suggest that a critical hit is just a BMW and not necessarily a car (they make motorcycles as well).

Also, my argument for a crit being a hit referenced several places and examples, the hit section being just one of those places where crits are described. I also used the High Crit section, an example in the text and section on critical hits, but if that were not enough, here's another example that provides some context as to what the authors intended.

When you score a critical hit using a heavy blade, you and all your allies gain combat advantage against the enemy you struck until the end of your next turn.

The idea that a crit = hit is founded in several places, and building an argument that uses this idea to prove someing else is not circular. A circular argument is when you use an asusmption to prove that very thing you're assuming.

My assumption is based in examples from the PHB and is used to intrepret a power in Divine power. There's no circle there, just a constructed argument with multiple parts.

My point (as it has been all along) is that you are using the general rules to prove something they were never intended to prove. For exception based design to work you have to follow one basic principle. The general rule ALWAYS applies unless specifically overridden by some other rule. Following this edict, (as it has been since this debate started) nothing in Holy Ardor says that you hit, therefore the hit rules (read this as requirements) still apply.

This standard is not applied like you suggest in interpreting other powers. Take this for example:

Effect: Until the end of the encounter, the target provokes an opportunity attack from you when it attacks (save ends). You gain a +2 bonus to the opportunity attack roll
and deal an extra 1[W] damage.

Now, it doesn't say that the attack that provokes must be a ranged attack, so do we assume that since the general rules were not specifically overridden? No, we just do what the power allows in generic form. When the target attacks (in any way) we get an opportunity attack, and what's more, even though we're ignoring normal requirements of the opportunity attack, we must still reference what the definition of an opportunity attack IS (a basic melee attack).

Quite frankly you are wrong. All that is left is for you to accept it.

Now don't get all "Dracosuave" on me here. Most of the exchanges so far have been civil enough to leave out statements like these, as much as we both might feel like saying them.

 

[Flipguarder]

Which is truly the simpler interpretation?

Wow that's an awful way to argue. Why in any way would the simpler interpretation be more reasonable, correct, or better in any way.

Now don't get all "Dracosuave" on me here.

Yeah, and using someone's name as an adjective is totally civil...