Adent Champion. Rules lawyers required

[Artoomis]

While you do believe that, I do not. Hence, as an LFR DM I would have to rule one way if I were being strict, and as an LFR player I would not try to play it your way - I wouldn't even ask. I flat out do not believe that is the rules as written, and I would find it dishonest to present it as such. Especially given the response from CS.

I do, however, strongly suspect that it is the rules as intended, so if a player in my home game wanted to play the class, I'd tell them to go with it that way unless overruled by WotC.

Ah, but my point is that I firmly believe that the rules, as written, support my view even better than yours.

Since you believe the opposite, either way would be allowed under LFR rules. It would be a DM decision.

What is not really clear to me is RAI. Did they really intend to create an exception here or not? They did, as I read the rules, but I am not sure that was the intent.

CustServ has weighed in on both sides of this, apparently, but that only supports my contention that ruling either way is indeed RAW.

I am big enough to admit my way is not the only way to read the rules. I seem to be the only one.

 

[Nifft]

You missed the point here.

Stuff like this begets Hectoring.

I believe that if they'd intended for the hit to be automatic, they'd said so, or otherwise indicated this. They'd not leave the intent up to the absense of a word 'can' especially given general rules templating -is- slowly phasing out that word in many cases.

If they'd intended the hit to be automatic, they'd include '...you automaticly hit, and...' within the text.

It's not like there isn't room for it in that whitespace sitting there.

So, the absence of the word "can" is not important, but the absence of the word "automatic" is vital.

I rest my case.

I am big enough to admit my way is not the only way to read the rules. I seem to be the only one.

Nope, you are not alone. But reasonable folks get bored of rebuffing the same stuff over and over and over.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Artoomis]

....
So, the absence of the word "can" is not important, but the absence of the word "automatic" is vital...

Cheers, -- N

Actually, the lack of the word "can" is pretty vital.

Critical Hit: "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..." Precision has no effect on that whatsoever.

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

Looking at that, what do we see?

We see that Holy Ardor replaces "you score a critical hit if your total attack roll is high enough to hit your target’s defense" with "you score a critical hit if both dice have the same roll."

Case closed. It really is as easy as that. I think that there is a lot of over-thinking going on here.

(This does not change my position that you could rule either way at an LFR game as a DM and be correct.)

 

[keterys]

Ah, but my point is that I firmly believe that the rules, as written, support my view even better than yours.

I'd hope so, or you wouldn't be discussing this so many pages

Since you believe the opposite, either way would be allowed under LFR rules. It would be a DM decision.

Right, and if I were your LFR DM, I'd say that Precision applies. If I were an LFR player with that paragon path, I _wouldn't even ask_ the DM, because I'd feel dishonest doing so.

What is not really clear to me is RAI. Did they really intend to create an exception here or not?

Yeah... based on how they wrote it, I suspect they wanted to make an exception and didn't. Hence, looking forward to a later FAQ.

CustServ has weighed in on both sides of this, apparently

Someone else mentioned that, but I didn't see any post supporting the 'auto hit, bypasses Precision' ruling. Maybe I missed it.

ruling either way is indeed RAW.

Occasionally that is true. It's pretty uncommon, but it happens.

I am big enough to admit my way is not the only way to read the rules. I seem to be the only one.

Heh. I almost wish I could agree that you could be right, but as written... no, just no. I do think your position is the intended one, though.

Out of curiosity, if a paragon path had this ability:

Critical Accuracy
Utility - Daily
Trigger: Your attack result exceeds a target's defense by 5 or more without scoring a critical hit.
Effect: Your attack becomes a critical hit.

Would you allow a (very buffed) attack that rolled a natural 1 (and still beats the defense by 5) to critical hit, or would it trigger the automatic miss rule?

 

[Artoomis]

...Out of curiosity, if a paragon path had this ability:

Critical Accuracy
Utility - Daily
Trigger: Your attack result exceeds a target's defense by 5 or more without scoring a critical hit.
Effect: Your attack becomes a critical hit.

Would you allow a (very buffed) attack that rolled a natural 1 (and still beats the defense by 5) to critical hit, or would it trigger the automatic miss rule?

As written, I suppose so, but it would likely never happen. I would hope they'd write something up exactly like that.

 

[DracoSuave]

Actually, the lack of the word "can" is pretty vital.

Critical Hit: "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..." Precision has no effect on that whatsoever.

Of course it wouldn't. It is about situations other than rolling natural 20, and says only a natural 20 is an automatic hit. So, no it wouldn't have an effect on this, and it -explicitly tells you why.-

What does the word 'can' have to do with that? The word 'can' doesn't appear in Precision -either-. In fact, that's the point, Precision refers to 'score a critical hit' not 'can score a critical hit.' So, the fact you suggest 'score a critical hit' is so definate is somewhat suspicious, as that's the -very phrase that evokes Precision- to begin with.

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

This, on the other hand, is -not- a natural 20. So the reason Precision doesn't apply to the former isn't applicable here.

Looking at that, what do we see?

We see that Holy Ardor replaces "you score a critical hit if your total attack roll is high enough to hit your target’s defense" with "you score a critical hit if both dice have the same roll."

Which Precision still applies to, because the -reason- Precision doesn't apply to a natural 20 is explicit in Precision itself. Holy Ardor does not benefit from that exclusion. Are you trying to suggest that Holy Ardor is Natural 20? I don't think so. So could you please explain this point better? Please explain how Precision's explicit exclusion of Natural 20s has to do with Holy Ardor? There's something not communicated here.

Case closed. It really is as easy as that. I think that there is a lot of over-thinking going on here.

Yes, it really -is- as easy as that. Precision has no reason not to apply to Holy Ardor. The reason it doesn't apply to Natural 20 is because it blatantly says it doesn't apply to natural 20, and at the same time, says it -does- apply to not rolling natural 20. So show me text that blatantly says that it doesn't apply to Holy Ardor, and you have a point.

(This does not change my position that you could rule either way at an LFR game as a DM and be correct.)

Your position would be a lot easier to understand if you had a rule supporting it, as opposed to a rule telling you no.

That's the problem, it isn't that you don't have suggestions that it's yes, but you have an unexcepted rule that says No.

No exception exists that we can see, and everything you've done to try to point it out -doesn't work-.

See above. You're using Precision's explicit exclusion and saying that it applies to Holy Ardor because Holy Ardor uses similiar language to Natural 20. An example of how that doesn't work:

Hit: You slide the creature 2 spaces.

Other ability:

Hit: You push the creature 2 spaces.

Clearing the two abilities must be exactly the same because they use similiar templating? Oh the rules about what the difference between push and slide are? Irrelevent, because abilities that are written almost the same must be adjudicated the same way, regardless of what rules say.

See? Nonsensicle argument form.

So, you need to establish a few more premises in order to establish that argument. Please fill in the blanks there.

 

[DracoSuave]

As written, I suppose so, but it would likely never happen. I would hope they'd write something up exactly like that.

Very good question.

They could use this ability, but it would have to include text for the automatic miss on a 1, either to except it or not, because successful critical hits are not a specific rule to trump automatic miss, and neither is automatic miss a rule to trump successful critical hit.

That's why the text exists on Holy Ardor, as it is possible with a high enough bonus to roll a 1 and a 1, be high enough to hit their defenses, and thusly simultaneously score a critical hit, beat their defenses, and automaticly miss. As none of these rules are trumping each other, text -must- exist to act as an 'exception' if only to declare what has precedence.

Two rules of equal 'specificity' that contradict each other cannot be resolved by 'specific beats general' because there's no indication which is the specific rule and which is the general rule.

 

[ObsidianCrane]

I brought this up at my regular game and one of my players made an astute observation; as nothing in the power says you get to change the rules for how to determine a hit you still miss, and thus you "score a crit" but no target takes the damage. Congratulations.

To prove the power makes the roll a hit you must show specific text that makes it an exception to the basic hit, miss, automatic hit, automatic miss rules, along with the Precision rule.

I thought the idea was doubles were cooler than criticalling on a 19-20 (which would give a very different extra crit percentage, much better in fact), So it increased your chances of criticalling a bit (about 5%).

Hmm this harks back to some things that were bothering me at the start of the thread.

A single d20 roll improves by 5% by every value you can crit on (20 = 5%, 19-20 10% etc), but the Avenger is very different to that.

An Avenger who crits on a 20 does so 9.75% of the time.
An Avenger who crits on a 19-20 does so 19% of the time.
An Avenger who crits on an 18-20 does so a huge 27.75% of the time. This is why the Dagger Master PP is so appealing for Avenger builds.

When you Crit on Doubles the values look different however.
A crit on any non-(1,1) double or a 20 gets you a 14.25% chance of a crit.
A crit on say a 11 or better hit that is a double or 20 gets you only a 12% chance of a crit.
If you get a way to crit on 19-20 or any non-(1,1) double your chance of a crit jumps to 23.25%!
If you get a way to crit on a 19-20 or any non-(1,1) and still need an 11 or better to hit to get your rolled a double crit it comes in at 21%

So the more conservative reading gets you a better a crit chance than simply having a 19-20 for a non-Avenger, but worse than if you are an avenger with a 19-20. But if you grab a jagged weapon or take Heavy Blade Mastery at Epic the Ardent Avenger is only eclipsed in Cirt % by the Dagger Master avenger, and the reality is the difference in damage output on those crits is where the two builds balance.

 

[Artoomis]

...Which Precision still applies to, because the -reason- Precision doesn't apply to a natural 20 is explicit in Precision itself. Holy Ardor does not benefit from that exclusion. Are you trying to suggest that Holy Ardor is Natural 20? I don't think so. So could you please explain this point better? Please explain how Precision's explicit exclusion of Natural 20s has to do with Holy Ardor? There's something not communicated here...

Okay, I'll re-state my last argument, but with specific Precision arguments:.

Actually, the lack of the word "can" is pretty vital.

Critical Hit: "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..." Precision has no effect on that whatsoever.

Precision merely notes you might critical on values other than 20, and reminds you that only a 20 is an automatic hit. That does not change the basic rule (re-formulated to include Precision) of "If you roll a number high enough for a potential critical hit 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..."

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

Looking at that, what do we see?

We see that Holy Ardor replaces "you score a critical hit if your total attack roll is high enough to hit your target’s defense" with "you score a critical hit if both dice have the same roll."

Case closed. It really is as easy as that. I think that there is a lot of over-thinking going on here.

(This does not change my position that you could rule either way at an LFR game as a DM and be correct.)

Better? I've addressed how Precision makes no difference because Holy Ardor creates an exception to the basic Critical Hit rule where you now score a critical hit from rolling doubles rather than scoring a critical hit from rolling a specific high enough number (possibly 18, 19 or 20) and checking to see if that roll is high enough to hit your target’s defense. The key is, I think, that holy Ardor creates a new definition of when you score a critical hit. not when you potentially might score a critical hit."

Prop to holy Ardor, all Critical Hit modification rules either:

(1) Change the number rolled to get a potential Critical Hit

or

(2) Give you a specific rule that allows a hit to be changes into a Critical Hit.

Holy Ardor is a game changer that gives an entirely new way to score a critical hit.

Essentially, prior to Holy Ardor, to score a critical hit you must first score a potential critical hit and then confirm that by checking to see if that roll is high enough to hit your target’s defense. With Holy Ardor, there is a new way to score a critical hit that does not score a potential critical hit, but actually score a critical hit.

Further, "automatic hit" has nothing to do with scoring a critical hit. That only tells you if you hit when you do roll high enough to potentially get a critical hit but not high enough to hit your target’s defense.

An important distinction between Holy Ardor and Precision plus those powers that change the number rolled for a critical is the lack of the use of "allow" (in Precision) or "can" (in the various powers) - in addition to the fact that you are rolling doubles rather than looking at the result of an attack die. The Holy Ardor language is crisp and clear and leaves no wiggle room - it defines when you "score a critical hit" - not when you can do so, not when you might, not when you might be allowed to, but when you do.

 

[Nifft]

Actually, the lack of the word "can" is pretty vital.
[...]
(This does not change my position that you could rule either way at an LFR game as a DM and be correct.)

Right, I was making a reference to my own argument, back on page 16:

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