Adent Champion. Rules lawyers required

[DracoSuave]

So, you're saying that Holy Ardor is -not- an ability that allows you to roll critical hits on numbers other than 20?

Because, I'm -very- sure it does allow you to do this.

And if -that- is the version of allowance that you refer to with can, isn't that admitting that the ability would be giving the -player- the ability to crit, and not other rules the ability to countermand it?

So, is the word 'can' refering you -you being allowed to hit- or to the ability itself possibily failing?

If it's the former, then the absense or presense is unimportant because it's not a matter of permissivity of other abilities to apply.

If it's the latter, then Precision doesn't care because Precision refers to abilities that allow -you- to do something, not to abilities that are indefinate in resolution.

 

[Obryn]

This is insane. I read page 1, then gave up a few days ago.

Today, I just hopped from page to page to page thinking that there had to be some kind of major topic-change or flame-war, but much to my surprise.... page 18 looks exactly like page 15, which looks exactly like page 10, which looks a lot like page 5, and so on all the way back to page 1.

I'm impressed that this has stayed on-topic for so long, but I don't know that I'm impressed in a good way.

-o

 

[Artoomis]

So, you're saying that Holy Ardor is -not- an ability that allows you to roll critical hits on numbers other than 20?

Because, I'm -very- sure it does allow you to do this.

Correct - it allows you to score a critical hit on a doubles - not on numbers other than a 20 in the context of a single attack roll (the context of Precision). Not to mention that Precision is referring to the rule just above it which gets replaced (not modified) by Holy Ardor.

And if -that- is the version of allowance that you refer to with can, isn't that admitting that the ability would be giving the -player- the ability to crit, and not other rules the ability to countermand it?

So, is the word 'can' referring you -you being allowed to hit- or to the ability itself possibly failing?

If it's the former, then the absence or presence is unimportant because it's not a matter of permissivity of other abilities to apply.

If it's the latter, then Precision doesn't care because Precision refers to abilities that allow -you- to do something, not to abilities that are indefinite in resolution.

I am not sure I followed all that, but it does not matter, I think, because the rule which precision is modifying (well, acknowledging the modification from other powers, I suppose) is superseded by Holy Ardor completely, not just modified by changing the number required to be rolled (from 20 to 19 or perhaps 18).

I do see where you are coming from, and because your argument does have some validity (not as much as mine, of course ), I'd say either ruling would be correct for RPGA/LFR.

(P.S. I hope you don't mind my fixing a few typos in your quoted post - I was spell-checking and it caught a few - though not as many as mine!)

 

[Garthanos]

This is insane. I read page 1, then gave up a few days ago.

Today, I just hopped from page to page to page thinking that there had to be some kind of major topic-change or flame-war, but much to my surprise.... page 18 looks exactly like page 15, which looks exactly like page 10, which looks a lot like page 5, and so on all the way back to page 1.

I'm impressed that this has stayed on-topic for so long, but I don't know that I'm impressed in a good way.

-o

The degree of Lawyerliness to it is spooky isnt it...

 

[Artoomis]

This is insane. I read page 1, then gave up a few days ago.

Today, I just hopped from page to page to page thinking that there had to be some kind of major topic-change or flame-war, but much to my surprise.... page 18 looks exactly like page 15, which looks exactly like page 10, which looks a lot like page 5, and so on all the way back to page 1.

I'm impressed that this has stayed on-topic for so long, but I don't know that I'm impressed in a good way.

-o

Yes well, I admit it is, in some ways, pretty pointless. It's more of an intellectual exercise than anything else, and in that sense is valuable, even if only for the participants and not the reader.

 

[DracoSuave]

Correct - it allows you to score a critical hit on a doubles - not on numbers other than a 20 in the context of a single attack roll (the context of Precision). Not to mention that Precision is referring to the rule just above it which gets replaced (not modified) by Holy Ardor.

Does Precision mention critical ranges? (no) Or is it simply refering to the ability to critical with rolls other than a 20? And if the latter is the case, how -exactly- does Holy Ardor not qualify as a roll other than 20, seeing as that 19 out of 20 cases of Holy Ardor being applied are not a natural 20.

The context of Precision is when you -aren't- rolling a natural 20. That's all it states. Holy Ardor is -not- a natural 20 (most of the time, when it -is- the effect is trivial and already a critical)

I am not sure I followed all that, but it does not matter, I think, because the rule which precision is modifying (well, acknowledging the modification from other powers, I suppose) is superseded by Holy Ardor completely, not just modified by changing the number required to be rolled (from 20 to 19 or perhaps 18).

But Precision doesn't mention ranges at all. -All- it requires is an ability that allows criticals on non-20 rolls. Brute force proves that Holy Ardor allows criticals on non-20 rolls.

My argument is that your side is saying 'can' simultaneously refers to the ability having a 'possible' critical (which is irrelevant to the application of rules that countermand such events) or that it's giving you permission to critical (which makes it by all definition Precision country) depending on which part of the argument it is convenient for at the time.

Both, however, cannot apply at the same time, and either one leads to a conclusion that Precision would apply.

I do see where you are coming from, and because your argument does have some validity (not as much as mine, of course ), I'd say either ruling would be correct for RPGA/LFR.

Well, RPGA rules-enforcement is 'What the DM feels is right' anyways.

(P.S. I hope you don't mind my fixing a few typos in your quoted post - I was spell-checking and it caught a few - though not as many as mine!)

Heh.

I'm impressed that this has stayed on-topic for so long, but I don't know that I'm impressed in a good way.

-o

At this point all sides are agreeing to disagree, but are also agreeing to a game of intellectual debate.

I must confess, I'm finding it enjoyable on that level.

 

[Artoomis]

Does Precision mention critical ranges? (no) Or is it simply referring to the ability to critical with rolls other than a 20? And if the latter is the case, how -exactly- does Holy Ardor not qualify as a roll other than 20, seeing as that 19 out of 20 cases of Holy Ardor being applied are not a natural 20.

The context of Precision is when you -aren't- rolling a natural 20. That's all it states. Holy Ardor is -not- a natural 20 (most of the time, when it -is- the effect is trivial and already a critical)...

Not quite.

The context of Precision is either:

1. Rolling a potential critical hit (that is , modifying the "Critical Hit" rule just above it), in which case it does not apply because Holy Ardor is about scoring a critical hit, not potentially getting one.

or

2. Rolling a single die to hit - that is, the rule on page 276, "compare you attack roll ...If you roll a natural 20..." and the rule on page 278, "When you roll a natural 20..."

Or both, of course.

All the basic rules on hitting are in the context of an attack roll. Holy Ardor is very, very different as it creates an entirely new context - rolling doubles. It's not an attack roll at all. It's something new.

Yes, Precision uses the term "roll numbers," but, in context, that's clearly referring to number other than 20 on an attack roll, not the special case of rolling doubles.

The lack of the word "can" and the reference to double ones not being a critical hit merely buttress my argument, but the key is that rolling doubles is not the same as making an attack roll, which is the normal context of the determining id a possible Critical Hit actually scores a Critical Hit.

 

[Flipguarder]

The context of Precision is either:
2. Rolling a single die to hit - that is, the rule on page 276, "compare you attack roll ...If you roll a natural 20..." and the rule on page 278, "When you roll a natural 20..."

The decision to rule that precision doesn't apply because there are two attack rolls, if taken to it's logical conclusion would mean avengers can crit on whatever they want.

 

[DracoSuave]

Not quite.

The context of Precision is either:

1. Rolling a potential critical hit (that is , modifying the "Critical Hit" rule just above it), in which case it does not apply because Holy Ardor is about scoring a critical hit, not potentially getting one.

And which part of Precision suggests, exactly, that it must be a 'potential' critical hit, and that scoring a critical hit excepts it? Cause Precision seems to be quite explicit that it's about 'score a critical hit' and not 'can score a critical hit.'

And exactly how does a rule that modifies the critical hit rule not affect a rule -you claim must follow the critical hit rule-?

2. Rolling a single die to hit - that is, the rule on page 276, "compare you attack roll ...If you roll a natural 20..." and the rule on page 278, "When you roll a natural 20..."

Rolling a single-die is not a requirement for rolling a natural 20. Any Avenger who has made an attack roll in their life can tell you that much for certain.

All the basic rules on hitting are in the context of an attack roll. Holy Ardor is very, very different as it creates an entirely new context - rolling doubles. It's not an attack roll at all. It's something new.

So... you're -not- rolling attack rolls with oath of emnity? That means I've been playing that ability wrong the entire time. Here I thought Oath of Emnity was about using two dice to resolve a single attack, using two rolls, so to speak.

Fortunately I'm glad you corrected me.

So, if Oath of Emnity isn't an attack roll, and Holy Ardor isn't an attack roll, what does 'When you make two attack rolls with oath of emnity' actually -mean-?

Cause... last I heard, you're rolling an attack roll here.

Yes, Precision uses the term "roll numbers," but, in context, that's clearly referring to number other than 20 on an attack roll, not the special case of rolling doubles.

Absolutely, I agree. And if you're rolling doubles, you're rolling a number other than 20, 19 out of 20 times.

Prove that you are not.

The lack of the word "can" and the reference to double ones not being a critical hit merely buttress my argument, but the key is that rolling doubles is not the same as making an attack roll, which is the normal context of the determining id a possible Critical Hit actually scores a Critical Hit.

So, rolling doubles when you make an attack roll isn't the same as making an attack roll?

Whenever you make two attack rolls because of your oath of enmity,

Seems to me you're making attack rolls here. That this, in fact, is -entirely related- to making an attack roll.

Please tell me when you can use Oath of Emnity without an attack roll.

 

[Artoomis]

The decision to rule that precision doesn't apply because there are two attack rolls, if taken to it's logical conclusion would mean avengers can crit on whatever they want.

No. because normally you are looking at the highest of two rolls, which uses all the normal rules.

"Doubles" is an entirely new paradigm that applies only to Holy Ardor.