Adent Champion. Rules lawyers required

[abyssaldeath]

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

My question, is so what? Just because you crit on doubles doesn't mean it creates an entirely new rule that bypasses Precision.

 

[Artoomis]

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.'

Precision talks about powers that "allow" you to score a critical hit on numbers other than 20. Those powers (except Holy Ardor) all "allow" that critical hit only if the attack roll also is at least equal to the defense score.

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

Sorry, I do not understand the question.

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.

Rolling two dice and picking the highest is the same as rolling a die, for you only use one result as your attack roll - the other roll is just to see which one "counts" as you attack roll.

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

Fortunately I'm glad you corrected me.

Me, too. "Doubles" is not the same as using the highest of two rolls - it's an entirely new rule.

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

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

True, but the "doubles" is not an attack roll. It's something new based upon the two attack roll made with Oath of Enmity, but it's not an attack roll.

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.

I just did. Doubles is not an attack roll, it's something new and special. Normally you make two rolls and choose the best one to be your attack roll. Holy Ardor uses the result of both rolls when they match (doubles) - which has nothing to do with whether the result is a hit or not, only if they are doubles. Again, this is something entirely new and unique to this power - that is, an exception to the previous rules.

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

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 Enmity without an attack roll.

You never use Oath of Enmity without making an attack roll, but the "doubles" you get is not an attack roll - while based upon making two attack rolls, using the result of BOTH rolls (doubles) creates something entirely new.

 

[Artoomis]

My question, is so what? Just because you crit on doubles doesn't mean it creates an entirely new rule that bypasses Precision.

That's exactly what it means.

It's a new rule that tells you when you score a critical, as opposed to the powers that change the number needed to poentially score a critcal hit.

 

[Nifft]

You never use Oath of Enmity without making an attack roll, but the "doubles" you get is not an attack roll - while based upon making two attack rolls, using the result of BOTH rolls (doubles) creates something entirely new.

Ooo, clever.

So the order of evaluation is:
1: Roll two dice (these are NOT two attack rolls, so powers that trigger on attacks, like a Bard's Vigorous Cadence power, would not trigger twice)
2: Take the higher result.
3: Use this higher result as though you had rolled it (this is treated as your attack roll).

Holy Ardor would occur at 1.5 in this ordering. I'd argue you should still trigger powers like Vigorous Cadence at this stage, but that's just me.

Is anyone still keeping score? I say this one's worth three points.

Cheers, -- N

 

[CovertOps]

I have to say there are two really gaping holes in their position.

First is that because you are using OoE (an ability that has nothing to do with Holy Ardor) and rolling two dice to "attack" that if you have this other ability and you roll doubles it is no longer an attack. Did you roll dice in an attempt to hit something? It's an attack. Does it have rules that tell you how to resolve those multiple dice rolls into a single outcome? Yes. Are those rules overridden by anything? No.

The other gaping hole is the assumption that somehow "Critical Hit" grants you a "Hit" when the rules on "Critical Hit" are subservient to the "Hit" rules because "Hit" is a requirement of "Critical Hit".

If the attack roll is higher than or equal to the defense score, the attack hits and deals damage, has a special effect, or both.

Automatic Hit: If you roll a natural 20 (the die shows a 20), your attack automatically hits.

Critical Hit: If you roll a natural 20 (the die shows a 20), your attack might be a critical hit. A critical hit deals maximum damage, and some powers and magic items have an extra effect on a critical hit.

If your attack roll is lower than the defense score, the attack misses. Usually, there’s no effect. Some powers have an effect on a miss, such as dealing half damage.

Automatic Miss: If you roll a natural 1 (the die shows a 1), your attack automatically misses.

Natural 20: 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. If your attack roll is too low to score a critical hit, you still hit automatically.

Precision: Some class features and powers allow you to score a critical hit when you roll numbers other than 20 (only a natural 20 is an automatic hit).

Maximum Damage: Rather than roll damage, determine the maximum damage you can roll with your attack. This is your critical damage. (Attacks that don’t deal damage still don’t deal damage on a critical hit.)

Extra Damage: Magic weapons and implements, as well as high crit weapons, can increase the damage you deal when you score a critical hit. If this extra damage is a die roll, it’s not automatically maximum damage; you add the result of the roll.

Hit clearly says that you have to beat the defense score in order to "...deal damage...".

Critical Hit says you get to deal maximum damage, but says nothing about "Hit".

This to me says you are eligible to deal maximum damage, except that you missed (and therefore deal NO damage) in a situation such as double 2's.

If you really want to prove your side is right then show me where in the rules on "Critical Hit" that you either "Hit" (allowed to '...deal damage...') or "Miss" ('...usually no effect...').

And just as a side note (IMO): Precision doesn't matter. They need to prove how they got from "Critical Hit" to "Hit" using the rules on criticals. Because I'm sure that we can all agree that there are no powers out there with results like this:

Power X
Critical Hit: Do 50 damage.
Hit: Do 25 damage.
Miss: Do nothing. (usually just left off)

"Critical Hit" only modifies the damage applied to the "Hit" entry of a power so I want them to show what specific rule says they got a "Hit".

EDIT:
Or as I have stated all along show where in Holy Ardor you are granted a "Hit" such that it overrides the rules on "Hit".

 

[N8Ball]

And just as a side note (IMO): Precision doesn't matter. They need to prove how they got from "Critical Hit" to "Hit" using the rules on criticals. Because I'm sure that we can all agree that there are no powers out there with results like this:

Power X
Critical Hit: Do 50 damage.
Hit: Do 25 damage.
Miss: Do nothing. (usually just left off)

Actually I would agree with this completely, and for the very same reasons. Crit = hit is the crux of my argument, (along with the permissive language caveat).

I would say that though there are no powers that are written like that, there are numerous abilities that trigger on "scoring a critical hit" but make no mention whatsoever about hitting or missing.

Samir brought this up in a question about the feat Suprise Knockdown (PHB 201). If things really do work as you say, I haven't really heard a good reason yet why this wouldn't trigger if you can score a critical hit and miss.

Prerequisites: Str 15, rogue
Benefit: If you score a critical hit while you have
combat advantage, you knock the target prone.

 

[Artoomis]

...The other gaping hole is the assumption that somehow "Critical Hit" grants you a "Hit" when the rules on "Critical Hit" are subservient to the "Hit" rules because "Hit" is a requirement of "Critical Hit".

Hit clearly says that you have to beat the defense score in order to "...deal damage...".

Critical Hit says you get to deal maximum damage, but says nothing about "Hit".

This to me says you are eligible to deal maximum damage, except that you missed (and therefore deal NO damage) in a situation such as double 2's.

If you really want to prove your side is right then show me where in the rules on "Critical Hit" that you either "Hit" (allowed to '...deal damage...') or "Miss" ('...usually no effect...').

And just as a side note (IMO): Precision doesn't matter. They need to prove how they got from "Critical Hit" to "Hit" using the rules on criticals. Because I'm sure that we can all agree that there are no powers out there with results like this:

Power X
Critical Hit: Do 50 damage.
Hit: Do 25 damage.
Miss: Do nothing. (usually just left off)

"Critical Hit" only modifies the damage applied to the "Hit" entry of a power so I want them to show what specific rule says they got a "Hit".

Fair enough.

Holy Ardor grants you a "Critical Hit" if you roll doubles.

You normally can't have a "Critical Hit" unless you also "Hit." Holy Ardor, however, bypasses this requirement.

So, either you hit (implied by the fact that scored a critical hit) or you scored a critical hit but missed, which seems like a contradiction in terms and must not be true.

Therefore, when you "score a critical hit" you must have also "hit."

Yes, its a bit weird and could have be written better, as no matter what way you read this power you have to make some assumptions, and we should not have to do that.

 

[CovertOps]

Actually I would agree with this completely, and for the very same reasons. Crit = hit is the crux of my argument, (along with the permissive language caveat).

I would say that though there are no powers that are written like that, there are numerous abilities that trigger on "scoring a critical hit" but make no mention whatsoever about hitting or missing.

Samir brought this up in a question about the feat Suprise Knockdown (PHB 201). If things really do work as you say, I haven't really heard a good reason yet why this wouldn't trigger if you can score a critical hit and miss.

I actually think I can answer this. One version is the declarative "you score a critical hit" and the other is conditional "IF you score a critical hit". The declarative is granting max damage to a given attack (which can be nullified by my above arguments about "Hit" and "Miss") and the other is the case where the outcome has already been determined meaning you either got the critical ("Hit") or you didn't ("Miss").

 

[DracoSuave]

Yes, its a bit weird and could have be written better, as no matter what way you read this power you have to make some assumptions, and we should not have to do that.

The assumption I need to make is that you apply rules without counter-text saying otherwise.

Given this assumption is necessary for the game to work, I feel it's a safe one to make.

 

[DracoSuave]

Fair enough.

Holy Ardor grants you a "Critical Hit" if you roll doubles.

You normally can't have a "Critical Hit" unless you also "Hit." Holy Ardor, however, bypasses this requirement.

Precision then tells you, no wait, you can't bypass that requirement.

That's a -very- important statement there. That's the -point- behind Precision. It doesn't do anything else.

So, either you hit (implied by the fact that scored a critical hit) or you scored a critical hit but missed, which seems like a contradiction in terms and must not be true.

Therefore, when you "score a critical hit" you must have also "hit."

Except that there exist situations that tell you to do something you cannot do because of other situations. So the precident exists where you're told to do something, but as it turns out, you're not allowed to do it.

The easiest example is a power telling you to shift while you are immobilized. But there are a myriad others where you are denied something you are told you get, because of limitations set on the abilities that tell you to get something.

So, the premises are true, the logic itself is proven faulty by the way rules work in the game.