Adent Champion. Rules lawyers required

[Artoomis]

See, there's the problem. You are flat out choosing to disregard Precision because it is inconvenient to your argument. It is rules text...

No, actually, even though I don't think it adds anything, I have argued against it, showing how it does not apply.

Your entire argument hinges on how other abilities 'can score a critical hit' and yet not hit, and how you believe Holy Ardor is different from that...

"Can score a critical hit" is not the same as "score a critical hit" nor the same as "allow" you to score a critical hit.

The words "Can" and "Allow" are permissive rules that would allow other rules to apply that describe how to to move from a possible critical hit to actually scoring a critical hit.

With Holy Ardor, WotC chose to drop all language that could indicate the "doubles" only created a possible critical hit situation and simply stated "you score a citical hit."

That, plus the argument about how "doubles" is not the same as rolling numbers other than 20 due to context, goes to show that "Precision" does not apply (even if I agreed it was an important rule).

 

[DracoSuave]

No, actually, even though I don't think it adds anything, I have argued against it showing how it does not apply.

Except, of course, by:

1) Proving that rolling doubles is not the same as making an attack roll.
2) Proving that doing so is not the same as rolling other than a 20.
3) Proving that Holy Ardor is not an ability other than that which allows critical hits on rolls other than 20
4) Proving that Precision is not a rule
5) Proving that abilities need grant permission to the rules that tell you how they work for those rules to work.

All five of these things have been supported and counterargued by the opposite camp.

You have -argued- them, but they have been debunked. So arguing is not the same as proving, which is what you are failing to do.

And that proof is necessary to claim there is an exception to the rules in the first place. Your entire case hinges on that exception existing, otherwise, you must apply the rules.

So, it is not sufficient to argue possibility, you must prove the case, and there's many possible things you can prove.

By the same token, I can argue all sorts of things that go against the rules. I can argue that fireball ignores fire immunity because it doesn't say the target -may- take damage. But I'd be wrong.

"Can score a critical hit" is not the same as "score a critical hit" not the same as "allow" you to score a critical hit.

The words "Can" and "Allow" are permissive rules that would allow other rules to apply that describe how to to move from a possible critical hit to actually scoring a critical hit.

You don't need to give permission to the rules for the rules to work. For that, I give you -THE REST OF THE GAME-.

There is more than enough evidence to prove that this premise is faulty. It's almost in the realm of bovine scat as to its ludicrousness.

However, let's start with -every power in the game-.

There's a good start.

With Holy Ardor, WotC chose to drop all language that could indicate the "doubles" only created a possible critical hit situation and simply stated "you score a citical hit."

Agreed. However, it has yet to be proven that said word is -necessary for the rule to work.- They've also dropped language in other rules templating as well.

Funny, no one's using -them- any differently.

That, plus the argument about how "doubles" is not the same as rolling number other than 20, goes to show that "Precision" does not apply (even if I agreed it was an important rule).

Ah. I see you added 'context' in there.

So, are you -honestly- claiming that the context of alternative methods of rolling a critical hit other than a natural 20 does not apply to an alternative method of rolling a critical hit other than a natural 20? REALLY!?!

Except this.

Rolling doubles IS, in 19 out of 20 cases, rolling a number other than 20. Here, let's go through every possible outcome (called the brute force method) to demonstrate.

Then you can try to disprove this claim.

First, Oath of Emnity says that we choose which number the attack roll is. We know that this applies to critical hits because either one being a 20 is a natural 20. So that means that Oath of Emnity's result -applies to the critical hit rules-.

Double 1s is rolling a 1, and therefore rolling a number other than 20.
Double 2s is rolling a 2, and therefore rolling a number other than 20.
Double 3s is rolling a 3, and therefore rolling a number other than 20.
Double 4s is rolling a 4, "
Double 5s is rolling a 5, "
Double 6s is rolling a 6, "
Double 7s is rolling a 7, "
Double 8s is rolling a 8, "
Double 9s is rolling a 9, "
Double 10s is rolling a 10, "
Double 11s is "


Seriously, do I -need- to go on?

So, you have a definate roll. It definately applies to the critical hit rules. There is no text telling you to skip the critical hit rules. The rule that applies uses the same language as Holy Ardor.

Where is the flaw in this?

 

[Flipguarder]

With Holy Ardor, WotC chose to drop all language that could indicate the "doubles" only created a possible critical hit situation and simply stated "you score a citical hit.

I don't really want to harp at you about everything, but "They could have worded it differently." is not the best argument in the world.

 

[Flipguarder]

Where is the flaw in this?

Well, one is that he needs to prove anything. He's said that he thinks both rulings are reasonable. He just thinks his is more probable.

 

[Artoomis]

I don't really want to harp at you about everything, but "They could have worded it differently." is not the best argument in the world.

Actually, the words they chose to use are critically important (if you'll pardon the pun). They chose words that removed all wiggle room.

"You score a critical hit," means, well, "you score a critical hit." Not you "might" or you "can", or you are "allowed", just you "do."

 

[Flipguarder]

Actually, the words they chose to use are critically important (if you'll pardon the pun). They chose words that removed all wiggle room.

"You score a critical hit," means, well, "you score a critical hit." Not you "might" or you "can", or you are "allowed", just you "do."

No removing the wiggle room would be if they added the phrase: "and this attack automatically hits." The fact that it doesn't say that results in quite a bit of wiggle room, as the last 21 pages of this thread would show.

 

[DracoSuave]

Actually, the words they chose to use are critically important (if you'll pardon the pun). They chose words that removed all wiggle room.

"You score a critical hit," means, well, "you score a critical hit." Not you "might" or you "can", or you are "allowed", just you "do."

It has been proven, already, that an ability does not need to give permission for the rules that govern that ability to work on it.

Again. Fireball does not give permission to fire immunity to work.

I get that you -think- this is important, but it is not merely -suggested- that it is unimportant, it is -proven- that it is unimportant.

In fact, if said permission -were- important, the game -would not work- because the game would be bogged down with language permitting every rule to work in every iteration of every ability in the game. Every time you had a power, you'd have to include language saying you 'could' hit and that you 'might' miss, and that 'opportunity attacks may happen here'.

How Basic Melee Attacks using 'can-is-required-for-stuff-to-work' templating:

At-Will * Weapon (sometimes an Implement is also a Weapon)
Standard Action sometimes * Melee weapon (except with a thrown weapon, which uses only reach, but not range)
Target: One creature, mostly. (An object is sometimes fine too, ask the DM tho)
Attack: Strength and some other stuff vs AC.
Hit: You might deal 1[W]+Strength damage. Sometimes more. Sometimes less. Depends. [W] has to be the weapon you use tho. Don't try switching weapons on us. Seriously, we mean it. Except when we don't. You might also knock something prone, or gain a bonus to hit later. You might mark a guy. You might add in bonus damage (which may be from a class feature or other power or feature).
Miss: You probably don't deal damage.
At 21st level or higher, you might deal 1[W]+Strength damage. Sometimes more. Sometimes less. Depends. [W] has to be the weapon you use tho. Don't try switching weapons on us. Seriously, we mean it. Except when we don't. You might also knock something prone, or gain a bonus to hit later. You might mark a guy. You might add in bonus damage (which may be from a class feature or other power or feature).
SpecialSometimes something else will say it can be used instead of this. We're telling you that it's okay.

It'd be a damn retarded mess. (also, every feat would have to be carefully added, because lest you should introduce a new way for a power or feature to give you a benefit, you'd have to errata the -entire product line-! EDIT: As an example, I had to errata it when I remembered Scimitar Dance, and the 21st weapon extra damage kicking in, and Druid Beast Form At-wills.)

Thankfully, common sense kicks in and we know to apply applicable rules unless an exception exists to countermand it.

The game works. That is proof that the rules do not require 'can' to work.

And Precision is a rule.

 

[Artoomis]

...
Double 1s is rolling a 1, and therefore rolling a number other than 20.
Double 2s is rolling a 2, and therefore rolling a number other than 20.
Double 3s is rolling a 3, and therefore rolling a number other than 20.
Double 4s is rolling a 4, "
Double 5s is rolling a 5, "
Double 6s is rolling a 6, "
Double 7s is rolling a 7, "
Double 8s is rolling a 8, "
Double 9s is rolling a 9, "
Double 10s is rolling a 10, "
Double 11s is "


Seriously, do I -need- to go on?

So, you have a definate roll. It definately applies to the critical hit rules. There is no text telling you to skip the critical hit rules. The rule that applies uses the same language as Holy Ardor.

Where is the flaw in this?

Doubles 9s (for example) is not rolling numbers other than 20. It is rolling double 9s, something entirely new in the game. It's a new creation for Holy Ardor.

All the other rules around hitting (and critical hitting) are around rolling one die (or the best of two, or something like that), not looking for doubles - that's a new creation, and it comes with a new rule for it: "you score a critical hit" - unless you roll double ones.

Precision does not apply because Holy Ardor is a game changing rule (an exception) that modifes the basic critcal hit rules dramatically by removing the requirement to score a certain number and for that number to be equal (or better) to the target's defense, instead, you roll doubles and score a critical hit.

 

[Artoomis]

It has been proven, already, that an ability does not need to give permission for the rules that govern that ability to work on it.

Again. Fireball does not give permission to fire immunity to work.

I get that you -think- this is important, but it is not merely -suggested- that it is unimportant, it is -proven- that it is unimportant.

In fact, if said permission -were- important, the game -would not work- because the game would be bogged down with language permitting every rule to work in every iteration of every ability in the game. Every time you had a power, you'd have to include language saying you 'could' hit and that you 'might' miss, and that 'opportunity attacks may happen here'.

It'd be a damn retarded mess.

Thankfully, common sense kicks in and we know to apply applicable rules unless an exception exists to countermand it.

The game works. That is proof that the rules do not require 'can' to work.

And Precision is a rule.

It's also been proven that words are important, especially when creating a new exception. If every clearly stated exception (like, "you score a critical hit") were to be picked apart like this one, then a whole host of powers would not work as designed and the game would break down.

Wow - see how easily that argument works both ways.

My argument here is basically simple.

Normally, to score a critical hit you must first score a certain number on the die, and that number must also at least tie the target's defense.

With Holy Ardor, instead you roll doubles - and that's it, because the power says that at that point you have scored a critical hit. Because it clearly states "you score a critical hit," you need go no further - you're done. You've got the crit.

The rules about needing to first tie the defender's score have been superseded.

 

[Artoomis]

The real reason that the lack of the word "can" (or any other word modifying "score a critical hit") is so important comes from the language in the Critical Hit rule itself:

"...you score a critical hit if your total attack roll is high enough to hit your target’s defense."

It's hard for me to see how, in the light of the above language, how "roll doubles and score a critical hit" can mean anything other than what it says. It creates a new condition for when you "score a critical hit." And not, there is a HUGE difference between "scoring a critical hit" and language like "you might score a critical hit" like is used in the "Hit" section of the rules.

They KNOW how to present this correctly to preserve the aspect of critical hits where you roll a potential critical hit and confirm it, and we have to assume either they presented it this way to create a new rule of no confirmation required or they are incompetent (at least in this instance). I chose to believe the former.