Adent Champion. Rules lawyers required

[DracoSuave]

There's some other stuff in that post that I really wanted to respond to, but it would have been a distraction from the point I'm trying to get at.



Hold it right there. Would you care to back that statement up with some text or something? Where in all the rulebooks does it tell you to cancel out crits because you didn't hit?

Actually that's an interesting statement. Nothing says 'if you don't hit, you don't crit.' I mean, except for how natural 20 works. And that rule is called 'automatic hit'. And it says that if you roll a 20 but don't hit, you don't actually crit, but just normally hit.

And then Precision goes and tells you that only 20s benefit from automatic hits -at all-.

I mean no, it doesn't say it -verbatim-. But it does imply this -heavily.-


But regardless of that.... the precident exists where you are told by a power or feature to do something and another rule tells you that it is not possible. Immobilized tells you non-forced movement is not possible. Dazed tells you immediate actions are not possible. Charge tells you that further actions are not possible--barring one exception.

It's not difficult to see that 'Even if X says it happens, X might not happen' is definately a logically sound statement in fourth edition.

Which means the counter argument 'It says you crit, so you can't not crit' is utter horse hockey. Clearly, it is quite possible.

What happens if you 'definately crit' and Armor of Bahamut kicks in?

Well, it -says- you score a crit, so obviously, you -must- crit. Outside rules can't say you can't? B.S. You don't crit in this instance, Armor of Bahamut says you do not.

And, as you said, if you accept the logic 'If you critical hit, you must hit' then you -must- accept the logic 'If you do not hit, you do not critical hit.'

It's a basic law of logic: p -> q <=> ~q -> ~p.

So it cuts both ways. If you do not hit, you cannot crit.

'Oh, but see, it works in reverse too, ya? If you crit, you hit! Aha! We got you!'

But as I already said, an ability -saying- you crit is not the same thing as actually critting, for the same reason that -This power says it deals 4 damage- is not the same thing as -The spirit companion takes 4 damage-.

Look at that for a moment. You have a situation where the power says it does something 'deal 4 damage' but you have the spirit companion specificly say it can be targeted by that power, but then says 'But it only deals damage if it's above 5+half your level.'

Sound familiar? You have an instance (X), and a rule that explicitly says that instance X can work, but then limits what X -can- in fact do.

So you can have something -say- something but have that something -not happen.- Saying something happens is -not- an exception to rules that say -how- that something may not happen. To do so, you need further rules, that tell you that this is a different case, how it is a different case, and what to do because it is a different case.

Therefore 'The ability says it scores a crit' is not a guarantee of a critical hit. You must apply -all- applicable rules normally in the absense of an exception. You cannot assume it is a critical hit before you do so, for the -exact reason- you cannot assume the above power deals damage to a spirit companion... there -might- be a reason why it does not.



So, to sum up.

Yes, the ability says you crit.
Saying event X happens is not enough to guarantee X happens when contravening rules apply.
If you succesfully crit, you must successfully hit, and so:
If you do not hit, you cannot crit.
Precision removes any sense of automatic hit from Holy Ardor, and without any language indicating Holy Ardor is -truly- differing from this, the regular rules apply.
The regular rules say you do not hit.
Therefore, you do not crit.


So... does Call Spirit Companion work as I say above? Or does the absense of 'can' in damage text negate how CSC deals with damage to a Spirit Companion.

The problem with your logic, is that when applied -exactly as you describe- to other instances, you break the rules apart.

That's a sign the logic is -wrong-. In debates, it's called a 'Disproof by Counterexample.' It renders your argument form meaningless. It is a -proof- things do not work as you believe.

 

[Kraydak]

So, to sum up.

Yes, the ability says you crit.

Check

Saying event X happens is not enough to guarantee X happens when contravening rules apply.

Check. Rule contradictions of this form are handled by the specific trumps general rule in DnD.

If you succesfully crit, you must successfully hit, and so:
If you do not hit, you cannot crit.

Utterly unsupported by the rules.

Precision removes any sense of automatic hit from Holy Ardor, and without any language indicating Holy Ardor is -truly- differing from this, the regular rules apply.
The regular rules say you do not hit.

Check

Therefore, you do not crit.

Unsupported by the rules.

 

[ObsidianCrane]

If Holy Ardor said: "When you use Oath of Enmity, you score a Crit, unless you roll double 1." I would be satisfied it does not call on the Precision rule. However the "if you roll a double" text is what leads me to believe Precision applies.

1 Did you roll an attack?
2 Did you roll a number?
3 Is that number the same on both dice rolled due to Oath of Enmity?
3a Is that number a 20?
- If not a 20; If it is a Hit it is a Crit (Precision); Else it is Not a Hit, it is not a Crit, it is a Miss.
- If it is a 20; If it is a Hit it is a Crit. Else it is Not a Hit (Precision) it is not a Crit, it is a Miss.
4 Is one of the Dice a 20?
- If yes and it is a hit; it is a crit; else it is a hit.
- If no is it a hit?
- -If it is a hit; else it is a miss.
5 If Hit; (if a Crit do Maximum Damage; else Do Damage); else do Miss


You cannot get to 3 without 1 and 2, you cannot have a double without a number in the case of an attack roll. (You might have other funky dice that can generate oter double results afterall.) You must therefor have rolled a number other than 20 and therefor invoke the Precision rule.

 

[ObsidianCrane]

If you succesfully crit, you must successfully hit, and so:
If you do not hit, you cannot crit.

Utterly unsupported by the rules.

Actually it is, the Crit rules specifically allow you to roll a result that would be a Crit if it Hit, but not hit and thus not be a Crit.

Critical Hit Rules work like this;

Attack{
Hit= a d20 roll + modifiers = > targeted defence of target.
Nat20 = the d20 shows a 20
Precision = the d20 shows a number other than 20 that you can score a Crit with
CritChance = a Nat20 or Precision
Miss = a d20 roll + modifiers < targeted defence of target.
Crit = Maximum damage and other effects requiring a Critical Hit
Damage = Normal damage of the Attack.

If (Hit AND CritChance) Then Crit; Else (If (Nat20) then Do(Damage); Else Miss);}

The argument of Artoomis is fundamentally that because Holy Ardor uses "rolled a double" that it creates this situation:

Attack{
Hit= a d20 roll + modifiers = > targeted defence of target.
Nat20 = the d20 shows a 20
Precision = the d20 shows a number other than 20 that you can score a Crit with
HolyArdor = you roll doubles other than double 1 using Oath of Enmity on d20 as part of an Attack
CritChance = a Nat20 or Precision
Miss = a d20 roll + modifiers < targeted defence of target.
Crit = Maximum damage and other effects requiring a Critical Hit
Damage = Normal damage of the Attack.

If ((Hit AND CritChance) OR HolyArdor) Then Crit; Else (If (Nat20) then Do(Damage); Else Miss);}

The problem is that this requires that Holy Ardor not roll a number on a d20 as part of an attack roll to not invoke Precision. But Holy Ardor does roll a number on a d20 on an attack roll, leaving that as false. You cannot ignore the underlying rules unless explicitly told to do so in exception based design.

 

[Kraydak]

Actually it is, the Crit rules specifically allow you to roll a result that would be a Crit if it Hit, but not hit and thus not be a Crit.

But that only refers to critting on a natural 20. It is not inherent in critting *in general*. Note that the algorithm for applying criticals does not (or at least I noticed it didn't the last time I looked at it, but I could have missed it, AFB) reference running the "hit" line.

Now, IF you had crits as a subset of hits, THEN Holy Ardor WOULD say doubles (not 1s) gives you a Crit (and a hit), because then criticals include hits. And Holy Ardor, as a more specific rule than the general PHB hit/miss rules, would take precedence.

 

[Artoomis]

Since my fundamental argument is around a new mechanic (doubles) plus a rule telling you how that works (score a critical hit), and the counter primarily says the other rules on critical hits must still apply (must hit first), what if we had the following (I generally don't like "what if," but I think this one is powerful):

If you use Oath of Enmity and roll doubles, you hit, unless you get double ones.

That language is fundamentally the same as the existing Holy Ardor feature:

If you use Oath of Enmity and roll doubles, you score a critical hit, unless you get double ones.

Do you folks see the same result (in your case: Doubles 2 denied the Hit because a "2" did not at least tie the target's defense) or would the language that essentially says doubles = Hit override the previous rule?

FWIW, as I see it in both cases:

A new mechanic (roll doubles) has a new rule for it ("Hit", in the "what if; "Score a Critical Hit" in "Holy Ardor") and it is that simple. You follow the new rule, which is creating an exception.

 

[keterys]

The hit rules don't include 'Precision' - crits do - so those are entirely different rules. The first can work, while the latter fails.

The doubles being a hit would be interesting, though

 

[Artoomis]

...The problem is that this requires that Holy Ardor not roll a number on a d20 as part of an attack roll to not invoke Precision. But Holy Ardor does roll a number on a d20 on an attack roll, leaving that as false. You cannot ignore the underlying rules unless explicitly told to do so in exception based design.

1. With Holy Ardor you roll two attacks rolls and pick the highest one per Oath of Enmity. At that point, all the normal rules apply and you have your attack roll (the higher one) that is used for the "Hit" and "Critical Hit" rules. Then Holy Ardor adds in a new wrinkle - check the result of the OTHER (now unused) d20 and, if they are identical, you score a critical hit. At this point you are no longer looking at the result from a d20, but the result from TWO d20s TOGETHER. This is something entirely new, and comes with a new rule for it, "you score a critcal hit."

2. "You score a critical hit" is an explicit exception. ALL other modifications to Critical Hit rules either explicitly give you the possibility of a Critical Hit or are explicitly applied only after a Hit is achieved. The dropping of the word "can" cannot be presumed to be meaningless, especially in the context of a new rules mechanic (doubles).

WotC knows how to write "you can score a critical on 18-20" or, as it would be in this case, "you can score a critical if you roll doubles." They chose not to write it that way and how can we, with intellectual honesty, disregard the way they chose to write it? It's a claer signal that this new rule is a departure (an exception) from the previous rule on how to score a critical hit.

 

[Artoomis]

The hit rules don't include 'Precision' - crits do - so those are entirely different rules. The first can work, while the latter fails.

The doubles being a hit would be interesting, though

Fair point. So what does Precision really say? Let's parse it:

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).

Some class features and powers allow you to score a critical hit when you roll numbers other than 20...

That says nothing we don't know from each feature or power. Nothing new, no actual rules here.

,,,(only a natural 20 is an automatic hit)

Again, nothing new, we already know that only a natural 20 is an automatic hit.

So there is no new information or rule here.

The Critical Hit rule tells you how to decide if the possibility of a critical hit actually scores a critical hit.

So, Precision is nothing, really. Just reminders of rules that exists elsewhere anyway. It does serve one useful purpose though, it reminds us that if you have the possibility of a critical hit and don't at least tie the target's defense score, you'll only hit with a natural 20.

Attempts to use Precision as a rule requires one to assumptions and implications to some up with some rule that would void our Holy Ardor new rule on doubles.

 

[keterys]

You might want to not ungroup Precision from the lines immediately above it '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.'

Well, I suppose you _do_ want to ungroup it. Carry right on.

Actually - out of curiosity - do you play or DM for a character who is an avenger and might have or take this paragon path? Or is it more just for the fun of debate?