Adent Champion. Rules lawyers required

[Artoomis]

In this case I ask again. Let's assume for a moment that Holy Ardor does NOT create a new mechanic. How would you reword Precision so it applies to Holy Ardor AND any other granted critical hit other than natural 20?

I want to know what you think about Precision doesn't apply.

Okay, seems kind of pointless, but I'll play.

First, I'd eliminate Precision all together.

I'd re-write Critical to be:

If you roll a 20 (or a lower number as granted by a feature or power) 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 if you rolled a natural 20.

This is much better, I think, but still would not apply to rolling doubles, especially as phrased in Holy Ardor.

If I wanted Holy Ardor to be covered by the normal Critical Hit rules with only an exception changing the roll being from one die to doubles but still needing to hit, I'd re-wrtite as:

Whenever you make two attack rolls because of your oath of enmity, you may score a critical hit if both dice have the same roll (your total attack roll must still be high enough to hit your target’s defense).

 

[WalterKovacs]

If the lack of 'can' is the basis for rules argument, does Steel Vanguard Veteran not need to 'hit' with a 19? Or 20, for that matter.

"You score critical hits on a 19 or 20 with any at-will exploit associated with this feat when using a two-handed heavy blade."

Or Cutthroat Scrutiny?

"During this time, you score a critical hit against the target on a natural roll of 19 or 20."

That would be a result.

Then again, there is a RAI vs. RAW question as well and since this argument isn't going to be resolved until WOTC makes an official ruling odds are that everything questionable will be errata'd. Also, both of the powers you quoted are from the same Dragon Magazine issue (article?) which could indicate simple poor wording. I don't recall "during this time" being used before, but I could be wrong.

The biggest problem of course is that any critical mechanic outside of Ardent Champion is a corner case situation, since it is only on rare occaisions where a natural 17-20 will NOT hit your opponent's defences ... ussually a perfect storm of high defence opponent and debuffing, probably blindness or running as well.

At this point it's every DM for himself until we get an errata/'official' ruling.

 

[Artoomis]

...I also maintain that your willingness to override requirements without said override being explicitly stated has ramifications well beyond this simple power...

Well, I maintain the rules has been explicitly replaced by Holy Ardor as shown by the language used. I have shown this to be the case in many different ways, and your unwillingness to see that does not change the validity of my logic one bit.

....Holy Ardor is a new kind of rule, but it has yet to create an unexpected situation. That's what matters for 'newness.' Otherwise, Oath of Enmity would never crit, because it -too- is a 'new rule.'

You've not established the new mechanic creates an unaccounted for situation. You've not established a new rule for resolution -even exists-.

Therefore you're creating something out of nothing here.

Oath of Enmity crits normally because, though it too is a new rule, it merely causes you to pick one of two attack rolls. As soon as you do that, you have one attack roll to use, which works fine with all rules as written.

Holy Ardor creates an entirely new situation where you actually use the results of two rolls.

The previous rules give no way to handle that situation.

Sure, you can read Precision is such a way so to make it apply to Holy Ardor, but I maintain that's a strained reading and ignores the context of Precision completely - that being analyzing the results of an attack roll.

Further, as I have shown, the way Holy Ardor is written as "When... you score a critical hit if..." is virtually identical construction as the Critical Hit rule of "If...you score a critical hit if..." and therefore can only reasonably be read as replacing that rule. That's as explicit as it needs to be, at least for me, though, apparently, not for you.

 

[CovertOps]

Okay, seems kind of pointless, but I'll play.

First, I'd eliminate Precision all together.

I'd re-write Critical to be:

If you roll a 20 (or a lower number as granted by a feature or power) 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 if you rolled a natural 20.

This is much better, I think, but still would not apply to rolling doubles, especially as phrased in Holy Ardor.

If I wanted Holy Ardor to be covered by the normal Critical Hit rules with only an exception changing the roll being from one die to doubles but still needing to hit, I'd re-wrtite as:

Whenever you make two attack rolls because of your oath of enmity, you may score a critical hit if both dice have the same roll (your total attack roll must still be high enough to hit your target’s defense).

I guess maybe I missed the mark on the question I asked. What I am trying to get at is how would you word the critical hit rules such that they apply to ALL critical hits without having to mention specific exceptional mechanics such as a critical being granted by Holy Ardor on doubles AND any other new mechanic WotC might come up with over the course of the game.

Our position has pretty much been that the critical hit rules apply to ALL critical hits and that either you got a natural 20 (one path) or you got any other result that allows a critical (Precision). Either way the "Hit" rules (Precision) still apply (mostly just a reminder).

So my question again is how would you want Precision reworded so it simply applies to ANY critical where you rolled something other than 20 without mentioning specific mechanics of how you got the critical? A general rule that does what it is supposed to do...cover all cases by being generic enough in it's wording where you need some really specific wording to circumvent it.

Or alternatively some reasoning why you think doubles IS different enough (without granting itself a specific exemption) to warrant being immune to Precision.

I'd be willing to hear from you N8Ball on this too. I am genuine in my interest about what you think makes doubles so special that Precision does not apply (considering that OoE - the ability that allows you to roll the two dice - gives a method to resolve the two rolls into a single roll which could then qualify for Precision).

Edit: Keeping in mind that my position is that this is all resolved by following the ordered rules for making an attack on p269 and that permissive language just simply doesn't matter ("can" - Dagger Master IMO could be worded "you score a critical" and would be no different than it is now, or if it was worded this way would you argue that Precision doesn't apply to it either based on the lack of the permissive?). I'm more interested in how you think Precision would need to be reworded, but if you prefer to do the other what I'd like to know is why doubles is so different than rolling say 18-19 for Dagger Master when both grant you a critical.

 

[Artoomis]

...Or alternatively some reasoning why you think doubles IS different enough (without granting itself a specific exemption) to warrant being immune to Precision....

Okay.

Doubles is not an attack roll. It is comparing two attack rolls and, in addition to picking one and then applying the normal Hit/Automatic HIt/Critical Hit rules to that roll, we are told to "score a critical hit " if the doubles are not double ones.

It's the fact that it is not an attack roll that creates the totally new situation that is not covered by Precision or the other Hit/Automatic Hit/Critical Hit rules, either.

Holy Ardor presents something entirely new - using the result of BOTH attack rolls you make with Oath of Enmity. Because of this, it needs to gives us the rule for what to do with that result, and it does. Score a critical hit unless it is double ones.

For with Holy Ardor two things are happening.

1. Roll twice and use the highest roll for your attack roll (Oath of Enmity).
2. If you roll doubles, score a critical hit unless they are ones.

The only reasonable counter to this argument would need to focus on how rolling doubles is nothing special, but I have a lot of trouble with that as explained above.

 

[Artoomis]

...Edit: Keeping in mind that my position is that this is all resolved by following the ordered rules for making an attack on p269...

Ah, but, when scrutinized, those rules don't support your argument.

Focusing only the relevant steps:

3. Make an Attack Roll. (Whoops - Holy Ardor is not "an Attack Roll" - it is TWO Attack Rolls and, unlike Oath of Enmity, not using just one of them (which would be "an Attack Roll"), but using when the two rolls match (doubles - which is not "an Attack Roll")

4. Compare your attack roll to your target's defense (page 274) to determine if whether you hit or miss. (Whoops again - it turns out that's not how you always do this right from the start - "Automatic Hit" would never trigger if you had to always check against the target's defense first. This sets a nice precedent for the possibility of a class feature or power that does not care whether you roll high enough to hit your target’s defense to get credited with a hit)

So far, all counters to my arguments seem to require one to look at doubles as if it was really nothing special, and that is wrong because this mechanic is not used anywhere else in the rules, and that is practically the definition of "special.".

So, a question right back at you:

How is using the both results of the Oath of Enmity attack rolls (doubles) the same as making an attack roll?

 

[Nifft]

Wow ... that's a lot of posts. Anyone even called custserv?

Several people did, but nobody treats CustServ as authoritative.

Cheers, -- N

 

[CovertOps]

Ah, but, when scrutinized, those rules don't support your argument.

Focusing only the relevant steps:

3. Make an Attack Roll. (Whoops - Holy Ardor is not "an Attack Roll" - it is TWO Attack Rolls and, unlike Oath of Enmity, not using just one of them (which is "an Attack Roll"), but using when the two rolls match (doubles)

4. Compare your attack roll to your target's defense (page 274) to determine if whether you hit or miss. (Whoops again - it turns out that's not how you always do this right from the start - "Automatic Hit" would never trigger if you had to always check against the target's defense first. This sets a nice precedent for the possibility of a class feature or power that does not care whether you roll high enough to hit your target’s defense to get credited with a hit)

So far, all counters to my arguments seem to require one to look at doubles as if it was really nothing special, and that is wrong because this mechanic is not used anywhere else in the rules, and that is practically the definition of "special.".

So, a question right back at you:

How is using the both results of the Oath of Enmity attack rolls (doubles) the same as making an attack roll?

Effect: When you make a melee attack against the target and the target is the only enemy adjacent to you, you make two attack rolls and use either result. This effect lasts until the end of the encounter or until the target drops to 0 hit points, at which point you regain the use of this power.

How is using the both results of the Oath of Enmity attack roll(s) (doubles) the same as making an attack roll?

Note the use of the exact same terminology? Perhaps you missed where the outcome of OoE is an attack roll.

Your flawed logic:
Holy Ardor does not grant an attack roll of any kind (we agree). Therefore you cannot use Holy Ardor in the resolution of step 3 because it isn't an attack roll granting power. Nor does it modify the attack roll process.

OoE, however, does modify attack roll by granting 2 dice rolls and then giving a rule on how to resolve those 2 rolls into a single result which can then be used in step 4 to determine an outcome.

Trying to use a power that grants a critical hit to resolve the results of an attack roll is absurd. Holy Ardor can (correctly) be applied to step 5 (apply damage).

 

[Dan'L]

Well, I maintain the rules has been explicitly replaced by Holy Ardor as shown by the language used.

Okay, I've been trying to stay out of this, but this has been bugging me.

explicit, adjective.
1. clearly expressed; distinctly stated; definite.

implicit, adjective.
1. meant, but not clearly expressed or distinctly stated; implied.
...
3. involved as a necessary part or condition; contained (in).

Explicit is what Draco has been arguing and showing, and implicit is what you've been maintaining.

Sure, you can read Precision is such a way so to make it apply to Holy Ardor, but I maintain that's a strained reading and ignores the context of Precision completely - that being analyzing the results of an attack roll.

So please, then, show how Precision explicitly applies only to single attack rolls, or to attack rolls at all, since there is no actual mention of attack rolls anywhere within Precision.

Do you take it as implicit that "roll numbers" = "make an attack roll?" If so, then how is that necessarily any more valid that "numbers" (in the plural) can implicitly cover rolling two dice and not just one?

How is using the both results of the Oath of Enmity attack rolls (doubles) the same as making an attack roll?

Because both situations involve rolling numbers on dice which may not equal 20. QED.

-Dan'L

 

[Artoomis]

Note the use of the exact same terminology? Perhaps you missed where the outcome of OoE is an attack roll.

Huh? I did not miss that, and agree, though it is no relevant to Holy Ardor.

Your flawed logic:
Holy Ardor does not grant an attack roll of any kind (we agree). Therefore you cannot use Holy Ardor in the resolution of step 3 because it isn't an attack roll granting power. Nor does it modify the attack roll process.

OoE, however, does modify attack roll by granting 2 dice rolls and then giving a rule on how to resolve those 2 rolls into a single result which can then be used in step 4 to determine an outcome.

Trying to use a power that grants a critical hit to resolve the results of an attack roll is absurd. Holy Ardor can (correctly) be applied to step 5 (apply damage).

Unfortunately, your logic also means you cannot possible get a automatic hit, because that modifies the results of comparing the attack roll to the target's defense.

There is no reason why a new rule (an exception) cannot modify the way you achieve the result of "Critical Hit" Further, we know that any time you actually achieve the result of Critical Hit you apply damage (critical damage, to be specific) per page 276.

So what, excatly, does Holy Ardor do relevant to the above paragraph? It creates a new rule for how to acheive the result of "Critical hit." That way is to roll doubles (other than doubles ones) when rolling the attack rolls for OoE.