Adent Champion. Rules lawyers required

[DracoSuave]

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")

I am simply going to point out the absurdity that Holy Ardor is two Attack Rolls and therefore unlike Oath of Emnity?

WUT!?!

And that making two attack rolls is not the same as making attack rolls?

WUT!?!

And that doubles on an attack roll isn't an attack roll?

WUT!?!

I'm sorry. You've gone into the realm of rediculous with this one. Once cannot argue with rediculous. One point -has- been made however:

The previous rules give no way to handle that situation.

And our whole point the entire time is that the rules, in fact, do. Roll doubles. Precision says hit is not automatic. Can the hit be resolved normally? Yes, it can, because Oath of Emnity works just fine. Therefore things can be done as is.

Your Premise here Is Disproven.

Any argument based on this premise requires reformulation.


Can you please stop rehashing disproven arguments, this is part of the reason we keep going in circles.

 

[Artoomis]

...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?


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

-Dan'L

Actually, you can only get to the precision "rule" if you have followed the path to the Critical Hit rule. That path start with "an attack roll."

Holy Ardor sort of jumps pat all that and straight to a result of Critical Hit based upon not "an attack roll" but upon rolling doubles on two attack rolls. this fundamentally changes the normal OeE situation where on result would normally be discarded to leave you with "an attack roll."

Realizing that Precision is only in the context of "an attack roll," the "numbers" term can only be referring to the fact that some powers let you roll numbers other than 20 to potentially get a critical - those number could be, for example, 18 and 19.

If "numbers" is truly vital to be taken as plural then, by that reading, if a feature or power lets you roll a 19 to possibly get a critical hit, Precision would not apply because that is only the possiblity of one number other than 20, not "numbers."

 

[Artoomis]

I am simply going to point out the absurdity that Holy Ardor is two Attack Rolls and therefore unlike Oath of Emnity?

WUT!?!

No, Holy Ardor is BOTH attack rolls and therefore not like OeE which is pick one of the two attack rolls.

WUT!?!

And that making two attack rolls is not the same as making attack rolls?

WUT!?!

Making and using the result of BOTH attack rolls is not thw same as making an attak roll.

And that doubles on an attack roll isn't an attack roll?

WUT!?!

Right - doubles on a pair of attack rolls is not the same as an attack roll.

...Your Premise here Is Disproven.

No, it is not. What I have proven (since you like that word so much) is that your whole argument has a false premise - that rolling doubles is nothing more than a rolling numbers on an attack die, the context of "Precision."

 

[DracoSuave]

Actually, you can only get to the precision "rule" if you have followed the path to the Critical Hit rule. That path start with "an attack roll."

You know Oath of Emnity -also- only kicks in at 'An attack roll', right? And that what Oath of Emnity does is make two attack rolls into one, right?

Holy Ardor sort of jumps pat all that and straight to a result of Critical Hit based upon not "an attack roll" but upon rolling doubles on two attack rolls. this fundamentally changes the normal OeE situation where on result would normally be discarded to leave you with "an attack roll."

Not at all. Both happen during the 'make an attack roll step.' It's no different between seeing doubles and seeing a 19 staring at you. And doing so doesn't make Oath of Emnity stop working. It -still- makes you choose one of the dice.

You also don't -stop- resolving an attack at 'critical hit.' Nothing in the book suggests you stop.

Where are you pulling this from?

Realizing that Precision is only in the context of "an attack roll," the "numbers" term can only be referring to the fact that some powers let you roll numbers other than 20 to potentially get a critical - those number could be, for example, 18 and 19.

Holy Ardor is only in the context of Oath of Emnity. Oath of Emnity is only in the context of an attack roll. If Precision only applies in the context of "an attack roll" then Oath of Emnity is the -very thing- that puts Holy Ardor in that context.

Or does Oath of Emnity have to do with something other than attacking?

And regardless, making two attack rolls is still making an attack roll twice. I know, I counted.

If "numbers" is truly vital to be taken as plural then, by that reading, if a feature or power lets you roll a 19 to possibly get a critical hit, Precision would not apply because that is only the possiblity of one number other than 20, not "numbers."

Seriously, are you honestly trying to present this as a premise? It's rediculous if you've gotten past Grade 3 in English communication.

The plural is the correct way to discribe an indefinate number that may include 1. If I ask you 'How many pages describe critical hits?' that doesn't mean the answer is automaticly not 1.

Please do not be obtuse on purpose to make a point. It devalues your argument.

 

[Flipguarder]

Artoomis, to believe that holy ardor is not an attack roll is just... unreasonable. So you are implying that WOTC created an entirely new mechanic for hitting things and explained it completely by omitting the word "can". That is just.... unreasonable.

 

[Artoomis]

Before this goes any further, let me explain my current goal is this debate.

It is not to convince my opponents I am right, not to declare they are flat out wrong. It may appear that way, but all I really want is for them to say,

"Yes, I can see where you are coming from and that is a legitimate alternate interpretation of these rules and there, since the rules allow to valid interpretation; neither of is truly really right or wrong here and both interpretations are valid until WotC clarifies this point."

 

[DracoSuave]

No, Holy Ardor is BOTH attack rolls and therefore not like OeE which is pick one of the two attack rolls.

WUT!?!

No, it's making two attack rolls however, and what you claim is the context of Precision, an attack roll, is the situation happening that allows those doubles in the first place.

I figured that was obvious, seeing as OoE says 'MAKE TWO ATTACK ROLLS'

Making and using the result of BOTH attack rolls is not thw same as making an attak roll.

Rolling a natural 20 on an attack roll is not the same thing as an attack roll either. Both are events, but one is the effect, and the other is a cause.

Precision is concerned with 'an attack roll' as you say, which is the -cause-. That -cause- still applies to Holy Ardor. And there is no way you can say that -cause- doesn't apply, because Oath of Emnity flat out -tells you- to make attack rolls.

I thought that was obvious.

Right - doubles on a pair of attack rolls is not the same as an attack roll.

No, doubles on a pair of attack rolls is the -result- of an attack roll in this instance. So that context STILL APPLIES.

No, it is not. What I have proven (since you like that word so much) is that your whole argument has a false premise - that rolling doubles is nothing more than a rolling numbers on an attack die, the context of "Precision."

Putting your fingers in your ears and saying 'blah blah blah' and flat out ignoring the fact that in order for Holy Ardor to work, at some point, you have to make attack rolls. And attack rolls are what Precision apply to.

And you're doing it.

Seriously.

The -result- of that attack roll is modified by different factors than you might be used to, but that doesn't take the context away from it, nor does any of that make Precision not work. And we've -proven- it isn't a situation Precision can't handle, as we -went ahead and showed it working just fine-.

You claim the rules can't handle it, but we've proven that the rules -can.-

THAT IS A PROOF. That is not 'suggestion.' That is not 'intension' or 'speculation.' We've disproven your claim; proven that the rules can handle the situation by showing you how it does, and how it can. It is -not- an opinion, it is a fact.

So -please- stop ignoring or disregarding facts that do not support your argument. Please stop saying the facts are not facts because they do not support your argument. And the fact is: The rules support Holy Ardor just fine. You don't need to read -anything- into it other than what you'd read into any other critical-hit granting power.

That's why Occam's Razor points to our position... because it's simply the most reasonable and simplest fit: That it's business as usual.

 

[Flipguarder]

Before this goes any further, let me explain my current goal is this debate.

It is not to convince my opponents I am right, not to declare they are flat out wrong. It may appear that way, but all I really want is for them to say,

"Yes, I can see where you are coming from and that is a legitimate alternate interpretation of these rules and there, since the rules allow to valid interpretation; neither of is truly really right or wrong here and both interpretations are valid until WotC clarifies this point."

Yes, I can see where you are coming from, however some of your premises are flawed and unreasonable, the rules only really allow for one valid interpretation. I apologize for the inconvenience, but your interpretation is fairly clearly less probable than ours. All this being said, I don't think it's completely idiotic or ridiculous to use your interpretation until WotC clarifies this point (which it does need to do).

 

[Nifft]

It's rediculous if you've gotten past Grade 3 in English communication.

Before anyone jumps on him, there is, in fact, a law that states you must make a ridiculous spelling and/or grammar mistake when flaming someone else for spelling and/or grammar.

However, I note you've fallen into insulting your opponent's abilities instead of countering his arguments.

Methinks the debate part of the thread is over.

Ciao, -- N

 

[Artoomis]

Artoomis, to believe that holy ardor is not an attack roll is just... unreasonable. So you are implying that WOTC created an entirely new mechanic for hitting things and explained it completely by omitting the word "can". That is just.... unreasonable.

Well, it's not only leaving out the word, "can."

The whole rule is spelled out the same way as the normal rule for Critical Hit, but with a different mechanic and a different way to get to the result.

That's the core of it, really. It's hard to imagine that this new rule (Holy Ardor) does not replace the old rule for Critical Hit determination when the language chosen is so close to being identical except for the change in conditions that get you to "score a critical hit."

The old rule: If A happens, then "score a critical hit" if B.

The new rule: When C happens, "score a critical hit" if D.

I find it a very difficult interpretation to say it really means When C happens, "score a critical hit" if D, but also only if B.

I also find it a stretch that "Precision" somehow means that the normal rules for Critical Hit apply even if a power supersedes those rules.