Adent Champion. Rules lawyers required

[DracoSuave]

"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."

Unfortunately, I do not hold this belief that your interpretation is reasonable, nor even cogent. I do not see your interpretation as valid, because it does not have reasonable premises leading to a reasonable conclusion through a reasonable argument, nor do I see it as cogent, because it does not seem to me to be a likely interpretation under rational examination.

So, I cannot in good conscience describe your position as valid, nor as cogent.

Validity of a position is based on the validity of the argument for that position.

The only valid argument I've seen for your position was someone a long time ago suggesting it might be more fun to do it your way. And -that- position I promptly -did- say, 'Yep, that's some good reason right there.'

If you wish to prove the case where both sides have valid, do not present invalid arguments.

 

[CovertOps]

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.

This ignores "Compare your attack roll to your target's defense (see page 274 to see how this is accomplished) and (without the books in front of me mind you) I'm pretty sure that p276 with the automatic hit rules are included in that resolution.

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.

You are correct....there is no reason why a new rule cannot modify the way you achieve a critical hit. All those methods require you to first:

4. Compare your attack roll to your target's defense (see above)...

Then...

5. Apply damage and other effects (including critical if you met the requirements of the normal rules - or some other rule - such as holy ardor or even Dagger Master - that gives you an exception)


I'm sorry that you think that a power that grants you a critical modifies what an attack roll is or how it modifies or ignores step 3 of this simple 5 step process. At best it modifies step 4 after you have determined that you "Hit" by allowing you to critical with something other than a natural 20.

I am satisfied with RAW. You cannot get a critical unless you hit because of the steps required on p269 to resolve an attack because you don't even check if your attack was a critical until you know if you hit or not. This does not mean that having a critical hit proves therefore that you hit. Any attempt to use Holy Ardor in step 3 of the attack resolution process (p269) is false and attempting to use the rule in a way that was not intended or even supported by the rules. I am only not clear on one possibility - Holy Ardor might be used in step 4 (determine if you hit or not), but even if that is the correct step to place it in you still have to hit first before you can even ask if you got a crit or not (see pages 274-278 for the complete process). Whatever the consequences of this reading I am prepared to debate.

Precision may be redundant, but based on the above it will never change the outcome of an attack, nor does it need to be removed. It may even be necessary as indicated by Draco? if only to provide for the alternate case of crits on any roll other than 20 and to remind the reader that while you may have gotten a critical you still have to "Hit" first and refer back to those rules to see if you did or not. My point about Precision "not doing anything" is that if you follow the steps presented on p269 you will never need to try to apply Precision one way or the other. It doesn't hurt anything to keep it.

 

[Artoomis]

This ignores "Compare your attack roll to your target's defense (see page 274 to see how this is accomplished) and (without the books in front of me mind you) I'm pretty sure that p276 with the automatic hit rules are included in that resolution...

I see where you are coming from and I agree that your argument is every bit as good as mine.

 

[Dan'L]

Realizing that Precision is only in the context of "an attack roll,"

This is absolutely, positively, provably untrue. There is no text which supports the assertion that Precision's context is uniquely "an attack roll." Why you put this in quotes, when this phrase appears nowhere in connection or context with precision, I'm not sure. What are you quoting? What is your source, other than your own supposition and inference, that this is the unique context of Precision?

In fact, your constant inability to recognize the actual contextual wording of Precision leads me to wonder if you do not comprehend it at all, or are willfully and deliberately being ignorant of it; I suspect it's the latter, done for the sake of continuing this spiraling conversation?

***

Beyond this, let me also add, re: The rule on p. 276 about Critical Hits dealing maximum damage v. the expanded rules on Critical Hits found on p. 278

I take the implication that, due to it's relative brevity and lack of clarifying detail, the rule on p.276 would be the general rule, and that the rule set on p. 278 with it's specific detailing would be the overriding specific rule.

This means, that even though the 276 rule states that a critical hit deals damage, we are informed by the more specific rule on p.278, under Maximum Damage, that there are times when a critical hit does NOT deal damage. By the explicit wording of the rules defining critical hits, an attack roll that results in a "miss" satisfies the conditions to be one of those times.

And because we have it as explicit and implicit that a "miss," in absence of explicit overriding rules such as miss effects on daily powers, does not get to apply damage and/or rider effects, we actually don't even have to worry about all the things that trigger on a crit, either.

-Dan'L

 

[Artoomis]

...

***

Beyond this, let me also add, re: The rule on p. 276 about Critical Hits dealing maximum damage v. the expanded rules on Critical Hits found on p. 278

I take the implication that, due to it's relative brevity and lack of clarifying detail, the rule on p.276 would be the general rule, and that the rule set on p. 278 with it's specific detailing would be the overriding specific rule.

This means, that even though the 276 rule states that a critical hit deals damage, we are informed by the more specific rule on p.278, under Maximum Damage, that there are times when a critical hit does NOT deal damage. By the explicit wording of the rules defining critical hits, an attack roll that results in a "miss" satisfies the conditions to be one of those times.

And because we have it as explicit and implicit that a "miss," in absence of explicit overriding rules such as miss effects on daily powers, does not get to apply damage and/or rider effects, we actually don't even have to worry about all the things that trigger on a crit, either.

-Dan'L

Wow.

Sorry but a Critical Hit cannot Miss by definition. A Critical Hit is a type of a Attack Result of which there are only two - Hit and Miss. A Critical Hit is of the type "Hit."

You can have a potential Critical Hit turn out to be a Miss, but once you "score a critical hit" you have indeed Hit.

I have seen the thought that a Critical hit can also Miss put forth a number of times, but that's an apparent misunderstanding of the way Critical Hits work.

If you can critical on a 19, then rolling a 19 does not give you a Critical Hit. Rolling a 19 plus having that roll meet the target's defense score does score a Critical Hit. Rolling a 19 and failing to meet the target' s defense score gives you a miss - that's not a Critical Hit that misses, it's a possible Critical Hit that turns out to not be one and it misses entirely besides.

Because a Critical hit is defined as a hit and cannot possibly be a miss, if a feature or power states unambiguously that you "score a critical hit" then you must have also hit, by definition. You simply can't both hit and miss.

This leaves only the issue of Precision as a possible out for those who don't want Holy Arbor to actually have you "score a critical hit" on all doubles.

But, Precision really just lets you know that some powers might change the numbers you need to roll to qualify for a critical hit and, parenthetically, reminds you that only a 20 automatically hits, which, in the context of modifying the previous Natural 20 paragraph, is pretty clearly just there to make sure folks don't think that if you roll a 19 and don't get a Critical Hit you get to automatically hit.

 

[CovertOps]

Because a Critical hit is defined as a hit and cannot possibly be a miss, if a feature or power states unambiguously that you "score a critical hit" then you must have also hit, by definition. You simply can't both hit and miss.

This is the problem Artoomis. Imagine this math problem:

x = 1 + 2 * 3

I hope we can agree that x = 7 based on order of operations. You are suggesting that with Holy Ardor you can suddenly change the order of operations because you rolled doubles and you have an ability that says "if you roll doubles you score a critical hit...". To me you are claiming that x = 9 [(1 + 2) * 3]. An attack roll has an order of operations that I posted above (I'll skip the first 2 as we're not debating those).

3. Roll an attack roll (p 273)
4. Compare attack roll to defense (p 274)
5. Apply damage.

At step 3 you are trying to declare victory with your "I rolled doubles and score a critical hit" and want to skip straight to step 5. You have just broken the system. The system hasn't even asked if you got a critical yet. It doesn't care at this point.

3. Roll an attack roll (if you have OoE roll 2 dice and pick one).

4. Compare attack roll to defense (p 274)
4a. Did you beat the targets defense? Yes goto 4b. No goto 4c.
4b. You score a hit. Did you roll a natural 20 or (using Precision) qualify for a critical hit using some other feat, ability, or feature (Holy Ardor)? Yes goto 5a. No goto 5b.

4c. Did you roll a natural 20? Yes goto 5b. No you "Miss" and are done (in some cases a power will do half damage on a miss and that would be here or perhaps 5b?).

5a. You scored a critical hit. Deal max damage etc.
5b. You did not score a critical hit. Deal normal damage.

There is no path to 5a where you miss. If you got there you did indeed hit, but that does NOT mean there isn't a way to roll some value that winds you up at 5b or even a miss that also qualified for being a critical.

 

[Trebor62]

if I understand Artoomis correctly he looks at his doubles and if they are not double 1's he has a crit. There is no need to test the doubles against the targets defense. Its already a crit. He's ending a step 3 for doubles not equal to 1. For doubles equal to 1 and none doubles he would then move to step 4.

Artoomis do I understand correctly?

 

[Turtlejay]

Poor Artoomis. He is all alone here, and I see where he is coming from. He sees a hole in the wording of the power, and just wants other people to see it too. Admittedly, it is a poorly worded ability. I don't think he's right, but I feel like he is kind of alone in this. Chin up, big guy.

Jay

 

[Artoomis]

if I understand Artoomis correctly he looks at his doubles and if they are not double 1's he has a crit. There is no need to test the doubles against the targets defense. Its already a crit. He's ending a step 3 for doubles not equal to 1. For doubles equal to 1 and none doubles he would then move to step 4.

Artoomis do I understand correctly?

If:

3. Roll an attack roll (p 273)
4. Compare attack roll to defense (p 274)
5. Apply damage.

Then yes, exactly right. Holy Ardor redefines this (for holy Ardor only, of course), at least the way it is written.

What is meant ()RAI), well, I am not sure. What is written is as clear as it can be:

Get doubles that are not ones = score a critical hit. This is most certainly departure from the normal rules order of 3-4-5 but that's the way it was written.

We could argue about how the baseline rules require you to check the attack roll against the defense before you can hit until the cows come home, it won't change the fact that the Holy Ardor rule, as written in plain words, simply skips right over that.

The way to read the rules is simplicity itself:

Base rules: Critical = Roll at least a certain number (normally 20, but could be less) plus that roll must be at least equal to the target's defense score.

Holy Ardor rule: Critical = Roll doubles that are not also ones.

 

[DracoSuave]

The part of Art's logic I agree with is the fact that if you have successfully scored a critical hit, you must have hit. That's pretty intuitive.

Also, this means if you have not hit, you cannot have scored a critical hit. This is logically the same statement, only with a different purpose. If the first statement is true, this statement is also true.

However, Art, the -problem- is that you've -assumed- you've successfully critically hit, when there are rules and situations that say you might not, in fact, hit, and therefore, do not critical hit.

It is a -fact- that an ability saying you must do something can be prevented by other rules, by other abilities, by effects, by conditions, by any number of different things that say 'No, you don't get to do that.' This statement is fact, and I'm tired of reproving it.

In this instance, we have -proof- that there are situations where Holy Ardor should not hit even under your interpretation. This means that we've proven, even under -your- interpretation, that 'score a critical hit' in Holy Ardor does not allow it to circumvent all hit mechanics. Your interpretation doesn't discriminate between miss-based mechanics, it uses an absolute interpretation of It Says Crit = You Must Hit. Therefore the possibility exists that there are -other- situations where a miss can occur.

And no, I don't mean 'because someone used an interrupt on you.' I mean a -rules based- missed. But according to you, this gets to Specific vs General the rules because it is new.

But it doesn't work, and the idea that it works this way has ramifications way beyond just this one power.

So, to sum up. Holy Ardor cannot create automatic hits because there is a rule that says it does not. It's that simple. If it were intended to create automatic hits, it would -say- so.