HOLY CRAP! We are putting PAGES on this thread every day. It's hard to keep up without checking multiple times per day, even for me who enjoys this kind of debate.
A couple responses caught my eye...
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.
I differ from Artoomis slightly on the view of the rolling of the doubles. I think he has an argument there, but in my opinion it is not a critical piece of the battle and the result of that battle would not win or lose this war.
Before I go into how precision applies to Holy Ardor I need to point out a significant difference in how we're reading the critical hit rules. Covert, you pointed out that Artoomis was taking statements out of context in one of his posts:
If you roll a 20 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.
Whenever you make two attack rolls because of your oath of enmity, you score a critical hit if both dice have the same roll, except if both rolls are 1.
You are completely ignoring the context of these two rules. One absolutely must be definitive in that it is inside the body of the actual critical hit rules. The other is a power granting a critical hit that must still meet any requirements that were not overridden in the power granting the critical.
The interpretation that you suggests has its own problems. If we read the way you suggest, the term "score a critical hit" has a completely different meaning in the two cases.
In the case of the PHB "score a critical hit" means you proceed with applying damage and extra effects without any further checking.
In the Holy Ardor case, you're suggesting that "score a critical hit" means that you must still meet other requirements (hitting) before applying damage.
"score a critical hit" should mean one thing and it should not change with context. Any other way invites too much fuzzy speculation as to what any given term means in this or that context.
It is worth pointing out that the hit rules (ph 276) do not grant critical hits, nor do they deny them. The hit rules simply point to the crit rules when you roll a 20 as situation that "
might be a critical hit". It's also important to note that the rules do not say that you
have "scored a critical hit" with a 20 only that you might. This prescedent is followed in how we view the mastery feats and other crit enhancing powers with permissive language.
Covert, with your order of operations analysis you must conceed that the automatic hit rules must be observed some time prior to checking the attack score (and then possibly declaring a miss). So that when "automatic hit" is satisfied,
the option of missing is no longer present and that part of the order is skipped. All that is left is to check for a critical hit or not.
The regular critical hit rules require 2 things, one of which is an attack roll that surpasses the defense, but this is not a check to hit, per-se, since the hit has already been check for. It's a duplicate requirement for sure, but it's written out in full detail twice in completely different areas (276 and 278), so I think it's proper that we consider them as seperate requirements for seperate rules.
Along comes Holy Ardor. Its only requirements are the numbers on the attack die, much like "Automatic hit". If you check the dice at the same time that you would check for 20s then just like "automatic hit" you'd skip steps in the normal order of operations and go to the place where it sends you. "Automatic hit" sends you to the point AFTER hits are declared, and Holy Ardor sends you to the point AFTER crits are declared. That's a big jump and I think there should be amplifying text to reinforce such a big move, but I think that's where the rule points.
I think one of my objections is that people are using Precision to deny critical hits when I believe it's purpose is to deny
hits to people who thought that their mastery feat let them auto-hit on a 19.
After all, Precision comes RIGHT AFTER a sentence that says, "If your attack roll is too low to score a critical hit, you still hit automatically." Within that context (having rolled a crittable number), that statement is absolutely true until you introduce mastery and other crit enhancing abilities, at which time the possible crit range and auto-hit range diverge, thus requiring the clarifying statement in Precision.
I view Precision as a reminder of the subtle differences between a possible crit range (one part of the normal crit rules) and the automatic hit range.
As stated elsewhere, I think that crit enhancing powers that use permissive language do so because they only change part of the normal crit requirements (the crittable numbers) and not the normal hit requirement.
I don't think that Holy Ardor Grants automatic hits. I think it grants critical hits and in doing so jumps well past what the automatic hit rule does. I think when those crits are granted that several parts of the normal attack procedure are necessarily skipped. One of those parts is achieving the hit, and the other is achieving the crit.
I understand that the modifier "automatic" has been used in many places to amplify powers granting hits that were not required to beat the targeted defense. In most cases regarding attack rolls it can be replaced with the phrase "regardless of the attack score".
That prescedent is amplifying and helpful and would have helped here as well, but in almost all instances of that word, it's presence does not really change anything about the rule or power but just clarifies. In the same sense I think it should have been used to amplify (clarify) this power, but much like the other powers that use the word I think that the mechanics are the same even in its absence.
Whew! That was a long one. OK guys, I want at least 4 pages of rebuttals from this.
Just kidding. There will be plenty of time next week to continue the sparring, so I'm goin to try to relax this weekend, and I hope you guys have a great weekend too.
this must be some kind of world record right here.
