Adent Champion. Rules lawyers required

[Artoomis]

So all this has proven is that a successful Critical Hit is a successful hit. Congrats. That also proves an unsuccessful hit is therefore an unsuccessful Critical hit. This is not debatable, it's logic 101.

Now present that Holy Ardor automatically produces a -successful- critical hit. That's the crux of the issue, and it's time to stop dancing around it.

The thing is, you cannot prove it, because it has already been dis-proven by counterexample. It is also proven that stating an event happens is not necessarily sufficient for that event to happen. It is also proven that the word 'can' is not relevant to this, that even a definitive event can be prevented by the rules.

Because you cannot then prove that it automatically successfully produces a critical hit, you cannot use that to prove that it automatically hits.
And because you cannot prove it automatically hits, you cannot rationally assume that it hits.
Because you cannot use that assumption, it cannot counter a rule that tells you it does not automatically hit.

Therefore, the argument 'It says you crit, therefore it must hit' is debunked.

Well, "score a critical hit" is when you successfully get a critical hit - that's the language is used in the Critical Hit rule, in fact.

CovertOps (and now you) keep trying to somehow say "score a critical hit" can result in a miss, but that's not possible by your own "logic 101" statement above - at least not without using (well, I say misusing) the Precision "rule."

I am staying away from Precision right now to focus on CovertOps' claim that you can "score a critical hit" and yet still miss. As you point out, logic 101 denies this is possible.

I have pointed out how "score a critical hit" is defined phrase in Critical Hit and, further, how the phrasing of Holy Ardor matches up nicely with Critical Hit, making it replace that rule.

I have yet to see that being rebutted in an effective manner.

If we can get to the point where we agreed that Holy Ardor would indeed grant a critical hit (meaning critical damage) on any doubles other than ones if the Precision statement did not exists, I'd then be free to focus on other arguments.

Right now, I am dumbfounded how the pure simplicity of "Do A and "score a critical hit" if B" can possibly mean something other than you get to "score a critical hit" and therefore do critical damage - at least without consider Precision.

 

[DracoSuave]

Right now, I am dumbfounded how the pure simplicity of "Do A and "score a critical hit" if B" can possibly mean something other than you get to "score a critical hit" and therefore do critical damage - at least without consider Precision.

Alright.

Attack a hidden opponent. Fail to guess the square he is in.

You miss.

Game. Set. Match.

The ability does not trump the 'Hitting what you Cannot See' rule. Therefore the ability does not guarantee a hit within the ruleset. Therefore it does not guarantee a critical hit. Therefore you cannot rationally assume it guarantees a critical hit. Therefore you cannot rationally assume it hits.

Therefore you cannot rationally assume it trumps -other- rules that state you do not automaticly hit without -further- evidence to the contrary... which you don't have.

Logic 101 states that if your argument is not possible due to evidence, then the argument is somehow flawed. In this case, the flaw is assuming that 'score a critical hit' is a guarantee of success, which it -is proven- it is not. Therefore, you cannot use the argument that it is a guarantee of success and therefore trumps rules that say it would fail.


Now to prove that Precision applies to it.

I have pointed out how "score a critical hit" is defined phrase in Critical Hit and, further, how the phrasing of Holy Ardor matches up nicely with Critical Hit, making it replace that rule

And I have pointed out how "score a critical hit" is explicitly stated in Precision, and -that- is the exact phrase it refers to, thereby becoming evoked by Holy Ardor by dint of Precision being a rule defining that exact sort of ability. Verbatim. Therefore -anything- that allows one to "score a critical hit" is subject to Precision.

By your own logic.

 

[Kraydak]

Alright.
...

The ability does not trump the 'Hitting what you Cannot See' rule. Therefore the ability does not guarantee a hit within the ruleset. Therefore it does not guarantee a critical hit. Therefore you cannot rationally assume it guarantees a critical hit. Therefore you cannot rationally assume it hits.

Therefore you cannot rationally assume it trumps -other- rules that state you do not automaticly hit without -further- evidence to the contrary... which you don't have.

If a rule in 4e (DnD throughout all editions, actually) states that something happens (which Holy Ardor does), then the burden of proof is on the person who says it *doesn't* happen AND even if it doesn't happen in specific circumstances, that has no impact at all in other circumstances. Rules in 4e are contradicted ALL THE TIME. This causes no existential angst, nor does it make you prove that the rule functions in general.

4e explicitly gives feats and class abilities higher rules priority than Precision, therefore Precision will never, ever matter. Precision would only come into play if someone has a feat/class ability/etc... that modifier the "getting crits" rules, but if that ability contradicts Precision, Precision never kicks in. If crits are a type of hit, then that ability will either say: "you get a crit when blah blah on the attack roll ..." or "you can get a crit when blah blah on the attack roll..." (which are equivalent for us, and, contradicting Precision, overrule it) OR it would say "if your attack roll is blah blah and that result hits, then you can get a crit" in which case Precision is redundant.

If you know the system, Precision is sort of like an attack that tries prevent perfect defenses in Exalted by calling out specific defensive abilities by name. There are some, and they do not work as designed because defenses in Exalted take rules priority over attacks, regardless of the text.

 

[DracoSuave]

If a rule in 4e (DnD throughout all editions, actually) states that something happens (which Holy Ardor does), then the burden of proof is on the person who says it *doesn't* happen AND even if it doesn't happen in specific circumstances, that has no impact at all in other circumstances. Rules in 4e are contradicted ALL THE TIME. This causes no existential angst, nor does it make you prove that the rule functions in general.

I present Precision. Now present counter-proof stating it does not work.

I'm -well- aware of where the burden of proof is on this.

4e explicitly gives feats and class abilities higher rules priority than Precision, therefore Precision will never, ever matter.

LOL WUT

So, rules priority goes from feats, class abilities, and then rules eh?

So, if you have a rule that says you do maximum damage on a coup de grace, the fact the power says you deal a specific die roll of damage means that you can't?

If you have a power that pushes a creature, it overcomes the rule that you cannot move through obstacles?

That's not how it works in this game, and don't pretend it does. If you have a situation X, then if there are rules that say what you do with situation X, you -use those rules.-

So, if you charge, even tho a melee basic attack is a part of that action, does that make charge unplayable because melee basic attack says it's a Standard Action?

These examples are rediculous, but they are -exactly- the sort of rules interraction you claim exists here.

The game does not work this way, never has, and never will.

Precision would only come into play if someone has a feat/class ability/etc... that modifier the "getting crits" rules, but if that ability contradicts Precision, Precision never kicks in. If crits are a type of hit, then that ability will either say: "you get a crit when blah blah on the attack roll ..." or "you can get a crit when blah blah on the attack roll..." (which are equivalent for us, and, contradicting Precision, overrule it) OR it would say "if your attack roll is blah blah and that result hits, then you can get a crit" in which case Precision is redundant.

Um no. Those rules are exceptions to -how- you can get critical hits. If you do a straight replacement of Natural 20 with those other results, you get to a point where if the roll isn't high enough to hit, instead of a successful critical, you just get a hit. However Precision then tells you that doesn't happen either. Changing the -range- of the crit, or the circumstances a crit happens overrides the Natural 20 part. It doesn't override what you do with it, it does NOT override the entirety of the critical hit rules.

If you know the system, Precision is sort of like an attack that tries prevent perfect defenses in Exalted by calling out specific defensive abilities by name. There are some, and they do not work as designed because defenses in Exalted take rules priority over attacks, regardless of the text.

That's great. Except my book doesn't say 'Exalted' on the cover. And so, no, it is NOT like that at all, because that means the game does not work. And the game -does- work, which proves that it cannot be as you claim.

And if I were running Exalted, and you -tried- to make that argument at the table, I'd say you're being a rules-shister (a corrupt rules-lawyer) and if you continued with this nonsense, you'd not be invited back to my table.

 

[Kraydak]

I present Precision. Now present counter-proof stating it does not work.

In the (faulty) case that critical hits are a type of hit, I already have. Because each and every ability that expands your means of getting critical hits is its own, unique, snowflake, they all take rules priority over Precision.

So, rules priority goes from feats, class abilities, and then rules eh?

So, if you have a rule that says you do maximum damage on a coup de grace, the fact the power says you deal a specific die roll of damage means that you can't?

I'm not entirely sure what you are asking here, but I think the answer is:
Correct, albeit largely irrelevant. If you have a feat that says: on a coup de grace, do an extra d10 damage, than you have to roll that d10. The normal weapon damage does get maxed as per normal. See High Crit weapons.

If you have a power that pushes a creature, it overcomes the rule that you cannot move through obstacles?

Different subsystems.

That's not how it works in this game, and don't pretend it does. If you have a situation X, then if there are rules that say what you do with situation X, you -use those rules.-

Until the rules contradict eachother, yes. We *have* a contradiction though.

So, if you charge, even tho a melee basic attack is a part of that action, does that make charge unplayable because melee basic attack says it's a Standard Action?

Both are normal rules, Charge makes a call to MBA, so Charge takes priority. No problems here.

These examples are rediculous, but they are -exactly- the sort of rules interraction you claim exists here.

The game does not work this way, never has, and never will.

I despair at my writing skills, as the examples don't begin to be the sort of rules interaction I have claimed exist.

Um no. Those rules are exceptions to -how- you can get critical hits. If you do a straight replacement of Natural 20 with those other results, you get to a point where if the roll isn't high enough to hit, instead of a successful critical, you just get a hit. However Precision then tells you that doesn't happen either. Changing the -range- of the crit, or the circumstances a crit happens overrides the Natural 20 part. It doesn't override what you do with it, it does NOT override the entirety of the critical hit rules.

Expanding the range or circumstances of crits doesn't ever interact with the Natural 20 part in the first place, *because you didn't roll a freaking natural 20* (unless you want to claim that a given attack can double critical... which might be an interesting discussion in and of itself).

If you have Heavy Blade Mastery, and roll a 19 that misses, AND critical hits are (again, falsely) a type of hit, then we have:
Precision: "you don't hit."
Heavy Blade Mastery: "I crit, and therefore hit, and because I am a more unique snowflake, I get to beat up Precision and take its lunch money."

That's great. Except my book doesn't say 'Exalted' on the cover. And so, no, it is NOT like that at all, because that means the game does not work. And the game -does- work, which proves that it cannot be as you claim.

And if I were running Exalted, and you -tried- to make that argument at the table, I'd say you're being a rules-shister (a corrupt rules-lawyer) and if you continued with this nonsense, you'd not be invited back to my table.

*sigh*
I was just trying to bring up a game where specific-beats-general (basically the default case everywhere) is explicitly contradicted. Exalted runs on all rule contradictions being handled by specific-beats-general EXCEPT for IOvUF (immovable object vs unstoppable force) where, by the explicit admission of the game designers, any perfect defense trumps any attack even if that attack calls out that defense by name.

 

[DracoSuave]

In the (faulty) case that critical hits are a type of hit, I already have. Because each and every ability that expands your means of getting critical hits is its own, unique, snowflake, they all take rules priority over Precision.

Except Precision explicitly calls on those abilities.

I'm not entirely sure what you are asking here, but I think the answer is:
Correct, albeit largely irrelevant. If you have a feat that says: on a coup de grace, do an extra d10 damage, than you have to roll that d10. The normal weapon damage does get maxed as per normal. See High Crit weapons.

High crit is a rule. Powers do not say you can deal extra damage with stuff like that. Therefore -by your logic- they can only do the damage listed and no more.

That logic is incorrect.

That's the point, it's called a disproof by counterexample.

Until the rules contradict eachother, yes. We *have* a contradiction though.

Please point this contradiction out. Holy Ardor doesn't say -anything- about not applying Precision.

Both are normal rules, Charge makes a call to MBA, so Charge takes priority. No problems here.

Charge is a rule. Basic Melee Attack is a power. Therefore -by your logic- the power takes precidence and you can't BMA unless you have a standard action free.

Again, another disproof by counterexample of your claim that powers automaticly trump rules.

I despair at my writing skills, as the examples don't begin to be the sort of rules interaction I have claimed exist.

They are examples of powers taking precedence over the rules in the exact same manner you claim that critical-hit altering abilities would take precedent over Precision.

Expanding the range or circumstances of crits doesn't ever interact with the Natural 20 part in the first place, *because you didn't roll a freaking natural 20* (unless you want to claim that a given attack can double critical... which might be an interesting discussion in and of itself).

Yes they do. They change what can garner a critical hit. So you have the range noted instead of Natural 20.

I thought that was obvious.

If you have Heavy Blade Mastery, and roll a 19 that misses, AND critical hits are (again, falsely) a type of hit, then we have:
Precision: "you don't hit."
Heavy Blade Mastery: "I crit, and therefore hit, and because I am a more unique snowflake, I get to beat up Precision and take its lunch money."

Except that's not how it works at all.

*sigh*
I was just trying to bring up a game where specific-beats-general (basically the default case everywhere) is explicitly contradicted. Exalted runs on all rule contradictions being handled by specific-beats-general EXCEPT for IOvUF (immovable object vs unstoppable force) where, by the explicit admission of the game designers, any perfect defense trumps any attack even if that attack calls out that defense by name.

That's not the case in this game, however, and never has been. In this, and every case where Precision applies, specific -is- trumping a rule... the rule of where critical hits can occur. And that is fine. But it doesn't trump Precision, which is the rule that flat out governs -how those exceptions work.- Changing the range doesn't except Precision, only where you can critical hit.

This shouldn't be difficult, as the entire PHB is filled with rules that tell you how to adjudicate exceptions. Precision is just one of many: Forced Movement, Teleportation, how bonuses stack (more accurately, how they don't stack), the list goes on and on.

Every single one of those is an exception to some other rule. Forced movement is an exception to how a creature must use an action to move (amongst other things), Teleportation is an exception to how a creature moves through squares or attracts Opportunity Actions, bonuses are -themselves- exceptions to how the rules for anything -involving- the rolls they modify work, and so on and so forth.

So, yes, you -can- have rules that govern what exceptions may and may not do, and those rules must -themselves- be excepted specificly in order to not apply. Otherwise you do -not- have a contradiction, you simply have to follow the rules.

 

[Kraydak]

Except Precision explicitly calls on those abilities.

Yes it does, as a general effect. No, it doesn't matter. If it called out Heavy Blade Mastery *by name* it would matter.

High crit is a rule. Powers do not say you can deal extra damage with stuff like that. Therefore -by your logic- they can only do the damage listed and no more.

They also don't say you can't. Crucial point.

Please point this contradiction out. Holy Ardor doesn't say -anything- about not applying Precision.

It doesn't have to. It just needs to contradict Precision.

Charge is a rule. Basic Melee Attack is a power. Therefore -by your logic- the power takes precidence and you can't BMA unless you have a standard action free.

Again, another disproof by counterexample of your claim that powers automaticly trump rules.

The line:"standard action" in BMA gets tied into the action type rules (and the reading powers rules etc...), and is meaningless without them. Charge can take priority over the action type/allotment rules. If MBA had a special line saying that you must spend a standard action to use MBA (it doesn't), then you would have to spend a standard action to use it. This could be a bog-normal standard action, or it could be through a power that says: "convert a minor action into a standard action".

Yes they do. They change what can garner a critical hit. So you have the range noted instead of Natural 20.

I have an ability to get a crit on a non-natural 20. I don't roll a 20. I never enter the Natural 20 paragraph. Full Stop. Abilities that grant you crits on non-20s never invoke or interact with the natural 20 rule UNLESS you can score double-crits.

 

[CovertOps]

Well, "score a critical hit" is when you successfully get a critical hit - that's the language is used in the Critical Hit rule, in fact.

CovertOps (and now you) keep trying to somehow say "score a critical hit" can result in a miss, but that's not possible by your own "logic 101" statement above - at least not without using (well, I say misusing) the Precision "rule."

I am staying away from Precision right now to focus on CovertOps' claim that you can "score a critical hit" and yet still miss. As you point out, logic 101 denies this is possible.

I have pointed out how "score a critical hit" is defined phrase in Critical Hit and, further, how the phrasing of Holy Ardor matches up nicely with Critical Hit, making it replace that rule.

I have yet to see that being rebutted in an effective manner.

If we can get to the point where we agreed that Holy Ardor would indeed grant a critical hit (meaning critical damage) on any doubles other than ones if the Precision statement did not exists, I'd then be free to focus on other arguments.

Right now, I am dumbfounded how the pure simplicity of "Do A and "score a critical hit" if B" can possibly mean something other than you get to "score a critical hit" and therefore do critical damage - at least without consider Precision.

What I am trying to say can best be shown by this example because it is exactly what I am trying to get across.

I have a feat called Weapon Focus. It gives me a +1 feat bonus to damage.

In step 4 I have to "compare attack roll to defenses" (which of course has ~2 full pages of rules). If I "Miss" according to the "Attack Results" at the end of that section of the rules then I cannot possibly invoke the use of "Weapon Focus" because it modifies the damage I do (which is step 5) and "Miss" clearly says I don't do any damage.

You keep trying to skip ahead in the rules to step 5 where you have an ability that says you get to do max damage and because of the wording of said power then claim that you didn't need to hit in the first place.

Unless you want to argue the logic that Weapon Focus can still do damage when you miss, then this is my point. Holy Ardor itself (the text of the rule) does not grant you a "Hit", therefore it does not override the general attack resolution. Without such a rule modifier you have to "Hit" before you can apply damage. If you get to "Apply Damage" then you can invoke Holy Ardor and maximize that damage, otherwise you miss and Holy Ardor does not apply no matter what you rolled. (This is the part where we argued the needed clause of "automatic hit") to override the general "attack results" rules.

Also if you want to use specific beats general then you cannot invoke the Attack Resolution rules (p276) to prove that your critical hit is a hit. That is using the rule that tells you if you hit or not to prove that you hit. A rule cannot be both the specific rule and the general rule and override itself. If you want some specific rule that overrides the general rules on "Attack Results" then you need to reference ANY OTHER RULE to make your case.

Pick either hole in your argument and try to prove it true...either Weapon Focus does damage when you miss or the circular logic that a rule can be used to override itself. Quite frankly you need to prove both for me to believe you are correct (note: this is not possible).

 

[WalterKovacs]

People keep mentioning Precision is a rule.

It says two things:

(a) That there are exceptions to Natural 20 where feats/class features/powers can make it so that you can roll numbers other than 20 and score a critical hit. This is equivalent to putting after rolling for damage that there are magic items and feats and class features that can increase the ammount of damage you deal past the ability modifier. It's restating something that is already contained in the rules.

(b) It then has an added part in parenthesis. This points out that a power that allows you to potentially score a critical hit on a 19 changes the rules about critical hits ... not the rules about automatic hits. While a Natural 20 triggers both Automatic Hits and potentially Critical Hits, those are two seperate things. So, it's reminder text that "if something modifies critical hits, it doesn't also modify automatic hits".

Neither of those things are new rules. They don't define anything new. They point out that (a) there are exceptions to the rules and (b) those exceptions apply to the rule they reference, not a seperate (but related) rule they don't reference.

As for targetting a square that doesn't contain someone ... if the attack 'automatically misses' does that mean you deal half-damage to something that isn't even there? What about a natural 20? Is it scoring a critical because the attack roll is high enough to hit and becomes a critical hit? Is it an automatic hit because it would of it, but becomes an automatic miss, but because it's a natural 20 that missed it's an automatic hit? It would seem that the 'attacking what you can't see' uses automatic miss improperly in the first place (since you probably shouldn't deal any damage or effect if you don't attack the correct square which is worse than 'just a miss'). Also "automatic miss" vs. "automatic hit" or "automatic miss" vs. "automatic crit" is much different than "should be a miss" vs. "automatic crit". It's apples and oranges to compare "critting a target that isn't there" to "scoring a crit with a pair of 2's" and call it 'proof'.

 

[WalterKovacs]

What I am trying to say can best be shown by this example because it is exactly what I am trying to get across.

I have a feat called Weapon Focus. It gives me a +1 feat bonus to damage.

Note: Damage rolls

If, on a miss, you do not roll damage, you don't apply weapon focus. If you do roll damage on a miss (i.e. half-damage), you would apply weapon focus.

In step 4 I have to "compare attack roll to defenses" (which of course has ~2 full pages of rules). If I "Miss" according to the "Attack Results" at the end of that section of the rules then I cannot possibly invoke the use of "Weapon Focus" because it modifies the damage I do (which is step 5) and "Miss" clearly says I don't do any damage.

And certain powers say that you deal half damage on a miss, which is a specific trumps general exception.

You keep trying to skip ahead in the rules to step 5 where you have an ability that says you get to do max damage and because of the wording of said power then claim that you didn't need to hit in the first place.

Unless you want to argue the logic that Weapon Focus can still do damage when you miss, then this is my point.

Weapon Focus doesn't deal extra damage on a HIT if you don't roll for damage. So, it has nothing to do with hit/miss ... it has to do with rolling damge. So it's a moot point.

Also, you are basically saying "you can't do damage on a miss". But, a number of powers have the ability to overide that rule ... pretty much every power that has Miss: X will do something.

Holy Ardor itself (the text of the rule) does not grant you a "Hit", therefore it does not override the general attack resolution. Without such a rule modifier you have to "Hit" before you can apply damage.

So does every power that applies damage on a miss override the general attack resolution? Because it allows damage despite a miss.

Also if you want to use specific beats general then you cannot invoke the Attack Resolution rules (p276) to prove that your critical hit is a hit. That is using the rule that tells you if you hit or not to prove that you hit. A rule cannot be both the specific rule and the general rule and override itself. If you want some specific rule that overrides the general rules on "Attack Results" then you need to reference ANY OTHER RULE to make your case.

Of course, you are claiming that the resolution rules are a single rule.

However critical hits are a SPECIFIC kind of hit. All Critical Hits are Hits, not all Hits are Critical Hits. Similar to Automatic Hits and Automatic Misses. While they are grouped together ... it's unquestionable that there are rules about hitting and missing, and that the rules for Automatic Hits and Automatic Misses break those normal rules (if you roll a 20, and would miss, you actualy hit. If you roll a 1, and would hit, you actually miss.) Rules pertaining to scoring a critical hit are similarly exceptions to the normal rule, and have to re-invoke the rules on hitting. In part this is because a 20 is already an Automatic Hit, so it has to check to see if it would hit without the Automatic Hit rule to result in Scoring a Critical Hit. Regardless, exceptions are nested within the more general rules throughout. It makes it a lot easier to not have to cross reference things if you list exceptions (albeit 'general case' exceptions) immediately after the more general case.

Another example: Opportunity Attack explains the various rules of opportunty attack, including threatening reach which is an exception to the earlier rules requiring the target of the OA be adjacent.

Pick either hole in your argument and try to prove it true...either Weapon Focus does damage when you miss or the circular logic that a rule can be used to override itself. Quite frankly you need to prove both for me to believe you are correct (note: this is not possible).

The first is impossible because:

(a) Weapon Focus doesn't deal damage. It modifies damage ROLLS. If there is no damage roll, it modifies nothing. There are powers that have no damage roll on a hit (Sleep, for example). And there are powers that have damage rolls on a miss (Fireball, for example). So, your first 'hole' is in fact an illogical argument itself.

(b) A rule cannot overide itself, true. However, there is a difference between a SINGLE rule, and a sequence of rules that explain hit/miss resolution AND include common exceptions to those rules. A common exception (such as a critical hit) is still an exception.