Adent Champion. Rules lawyers required

[Artoomis]

Busy day today - I'll get back to this later. Lest anyone think I am ignoring you...

 

[keterys]

People keep mentioning Precision is a rule.

Because it's a hell of a lot more convenient than saying:
'Critical hits only trigger when you hit, and even if you automatically hit, you still need to hit to crit, and some abilities expand critical hits so they require things other than a 20, but that doesn't change the fact that you still need to hit nor does it make you automatically hit, because that's part of a whole 'nother rule not to be confused with this one'

Precision is 'Some abilities let you get crits on other rolls. Those abilities still follow the rules. So, y'know, follow them.'

Like Holy Ardor. Where lack of design or editing or the simple forgetting of the word 'can', like those other two powers I brought up that are almost _guaranteed_ to have simply been errors of omission, has apparently spawned a near-30 page argument of... nothing.

On the other hand, like any good car accident, I can't help but watch and toss shells from the peanut gallery. I think the thing that bothers me most is how much is being discussed by people who don't have any reason to care about the ruling.

 

[CovertOps]

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.

And this is my point. If you don't roll damage you cannot invoke Holy Ardor.

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

Yes. Holy Ardor is not an example of this kind of power however.

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.

Again you have not argued against my point. You either need a power that does damage on "Miss" (override to the normal hit/miss rules) or you need to "score a hit and deal damage" in order to deal damage. If you do not meet this requirement, then Holy Ardor does not apply (nor does Weapon Focus).

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

No. It overrides "Apply Damage" which requires you to "Hit".

When you hit with an attack, your normally deal damage...etc.

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.

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.

The resolution rules have a single outcome (hit or miss). Holy Ardor does not provide a direct override of this outcome. If you have to invoke a different rule (attack resolution) then you no longer have an override. Specific beats general is that A overrides B. Not A gives you B and because B is C therefore A overrides C. That is not the structure of an override. Especially when C is the very thing that determines if you get the thing you are after. This becomes C overrides C which is plain silly.

 

[DracoSuave]

Prove that Precision is not a rule. It looks like rules text. Smells like rules text. It has a situation, tells you what you cannot do in that situation. Specifically calls things out.

Yeah, it looks like a rule to me.

But yeah. The argument that powers can override Precision because it's a rule. Already disproven as fatuus. The argument 'Another game does it this way, and it doesn't work' doesn't exactly prove your case. I operate under the assumption that the rules work when I try to prove a rules-interpretation as valid. Arguing a logical set that does not work under the rules and following up with 'and this doesn't work' is making my case for me.


And that's the problem with this... the rules, as you all are claiming they work, allow powers to -completely- override all rules just because they are powers. This means that powers don't actually have to -follow- rules.

We've already proven there are situations where Holy Ardor does not guarantee a hit -because of the rules- so do not even -try- to insinuate Holy Ardor is not subject to the rules.

And 'Precision is not a rule because I say it is not a rule' is a dishonest argument. Prove it is not a rule, because otherwise, it is irrational to believe otherwise.


I'm growing more and more tired of this. Any argument that is rational against my position is debunked, and any argument that is irrational is called out as such. The only exception to this is 'I think it's more fun to just have it automaticly work' which I agreed is a valid reason.

So. Can we stop arguing nonsense, please? When you have to say 'That's not a rule!' without actually supporting this premise, or when you have to say 'This other game that does not work as intended does it this way, so we should also do it that way' you're reaching into the field of irrationality.

 

[Kraydak]

Prove that Precision is not a rule. It looks like rules text. Smells like rules text. It has a situation, tells you what you cannot do in that situation. Specifically calls things out.

Yeah, it looks like a rule to me.

That is good, because it is a rule. If I have ever so much as insinuated otherwise, it was unintended.

...
And that's the problem with this... the rules, as you all are claiming they work, allow powers to -completely- override all rules just because they are powers. This means that powers don't actually have to -follow- rules.

Powers override any rules they explicitly call out by name. They also override any rules they contradict and take priority over.

We've already proven there are situations where Holy Ardor does not guarantee a hit -because of the rules- so do not even -try- to insinuate Holy Ardor is not subject to the rules.

I hope and believe I have never insinuated that Holy Ardor is not subject to the rules.

And 'Precision is not a rule because I say it is not a rule' is a dishonest argument. Prove it is not a rule, because otherwise, it is irrational to believe otherwise.

I can't prove Precision isn't a rule because it is. I don't believe I have ever said it is not a rule.

Now, let us try some more productive stuff.

Take a hypothetical Holy Ardor 2.0: On doubles (not 1s) you hit and crit. Does Precision cause misses?

Note that if crits were a subset of hits, then any place you read "crit" you could replace it by "hit and crit" with no change to anything. So, in that case, Holy Ardor 1.0=Holy Ardor 2.0.

 

[CovertOps]

Now, let us try some more productive stuff.

Take a hypothetical Holy Ardor 2.0: On doubles (not 1s) you hit and crit. Does Precision cause misses?

Note that if crits were a subset of hits, then any place you read "crit" you could replace it by "hit and crit" with no change to anything. So, in that case, Holy Ardor 1.0=Holy Ardor 2.0.

If Holy Ardor were worded this way I would have no problems with it because it would then specifically overrule the "Compare attack roll to defenses" step of attack resolution. The way it is worded now does not do that, so Holy Ardor 1.0 <> Holy Ardor 2.0.

 

[DracoSuave]

Take a hypothetical Holy Ardor 2.0: On doubles (not 1s) you hit and crit. Does Precision cause misses?

Note that if crits were a subset of hits, then any place you read "crit" you could replace it by "hit and crit" with no change to anything. So, in that case, Holy Ardor 1.0=Holy Ardor 2.0.

Except that Precision informs you directly that 'score a critical hit' does not guarantee a hit. If the ability says 'you hit' however, -then- you have the power explicitly contradicting this rule.

The problem with the logic 'A critical hit is a hit' is that it is incomplete. Premises are skipped. I agree that -a successful critical hit must be a hit- but I do not agree that Holy Ardor guarantees successful hits, because there are rules that tell you that such a guarantee does not exist, and Holy Ardor does not make any explicit guarantee to contradict -any- of those rules.

And if the hit is not guaranteed, by the corrolary -a failed hit is never a critical hit- that means that in those cases, the critical hit can be prevented.

 

[CovertOps]

If Holy Ardor were worded this way I would have no problems with it because it would then specifically overrule the "Compare attack roll to defenses" step of attack resolution. The way it is worded now does not do that, so Holy Ardor 1.0 <> Holy Ardor 2.0.

Also note that this would also override the natural 20 rules as well since you would now crit on a 20 as well.

So...according to the other side of the fence Holy Ardor overrides the following rules without calling any of them out specifically simply by excluding the word "can":

1. Precision (Holy Ardor isn't an "attack roll" so Precision doesn't apply).
2. Attack Resolution step 4 (compare attack roll to defenses) (Holy Ardor isn't an attack roll, but we can use it here anyway by claiming that crit = hit)
3. Natural 20 rules. Why use natural 20 rules when you can crit and hit on double 20's?

Did I miss any?

Anything else you guys want to add to the list of exceptions? Does this not even make you raise your eyebrows as absurd?

EDIT: Did it ever cross your minds that maybe, just maybe, Holy Ardor doesn't apply BECAUSE it isn't an attack roll as opposed to suggesting that because Holy Ardor isn't an attack roll that therefore it overrides all these rules?

 

[Flipguarder]

but there's no "can"!!!!

 

[Kraydak]

Also note that this would also override the natural 20 rules as well since you would now crit on a 20 as well.

It certainly doesn't override the Natural 20 rules. Natural 20 tells you one method of getting critical hits. Holy Ardor tells you another. Oh look, you triggered both, I guess you crit...

(people, and there will be some, somewhere, who think that if you trigger a crit twice on the same attack, you get your high crit damage twice will be of a slightly different opinion)

So...according to the other side of the fence Holy Ardor overrides the following rules without calling any of them out specifically simply by excluding the word "can":

Excluding the word "can" has no effect, other than to forbid the player to not take a crit if, for some strange reason, he does not want to.

1. Precision (Holy Ardor isn't an "attack roll" so Precision doesn't apply).

Precision applies, but gets overruled.

2. Attack Resolution step 4 (compare attack roll to defenses) (Holy Ardor isn't an attack roll, but we can use it here anyway by claiming that crit = hit)

Yup, if you believe that criticals are a subset of hit. People claim this w/o justification other than pg 276 which isn't where criticals are defined.

3. Natural 20 rules. Why use natural 20 rules when you can crit and hit on double 20's?

Because you can use the Natural 20 rule when you roll a 20 and a 1?

Did I miss any?

Anything else you guys want to add to the list of exceptions? Does this not even make you raise your eyebrows as absurd?

EDIT: Did it ever cross your minds that maybe, just maybe, Holy Ardor doesn't apply BECAUSE it isn't an attack roll as opposed to suggesting that because Holy Ardor isn't an attack roll that therefore it overrides all these rules?

Holy Ardor being or not being an attack roll..... never shows up in the first place ?