Adent Champion. Rules lawyers required

[CovertOps]

The simple fact is that in addition to the attack results proof, the term itself is Critical Hit, as in a special types of Hit.

No. "Critical Hit" and "Hit" are separate terms with their own definitions, requirements and effects.

It's obvious on its face that a Critical Hit is a type of Hit.

Yes.

Arguing over the term "definition" is really a waste of our time, especially as Holy ardor is not overruling all the attack results rule - only the method by which you get a critical hit.

No. It does not override the attack results roll in any way. Holy Ardor is not an attack roll and cannot be used in such a fashion. OoE IS an attack roll and can be used to resolve this step.

A critical hit is still one of the two possible attack results - Hit or Miss, and only possible under "Hit."

No. "Critical Hit" is not an "Attack Result". "Hit" and "Miss" are attack results. "Critical Hit" is something that can happen if you "Hit", but it is never an attack result.

Incorrect. You are preventing from applying Critical Hit until the same point at which you would invoke Automatic Hit. The Automatic Hit rules provide the first exception where you roll to hit bit don't roll damage until after you check something OTHER than beating the defense score. Holy Ardor provides the second.

False. "Automatic Hit" provides an alternate way to "Hit". Holy Ardor does not grant a "Hit", nor is it an "Attack Roll" and therefore not an exception to the "Attack results" outcome of "Hit" or "Miss". If I were Draco I would also point out that Precision kicks in and tells you that even if you got a critical you still have to "Hit".

In essence, Holy Ardor creates a new special circumstance much like an Automatic Hit where something special with the dice (doubles, for Holy Ardor) creates a special attack result (Critical Hit) that overrides the normal result.

Again I repeat that Holy Ardor is NOT AN ATTACK ROLL. It cannot be used in such a fashion as to replace OoE to determine "Hit" or "Miss". Your own argument some 20 pages ago claimed as much. So which is it...an attack roll or not???

Since the attack result is a critical hit, you apply damage per the attack result rules, as Holy Ardor does not provide any exception to applying damage from a critical hit, only an exception for how you get to score a critical hit.

There is no such "Attack Result" as "Critical Hit". Your only choices are "Hit" and "Miss". And if you indeed "Hit" then you can apply Holy Ardor to replace the natural 20 requirement of critical hit.

What's important is that there is no way to actually score a critical hit and then still miss. That's a logical impossibility.

True. If you don't "Hit" you can never invoke Holy Ardor and therefore your "Miss" will not be a critical.

 

[Artoomis]

...There is no such "Attack Result" as "Critical Hit". Your only choices are "Hit" and "Miss". And if you indeed "Hit" then you can apply Holy Ardor to replace the natural 20 requirement of critical hit.

True. If you don't "Hit" you can never invoke Holy Ardor and therefore your "Miss" will not be a critical.

I think I'd like to focus on these two for a bit.

First, if the only two choices for an attack result are Hit and Miss and you must hit before getting to the two choices under Hit, you could never get to an Automatic Hit, so that can't be right.

Second, you don't need a "Hit" to "invoke" to Holy Ardor. You only need to roll two attacks rolls for Oath of Enmity and have them be identical (doubles).

It seems to me you keep trying to refer to rules that Holy Ardor overrides to state why Holy Ardor is not an exception, which is a fatal error in logic.

Holy Ardor is a very simple and clear rule - roll doubles and score a critical hit (if not double ones). Because of the simple and clear way it is written, it fits into the normal rules on exceptions and overrides regular rules on how you score a critical hit. That's all it does (though I agree that's a pretty big rule change).

According to page 276, a Critical Hit is a type of Hit, and, if you get one, you apply maximum damage plus other effects that happen on a critical hit. It really, truly is that simple.

 

[DracoSuave]

TIF it is necessary to have a rule explicitly stating that modifying a crit range also modifies the auto hit range ... where is the rule that says "score a critical hit" doesn't mean "hit and score a critical hit". If you do, ultimately, score a critical hit, you have also hit. [Since you need to hit in order to score a critical hit, you can't score a critical hit without also hitting].

Look. I'm -tired- of explaining this over and over again.

So pay attention. Watch.

Attack invisible creature. Fail to guess which square he is in. Fail to hit.

Okay? You following? Good.

It is now -proven- that Holy Ardor does not override -all- hit-related rules, because there is a hit-related rule it does not override.

For godsake this is logic 001. Not even 101.

And if there exists a hit-related rule it does not override, than the argument that it overrides rules is debunked. Completely. End of sentance. There is no 'it is suggested.' There is no 'They intended.' It is catagorically -debunked.- -Disproven.- It is simply not the case.

So, follow along here.

'The ability says you score a critical hit' is -proven- to not mean 'you score a critical hit' because there exist cases where the rules go 'Sorry, not today.'

So the question then is -which rules apply- and -which rules do not apply.- For that, you look to see which ones Holy Ardor contradicts, and which one it doesn't. Holy Ardor -only- contradicts the situations you can roll a critical hit in. However, it does not say -one damn thing- about situations you can roll a hit in.

Now, if you've read this far enough then you've read the whole thing enough to know 'score a critical hit' is insufficient to guarantee a critical hit.

'I don't see how it is possible' only proves you're not reading the argument are are ignoring the evidence. So don't fall back on that. Because you're... as someone put it... ostriching.

So, Holy Ardor doesn't contradict -any- of the hit-related rules, and you know that hit-related rules can apply, so you apply the hit-related rules. The change in crit range can't affect hit-related rules by themselves, because Precision clarifies that the automatic hit rules do not extend to crit altering abilities. Without that, if you wouldn't normally hit, you'd apply those rules and those rules cancel out the crit -anyways-.

It is correct that you cannot score a critical hit without scoring a hit. This is irrefutable, we all accept this.

Which means that if -by any means- you fail to hit, you do not score that critical hit. And without any part of the power telling you -which- failure points you do and do not use, you have no contradiction of the miss rules, and therefore you apply them all.

So let's summarize this. Facts in evidence will be presented in green.

1- Holy Ardor tells you you score a critical hit. Fact.
2- Abilities that say you do something do not guarantee that event successfully happens. Proven by example. Fact.
3- There exists a case where Holy Ardor can miss -even if it would otherwise hit-. Proven by example. Fact.
4- Holy Ardor therefore does not guarantee a successful critical hit. Only possible conclusion of 2+3.
5- A successfull critical hit implies that you hit. Logical implication
6- A miss is not a hit. Fact.
7- An unsuccessful hit implies an unsuccesful critical hit. Converse implication from 5
8- A miss implies an unsuccessful critical. 6+7
9- Holy Ardor contains no language that explicitly contradicts any rules dictating a miss. Fact.
10- Holy Ardor's 'score a critical hit' cannot implicitly contradict any rules dictating a miss. Only possible conclusion of 4+5+6
11- Holy Ardor does not contradict any rules dictating a miss. 9+10
12- You apply all pertinent miss rules in the absense of a contradictory rule. Fact.
13- If you fail to beat a target's defenses without a Natural 20, you miss. Fact.
14- If you fail to beat a target's defenses without a Natural 20 with Holy Ardor, you miss. 11+12+13.

QED.

It is now proven Holy Ardor does miss when it fails to hit defenses, and said proof has nothing to do with Precision.

Thank you. This was fun.

Edit: Of course, one could argue that 5 is not true, that a successful critical hit does not guarantee a hit. In that case, 9 is still true, and 10 is still true, and therefore the argument still stands. Defeating that premise does not weaken the argument... rather it simplifies it.

 

[Flipguarder]

I have a new saying that applies here imo:

A specific implication does not beat a specific rule.

 

[Artoomis]

...So let's summarize this. Facts in evidence will be presented in green.

1- Holy Ardor tells you you score a critical hit. Fact.
2- Abilities that say you do something do not guarantee that event successfully happens. Proven by example. Fact.
3- There exists a case where Holy Ardor can miss -even if it would otherwise hit-. Proven by example. Fact.
4- Holy Ardor therefore does not guarantee a successful critical hit. Only possible conclusion of 2+3.
5- A successful critical hit implies that you hit. Logical implication
6- A miss is not a hit. Fact.
7- An unsuccessful hit implies an unsuccessful critical hit. Converse implication from 5
8- A miss implies an unsuccessful critical. 6+7
9- Holy Ardor contains no language that explicitly contradicts any rules dictating a miss. Fact.
10- Holy Ardor's 'score a critical hit' cannot implicitly contradict any rules dictating a miss. Only possible conclusion of 4+5+6
11- Holy Ardor does not contradict any rules dictating a miss. 9+10
12- You apply all pertinent miss rules in the absence of a contradictory rule. Fact.
13- If you fail to beat a target's defenses without a Natural 20, you miss. Fact.
14- If you fail to beat a target's defenses without a Natural 20 with Holy Ardor, you miss. 11+12+13.
...

Comments/Errors:

1. True

2. True, sort of. The examples you've presented are not relevant expect for number 3.

3. The only example - when attacking the wrong square. In such a a case EVERYTHING does not hit, so nothing is actually successful, which proves nothing.

4. Fatally flawed due to reliance upon incorrect assumptions.

5. True. and a very strong implication indeed.

6. True.

7. True, in a general sense.

8. True, in a general sense.

9. True, but language giving you a hit does not have to also deny a miss.

10. Flawed, due to reliacne upon 4 which if fatally flawed.

11. True, but if granted a hit by caveat you don't then have to worry about a miss.

12. True, but a rule granting as hit is a contradictory rule.

13. True, but a rule granting a hit contradicts this.

14. Patently false.

As is often the case in overly-complex arguments, some base assumptions are either wrong or incorrectly applied leading to the whole house of cards tumbling down.

 

[Artoomis]

I have a new saying that applies here imo:

A specific implication does not beat a specific rule.

Possibly. Holy Ardor presents a very specific rule - under the circumstances stated in Holy Ardor you score a critical hit.

That's a very specific rule that creates an exception to the normal rules on determining when you score a critical hit.

 

[Flipguarder]

Possibly. Holy Ardor presents a very specific rule - under the circumstances stated in Holy Ardor you score a critical hit.

That's a very specific rule that creates an exception to the normal rules on determining when you score a critical hit.

No, clearly the idea that holy ardor automatically hits, because it lacks the word "can" before the phrase "score a critical hit" is a specific implication against precision.

 

[abyssaldeath]

Possibly. Holy Ardor presents a very specific rule - under the circumstances stated in Holy Ardor you score a critical hit.

That's a very specific rule that creates an exception to the normal rules on determining when you score a critical hit.

Holy Ardor doesn't give a very specific rule. If it did this thread wouldn't be 30 pages long.

 

[Artoomis]

Holy Ardor doesn't give a very specific rule. If it did this thread wouldn't be 30 pages long.

It sure does,

The debate comes in over what exactly does that specific rule really mean.

"Specfic" as is clearly stated vs. implied. That's not the same as agreement over what the words actually allow.

 

[keterys]

Its specific rule looks an awful lot like the rule for Steel Vanguard Veteran, which looks an awful lot like the rule for Daggermaster, which is very specifically covered.

But, hey, it's cool. Rolling doubles also affects betting in Craps, so it's clearly different from rolling an attack any other way. I'm not sure how I connected those, but I say it so, and I wish _really_ hard, and lo and behold my position is unassailable because you can't change what I feel in my heart of hearts!

I love this thread It's the best distraction from my day job ever. Okay, wait, now I'm just making stuff up.