Adent Champion. Rules lawyers required

[CovertOps]

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.

I never said any such thing. I said the only outcome of attack result is "Hit" or "Miss". Please stop making assumptions or attempting to make claims about my comments that aren't true.
Automatic Hit is an exception. It grants you a hit when you otherwise would have missed. It is left to the reader if it is an exception to the general miss rules or the general hit rules, but I think it makes more sense if it is overriding the "Hit" rules since that is where it is located.

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).

[sarcasm]Fine...you go ahead and have a critical that misses and does no damage then. While you're at it why don't you go ahead and apply damage from Weapon Focus on a miss as well.[/sarcasm]

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.

In order to get an "attack result" you need [EDIT] one of [/EDIT] two things. An "attack roll", or something that specifically grants you a "Hit" (ie overrides with specific text saying you "Hit" even if you did not beat the defenses of the target). Since Holy Ardor supplies neither of these it's use does nothing to resolve this step of the process. OoE on the other hand does give you an "attack roll" so it can be used here.

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).

You are correct here. All it does is override how you can get a "Critical Hit". This means that you can score a critical hit without rolling a natural 20. You have a "new mechanic" (doubles) to replace this requirement (natural 20).

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.

This is a truism. This is no different from "All elephants are grey, therefore my elephant is grey." This statement does not however prove that if a power, feat, or ability grants you a critical hit that therefore you "Hit".

Look Artoomis. We can go around and around on this forever, but answer one question first. Is Holy Ardor an "Attack Roll" per the definition of same on p273 or p274 (can't remember at this point) or not?

If it IS an attack roll then it overrides nothing and you can use the results of said "Attack Roll" to resolve step 4 (compare attack roll to defenses). If you hit you hit, and if you miss you miss.

If it is NOT an attack roll then it cannot be used to prove that you "Hit" or "Miss" as only an attack roll can be used to determine that outcome. If you indeed get a hit you can then apply Holy Ardor to override the normal (natural 20) requirement of a critical hit. Holy Ardor does indeed override a general rule, just not the one you want it to override. And no matter how hard you wish it, the text of the rule does not change.

 

[DracoSuave]

Comments/Errors:

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

All that is needed is to disprove the idea that the ability declaring it so implicitly guarantees success. If success is not guaranteed, then the logical argument 'It says you succeed therefore you cannot fail' is discreditted, because the ability does -not- tell you that you must succeed, only to do something which might not be allowable due to failure.

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.

Except that the ability doesn't trump all rules involving hitting or missing. Which is all you need to prove for the argument to work. All that is necessary is that 'score a critical hit' does not implicitly guarantee a successful hit. Once that is done, then it is proven that it does not contradict the rules.

I only gave one example, because only one example is needed for a counter-example disproof to be successful.

As an example:
To disprove "All birds can fly" your successful counterargument can simply be 'Ostrich' and you've disproven that statement.

4. Fatally flawed due to reliance upon incorrect assumptions.

That it does not guarantee a successful critical? That's proven by the above. All that is needed is to prove the guarantee does not exist. That is done. It is therefore correct. I assume that correct logic is correct.

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

Technically correct, but that is because Hit is mutually exclusive with Miss, and a hit guarantees a non-miss. It doesn't have to deny a miss, but it always does anyways.

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

In order for the opposite to be true, Holy Ardor must guarantee a critical hit in contradiction of the hit rules. It does not, and as well, it is proven that the specific power does not contradict the general rule of missing in certain cases.

If you're asking it to prove that it must obey normal hit rules as part of an argument that it must obey normal hit rules, then you A) do not understand the argument, and B) are inviting me to make a circular argument.

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

But no caveat exists proving that a guaranteed hit occurs, and therefore a non-miss is not guaranteed either.

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

But that hit is not guaranteed to occur, and therefore, a non-miss is not granted by the rule.

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

Yet again, proven that case does not exist here.

14. Patently false.

That's not a counter argument. Conclusions require counter arguments, not a statement of 'No U'

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.

And rebuttals that state 'But if blah existed, this would be false' are not successful rebuttals when blah does not exist.

 

[Markn]

<giggles>

 

[Artoomis]

At this point I think I give up.

As far as I am concerned Holy Ardor has you "score a critical hit" on doubles just like it says and that means you apply critical damage.

Any other reading is, to me, strained and twisted logic.

I have no idea what RAI really is here, perhaps that will be made clear by WotC one day, or, maybe not.

Meantime, any DM (RPGA included) is perfectly justified ruling this either way as it can be explained either way within the rules.

 

[Obryn]

So wow.

We're adding an Ardent Champion tonight - and while this thread has some excellent arguments on both sides, in the words of so many college students, "I ain't readin' all that."

So ... has Customer Service spoken on this at all? I know their record is spotty, but I'd rather claim "Customer Service said..." than "Some dude on ENWorld said..." if it should come up at the table.

-O

 

[Flipguarder]

customer service has given both points of view.... so yeah.

 

[CovertOps]

So wow.

We're adding an Ardent Champion tonight - and while this thread has some excellent arguments on both sides, in the words of so many college students, "I ain't readin' all that."

So ... has Customer Service spoken on this at all? I know their record is spotty, but I'd rather claim "Customer Service said..." than "Some dude on ENWorld said..." if it should come up at the table.

-O

Quick summary is that one side claims either reading is valid by RAW. The other side says only one is valid. No matter which side you choose to believe you'll just have to make your own decision. I recall two responses from CS somewhere in the thread...one for each side. All that you really need to decide is if the Critical Hit granted by Holy Ardor is ALSO a "Hit" even if the die result is not high enough to hit the targets defense for purposes of attack resolution (see PHB pages 269-278 - and more specifically p276 where it tells you if you got a "Hit" or a "Miss"). The debate itself centered on Precision (p278 - under the Critical Hit rules) and the attack resolution sequence (p269).

 

[Obryn]

customer service has given both points of view.... so yeah.

DOH!

Well, crap!

Quick summary is that one side claims either reading is valid by RAW. The other side says only one is valid. No matter which side you choose to believe you'll just have to make your own decision. I recall two responses from CS somewhere in the thread...one for each side. All that you really need to decide is if the Critical Hit granted by Holy Ardor is ALSO a "Hit" even if the die result is not high enough to hit the targets defense for purposes of attack resolution (see PHB pages 269-278 - and more specifically p276 where it tells you if you got a "Hit" or a "Miss"). The debate itself centered on Precision (p278 - under the Critical Hit rules) and the attack resolution sequence (p269).

Yeah, I actually really don't want to reignite what was - by all appearances - a major and intense rules debate.

So, I'll approach this from the other direction, and ask those with a head for math... What would be the expected mathematical difference between these two options? Given that there's no consensus and a lot of people convinced on both sides that they're correct, I'd rather look at the results than at the rules, and pick which results I'd prefer. A pragmatic approach, if you will.

-O

 

[Flipguarder]

the results are almost negligibly different when they were posted... so yeah. I think it was something like between a .5% and 2% extra chance to crit if you read it the more player favorable way. The discrepancy between discrepancies is based on your build.

 

[Nifft]

So, I'll approach this from the other direction, and ask those with a head for math... What would be the expected mathematical difference between these two options? Given that there's no consensus and a lot of people convinced on both sides that they're correct, I'd rather look at the results than at the rules, and pick which results I'd prefer. A pragmatic approach, if you will.

Normally an Avenger crits on 19/400 results.
With the crit-on-a-2 interpretation, he crits on 37/400 results.

Normally, if an Avenger hits on an 11, he hits on 300/400 attack rolls.
With the crit-on-a-2 interpretation, he hits on 309/400 attack rolls.

Calculate expected damage as: (crit damage * chance to crit) + (regular damage * chance to hit-not-crit).

The increase in damage is small.

Cheers, -- N