Adent Champion. Rules lawyers required

[N8Ball]

And Precision tosses in the extra logical step that makes it D and not E and F. You keep ignoring the fact that Precision exists.

The logical equasion I gave describes the text of Holy Ardor concisely and accurately. It needs no addition.

If you would like to argue that X has logical arguments (F) within it, then that may be consistent with your argument, but X IS the result of meeting Holy Ardor's conditions. Saying you need F before you get to X is not consistent with the arguments in your last post or the rest of this thread.

You actually have yet to point out -exactly- how this gets around precision.

I will tell you how it gets around Precision when we settle on what X really is. Perhaps this argument will be more productive if we establish some common foundations of definition.

I don't see it as oxymoronic, I see it as what the rule says:

We know it is not necessarily a hit. It's not oxymoronic, ...

"oxymoronic" is an adjective that has nothing to do with underlying meaning or truth of the phrase as a whole. It's simply a reference to the fact that the word elements are contradictory. A critical hit that is a miss is an oxymoron, ask Webster.

 

[DracoSuave]

In my opinion, the Holy Ardent PP class feature creates an entirely new situation that is not based upon the results of an attack roll, and therefore is entirely independent of the previously-existing rules on how to determine a Critical Hit.

Well, this is easy to resolve. Even tho the trigger isn't based on the specific number rolled, it does still qualify as allowing you to roll a critical hit with numbers other than 20.

If you roll 20 with both dice, it would have been a critical -anyways- (assuming the roll is high enough to hit), so that's hardly under consideration.

What this means that if you have any other pair, you are still rolling a number. It isn't an unknown quantity what you roll, as oath of emnity does have a specific result. Therefore, when the ability of Holy Ardor kicks in, it -only does so- for numbers other than 20.

Which means that the original Precision still describes it.

In before 'But it also triggers on a 20!'--so does any ability that says you 'can crit on an 19 or 20' which Precision applies to.

 

[Flipguarder]

"oxymoronic" is an adjective that has nothing to do with underlying meaning or truth of the phrase as a whole. It's simply a reference to the fact that the word elements are contradictory. A critical hit that is a miss is an oxymoron, ask Webster.

Thanks for being reasonable about the discussion...

Anyway, a critical hit that misses is an oxymoron sure. Well guess what, there's an oxymoronic rule in the book. Read precision, read the PHB version, and the rules compendium version. They BOTH CLEARLY create situations in which what would be a critical hit turn out to miss.

For instance, according to precision and the daggermaster PP feature, if you roll an 19 on your attack roll with a +20 to hit against an ancient red dragon, by rules you would critically hit, but you miss.

 

[Artoomis]

...What this means that if you have any other pair, you are still rolling a number....

Well, no - you are rolling a number pair, not a number. An entirely new creation for Holy Ardor.

I can readily agree, though, that it can be thought of either way and that there is no 100% entirely correct reading based upon RAW only.

My opinion is that the preponderance of the evidence suggests that it applies even if the number pair does not have a result that would have been high enough to hit. This is based upon the actual language (which omits any possibility of a "possibility" of a critical hit) as well as the inclusion of the mention of a [air of ones being a miss, which truly only has actual meaning if any pair represents a critical hit as opposed to a possible critical hit.

Still, even accepting all the above, that merely makes it more likely than not that the rule is meant to be an automatic critical hit as opposed to a critical hit only if the number on the underlying number pair would have hit anyway.

My conclusion? Any matching pair of dice, other than a pair of ones, is an automatic cortical hit whether the number on the dice would have hit or not. The case for this, however, is far from overwhelming; it is merely somewhat stronger than the case against.

This is one of those cases where a FAQ entry would be very useful.

 

[CovertOps]

I like this summary:


Becaue Holy Ardour makes it read:
IF (A and B) then X.
A = rolling a 20 or the same result on both Oath of Enmity dice.
B = having a attack roll high enough to hit the defense
X = score a critical hit.

Nothing in the text of the power says anything about scoring an automatic hit.

Yet people keep trying to say that the power does include text that makes it an automatic hit, despite the clear lack of such text from the power.

No, that's not exactly right. The original equasion is the form of the PHB wording; Holy Ardor has significant differences.

Let's keep A as "roll a 20". You could think of the mastery feats changing this to "roll a 19 or 20".

Holy Ardor reads likes this if you wanted to put it in logical form.

IF (D and not E) then X

D = Roll doubles on Oath of Enminty dice
E = Roll double ones.

This feature creates a new avenue for achieving X. You still have the original way (A and B) to reach X. The old rules are not replaced, you're just going around them.

The counter argument by DS and others is that the requirements A and B (from PHB and the original equasion) are part of X. Hence their oxymoronic interpretation that a critical hit is not necessarily a hit.

The correct equation would look like this:

A = Rolls a 20
B = Class feature that allows you to roll some other number than a 20 and get a crit
C = A roll high enough to hit the target

if (A or B) AND C

Further modified to the following for Holy Ardor:

D = If you roll doubles when using your OoE class feature

if (A or B or D) AND C

Precision specifically allows ways to get a critical other than rolling a 20, but does not say anything about those rolls being an auto-hit.
Holy Ardor gives a way to get a critical other than rolling a 20, but does not say anything about being auto-hit.
You can keep adding as many cases to the ( or or or or ) part above for as many ways as the designers can think up to grant a crit, but that does not make them an automatic hit unless the power says so.

The situation here is an entirely new one - rolling the same number on the two attack dice granted by an Avenger's Oath of Enmity.

So, is "If you roll a 20 on the die when making an attack roll, you score a critical hit...

So, I have a question, and I think it is truly the key question is:

"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..." applicable when you are using the result of an attack roll but are instead using matching die rolls on the two attacks rolls granted by the oath of enmity class feature?"

You have to refer back to the base rules for OoE: No books at work so I'm going to have to paraphrase (but if someone has access to compendium feel free to post the exact quote). You are allowed to roll 2 dice (under certain conditions) to hit and "PICK ONE" or "PICK THE HIGHER OF THE TWO" of those results to determine if you hit. Obviously if you roll doubles there is no choice as both rolls are the same. This leaves you with 2 die rolls so you can determine if you have a chance to critical AND it leaves you with a single result with which to evaluate the result of C (a roll high enough to hit). Again this is NOT a new situation as the rules already give you a way to evaluate the result of 2 dice rolls. Also, if this were true think of all the other rules that the two dice rolls would break if your intrepretation was correct.

Continuing to make the same assertion over and over does not make it true. "Critical hit" is not equal to a hit. A crit can be a miss. You can also hit with a 20 and not crit. Nothing in Holy Ardor contradicts with anything in precision. They work together as intended. The fact that you have to parse the phrasing of the power and read something into it that is NOT specifically stated to arrive at your conclusion should be a hint that you are reading it wrong. Does Holy Ardor say that it automatically hits AND crits if you roll doubles? No? Then it doesn't. It's that simple.

 

[Artoomis]

...Again this is NOT a new situation as the rules already give you a way to evaluate the result of 2 dice rolls... Also, if this were true think of all the other rules that the two dice rolls would break if your intrepretation was correct.

The requirement that two rolls be equal is entirely different from picking the higher of two rolls - this is brand new with Holy Ardor. Until Holy Ardor, one might be able to roll twice and pick the better result, but that changes nothing about how to handle that result.

Using the situation where the two die rolls are equal is something entirely new, which may or may not follow the pre-existing rules that require the attack roll to be a hit before it is considered a critical hit.

Continuing to make the same assertion over and over does not make it true.

That applies equally to both sides.

... Does Holy Ardor say that it automatically hits AND crits if you roll doubles?...

Maybe, maybe not. It depends on how you read it. Thus this whole thread.

Again, I think both sides have valid arguments (I think mine is a bit better, but still...), thus, by RAW, neither side is actually wrong. Why not leave it at that?

Why must one side be right and the other wrong??

 

[Artoomis]

Key question:

Is rolling identical numbers on two d20 the same as rolling numbers other than a 20 on a d20?

If yes, then you must hit with the attack roll for it to be a crit with holy Ardor as the normal critical hit rules, including "precision," apply.

If no, then you don't need to hit with the attack roll and get an auto-crit instead if you get a pair as this overrides the normal critical hit rules, including "precision."

I think it's as simple as that.

So..., answer the question above and you have your answer.

In my opinion, there are two valid answers. "Yes," and "No."

 

[keterys]

As far as I can tell, no matter how you try to wrangle things, no matter what you do, in 4e you need to _hit_ for something to be a critical hit. I can't fathom any case in which the game is improved by avoiding that case.

If they want to make this ability automatically hit _and_ be a critical, then I'd cheerfully encourage them to add language making it automatically hit as noted above.

I'm very curious how many pages this discussion can go for.

 

[CovertOps]

Key question:

Is rolling identical numbers on two d20 the same as rolling numbers other than a 20 on a d20?

I will make a comparison that is the same.
Is rolling identical numbers on two d20 (other than 20), using Holy Ardor, the same as rolling an 18-19, using the Daggermaster class feature?
Frankly there is only one valid answer to this question.

Just for the record I am in the camp that the INTENT might have been as you claim, but the current wording does not support that. In order for me to believe that a roll of double 2's is a hit and a crit with Holy Ardor it would have had to have been worded like this:

Holy Ardor (11th level) : Whenever you make two attack rolls because of your oath of enmity, if both dice have the same roll, except if both rolls are 1, you automatically hit and treat that hit as a critical.

This overrides the automatic hit rules (20 only) and it overrides the critical rules (you don't crit if the roll isn't high enough to hit). There is no guesswork in phrasing like this. Since it is not worded this way we are left with the other possibility. They didn't intend to override either of those rules.

And just let me second what keterys just posted while I was writing this.

 

[Artoomis]

...Is rolling identical numbers on two d20 (other than 20), using Holy Ardor, the same as rolling an 18-19, using the Daggermaster class feature?...

Nope. Very different.

Daggermaster: "Dagger Precision (11th level): You can score critical hits with daggers on a roll of 18–20." (emphasis added)

Ardent Champion: "Holy Ardor (11th level): 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."

Very, very different.

The first fits very nicely into:

"Natural 20: 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. If your attack roll is too low to score a critical hit, you still hit automatically.

Precision: Some class features and powers allow you to score a critical hit when you roll numbers other than 20 (only a natural 20 is an automatic hit)."

The second does not fit. It's an entirely new mechanic. Now, I can see how we can make it fit, but my reading is that it does not as written.

There are several reasons:

1. Rolling the same number of two dice is not the same as rolling numbers other than a 20, especially when one realized the context for precision is a single attack roll (which might be the best roll if mutiple rolls are allowed by a power).

2. The omission of the word "can."

3. The "except if both rolls are 1" clause which is only needed if matching numbers are a new situation not needed to score a hit to be able to be a critical hit.

Of course, I do see the validity of the opposing argument and agree that both sides of this one are correct (with my side being slightly more correct )