Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N8Ball" data-source="post: 4911122" data-attributes="member: 63757">OK then, I misunderstood what he meant by adjudicate.  That is consistent with earlier arguments.YES! I agree with this whole statement wholeheartedly. I like the way you argue, Flipguarder.  Very clean and cutting right to the heart of the matter.  I'll explain how it skips in a sec, but first the rest of your post.OK then, the differences in the two camps stem from 2 assumptions.  1) A critical hit is necessarily a hit2) The permissive or definitive language surrounding critical hit feats features and rules is important.  ("can", "might", "allow", possible etc.)The opposite camp also has two assumptions that form the basis for their argument  (I will sum them up to the best of my ability, please correct any glaring errors)1) The language "can" or "allow" in feats and features is just as definitive as saying that "you score a critical hit"2) Scoring a critical hit does not necessarily mean that you hit.Each pair of assumptions is related too closely to split them up, as one assumptions naturally leads to it's pair. The whole "can" thing may be shaky, but it stems from crit = hit (which I think is pretty solid), and nobody has yet addressed the differences I pointed out about their examples on "can" powers.  (all the other "can" examples involve player choice, unlike the crit rules which only involve rule adjudication, not choice, so the comparison may be apples to oranges)So given the assumptions that I have made, the "crit = hit" (supported elsewhere) IS the mechanic for skipping the need for an attack roll that doesn't otherwise hit the defense.  And you're right, there is no prescedent for this type of mechanic, because IF the assumptions I've made are correct, then this is the first rule since "automatic hit" that allows you to not hit the defense and still hit.  That kind of newness isn't outlawed, but it doesn't have prescedents, so I understand the cry for wanting it to be described as "automatic hit" even though that's not entirely appropriate.</blockquote>

Verification