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: 4913662" data-attributes="member: 63757">That is a very nice summary.  I think we've run around the mechanics of the crit rules enough to form 2 pretty well developed paradigms about how the crit rules work.The lowest level semantics and interactions on both sides of the argument have been discussed to an impressive level of detail.  One argument that has only been touched on briefly is the "fruit of this tree" argument.  Draco and Samir touched on it a little bit but not at length.This argument basicly says, "If everything you say is true, what are the logical implications and concequences of your position?"SO, Let's look at where each camp takes us if we accept *all* of their assumptions.  More specifically, what are the "bitter pills" that we have to swallow if we accept this paradigm.I'll go first. And I would invite anyone else to show logical conclusions that are undesirable that flow from acceptance of these assumptions.  I'm talking about pragmatic, game play implications, not more discussions on precision or "Can".Given the assumptions that all crits are hits and that permissive language matters in crit features and feats.  These are the bitter pills we must swallow:  (Obviously) Ardent Champions will hit and crit rolling double 2s regardless of the defense targeted.  This IS a bitter pill to swallow, there's no two ways about it.  Even if the assumptions are followed and applied to all other feats, Holy Ardor is still the only way to hit with non-20, non-hitting attack numbers.  That may be seem overpowered, silly, unfair, unbalanced, but that's where this path leads, and this is what we must accept IF we accept this argument.I think there may be some other jagged little pills that follow from this camp, but I can't think of any, so I open it up to others observation.  NOTE - if you do not keep the assumptions then the outcome is not the fruit of THIS tree.Also, I would ask the opposing side to present their assumptions as clearly and concisely as they can, since I don't want to put words in anyone elses mouth.</blockquote>

Verification