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="CovertOps" data-source="post: 4914468" data-attributes="member: 65152">I have finally put my finger on what I think bothers me most about this.Assertion: "Score a critical hit" = "hit"How is this proven?Normally in exception based design the power giving you the exception (Holy Ardor in this case) would tell you exactly how it lets you break the normal rules such as:In this situation we have no such rules text to override the general rules on "hit" so instead the argument is essentially "the general rules on criticals prove that a critical is a hit".  What this means is that instead of exception text in the new power, the new power is giving a "BRAND NEW MEANING TO THE EXISTING RULES" because the hit rules have never been used in such a way as to prove that a critical is a hit.  The normal flow is did you hit?  If so then maybe you got a critical and check these rules to find out.  What this means is that you are using the general hit rules to prove that you hit and that IS a circular argument.  The general rules on hit are not intended to prove that you hit, they instead tell you when you hit by meeting it's criteria.So I guess my point is IF you can prove that Holy Ardor allows you to "hit" WITHOUT using the general rules for "hit" then you have a case.  Otherwise you are suggesting that Holy Ardor is either changing the meaning of the general hit rules OR giving them a new way to be used that was never intended.  Either of those cases is bad for exception based design as it breaks the entire system at it's base level.</blockquote>

Verification