Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DracoSuave" data-source="post: 4920006" data-attributes="member: 71571">Except, of course, by:1) Proving that rolling doubles is not the same as making an attack roll.2) Proving that doing so is not the same as rolling other than a 20.3) Proving that Holy Ardor is not an ability other than that which allows critical hits on rolls other than 204) Proving that Precision is not a rule5) Proving that abilities need grant permission to the rules that tell you how they work for those rules to work.All five of these things have been supported and counterargued by the opposite camp.You have -argued- them, but they have been debunked.  So arguing is not the same as proving, which is what you are failing to do.And that proof is necessary to claim there is an exception to the rules in the first place.  Your entire case hinges on that exception existing, otherwise, you must apply the rules.So, it is not sufficient to argue possibility, you must prove the case, and there's many possible things you can prove.By the same token, I can argue all sorts of things that go against the rules.  I can argue that fireball ignores fire immunity because it doesn't say the target -may- take damage.  But I'd be wrong.You don't need to give permission to the rules for the rules to work.  For that, I give you -THE REST OF THE GAME-.There is more than enough evidence to prove that this premise is faulty.  It's almost in the realm of bovine scat as to its ludicrousness.However, let's start with -every power in the game-.There's a good start.Agreed.  However, it has yet to be proven that said word is -necessary for the rule to work.-  They've also dropped language in other rules templating as well.Funny, no one's using -them- any differently.Ah. I see you added 'context' in there.So, are you -honestly- claiming that the context of alternative methods of rolling a critical hit other than a natural 20 does not apply to an alternative method of rolling a critical hit other than a natural 20?  REALLY!?!Except this.Rolling doubles IS, in 19 out of 20 cases, rolling a number other than 20.  Here, let's go through every possible outcome (called the brute force method) to demonstrate.Then you can try to disprove this claim.First, Oath of Emnity says that we choose which number the attack roll is.  We know that this applies to critical hits because either one being a 20 is a natural 20.  So that means that Oath of Emnity's result -applies to the critical hit rules-.Double 1s is rolling a 1, and therefore rolling a number other than 20.Double 2s is rolling a 2, and therefore rolling a number other than 20.Double 3s is rolling a 3, and therefore rolling a number other than 20.Double 4s is rolling a 4, "Double 5s is rolling a 5, "Double 6s is rolling a 6, "Double 7s is rolling a 7, "Double 8s is rolling a 8, "Double 9s is rolling a 9, "Double 10s is rolling a 10, "Double 11s is "Seriously, do I -need- to go on?So, you have a definate roll.  It definately applies to the critical hit rules.  There is no text telling you to skip the critical hit rules.  The rule that applies uses the same language as Holy Ardor.Where is the flaw in this?</blockquote>

Verification