Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DracoSuave" data-source="post: 4927591" data-attributes="member: 71571">All that is needed is to disprove the idea that the ability declaring it so implicitly guarantees success.  If success is not guaranteed, then the logical argument 'It says you succeed therefore you cannot fail' is discreditted, because the ability does -not- tell you that you must succeed, only to do something which might not be allowable due to failure.Except that the ability doesn't trump all rules involving hitting or missing.  Which is all you need to prove for the argument to work.  All that is necessary is that 'score a critical hit' does not implicitly guarantee a successful hit.  Once that is done, then it is proven that it does not contradict the rules.I only gave one example, because only one example is needed for a counter-example disproof to be successful.As an example:  To disprove "All birds can fly" your successful counterargument can simply be 'Ostrich' and you've disproven that statement.That it does not guarantee a successful critical?  That's proven by the above.  All that is needed is to prove the guarantee does not exist.  That is done.  It is therefore correct.  I assume that correct logic is correct.Technically correct, but that is because Hit is mutually exclusive with Miss, and a hit guarantees a non-miss.  It doesn't have to deny a miss, but it always does anyways.In order for the opposite to be true, Holy Ardor must guarantee a critical hit in contradiction of the hit rules.  It does not, and as well, it is proven that the specific power does not contradict the general rule of missing in certain cases.If you're asking it to prove that it must obey normal hit rules as part of an argument that it must obey normal hit rules, then you A) do not understand the argument, and B) are inviting me to make a circular argument.But no caveat exists proving that a guaranteed hit occurs, and therefore a non-miss is not guaranteed either.But that hit is not guaranteed to occur, and therefore, a non-miss is not granted by the rule.Yet again, proven that case does not exist here.That's not a counter argument.  Conclusions require counter arguments, not a statement of 'No U'And rebuttals that state 'But if blah existed, this would be false' are not successful rebuttals when blah does not exist.</blockquote>

Verification