# Adent Champion. Rules lawyers required



## BobTheNob (Aug 18, 2009)

From Divine Power, the Ardent Champion has the following level 11 paragon ability



> Holy Ardor (11th level) : Whenever you make two attack rolls because of your oath of enmity, you score a critical hit if both dice have the same roll, except if both rolls are 1.




Now, my question is, does that mean you still critically hit if the numbers are the same but the roll wasnt enough to hit? For instance, avenger needs an 11 to hit, and rolls 8 twice. Does this turn the miss into a critical hit?

There are examples of other powers that are keyed against both rolls needing to hit (the stance from the Serence initiate for instance) which suggests that the need to hit in the first place is otherwise explicately stated, yet here it isnt?


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 18, 2009)

-Very- good question.

Fortunately, there is a surprisingly straight forward answer.



			
				PHB p278 said:
			
		

> Precision: Some class features and powers allow you to score a critical hit when you roll numbers other than 20 *(only a natural 20 is an automatic hit).*




This path feature isn't hitting a 20, therefore, is not an automatic hit.  Some might try to say otherwise, but Precision exists -exactly- for features such as this one.

Hope this helps!


----------



## abyssaldeath (Aug 18, 2009)

This is under debate over at Gleemax. I happen to agree with DracoSuave, but to allow the feature to provide an automatic hit would probably not be over powered.


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 18, 2009)

Awesome.

Book says you don't in the rules for critical hits.  (General.)

There is no specific rule to counter-act this.  (Specific.)

Therefore apply the general rule.

This isn't really hard.

The reason the PP has the 'unless they are both 1s' feature is so that you know how to adjudicate what is an automatic miss.


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 18, 2009)

abyssaldeath said:


> This is under debate over at Gleemax. I happen to agree with DracoSuave, but to allow the feature to provide an automatic hit would probably not be over powered.




Okay, let's say you need to roll an 11 or better to hit.

Without this, the Avenger has a 39/400 chance of rolling a critical, and a 261/400 chance of rolling a hit.

With the ability to crit (or even auto hit) with this, this changes the math (GAH)

Dear gawd.

Seriously.

I just woke up.

Look, it gives Avengers who have a retarded amount of accuracy as it is even more accuracy and makes their critical hit ability as good as the daggermaster's.

Except, of course, the daggermaster misses if he can't hit with his crit.  (This isn't really a good argument tho, as if you can't roll 18 naturally and hit something your DM is a dick or you got debuffed to hell.  Or you need to run away.  RUN AWAY DAGGERMASTER RUN THIS IS NOT YOUR FIGHT OH NOES THE PALADIN GOT EATED BY VECNA NOOOOOOooooOOOooo!)

But seriously.  The Avenger doesn't need more autohit.  I dunno if it's broken, but damn if it isn't completely off the hook.

But regardless, if you give this the autohit ability, you're staring down a daggermaster with an execution axe.  Those crits ain't with a 1d4 weapon.  High Crit comes into play here.  Massive damage.

It won't be pretty.


----------



## Nifft (Aug 18, 2009)

Unfortunately, I don't think it's quite clear either way.

The language in the PHB for the Epic feats which give you 19-20 crits looks like this: 







			
				Compendium said:
			
		

> When you make a melee weapon attack with an axe, you *can* score a critical hit on a natural roll of 19 or 20.



 (emphasis mine)

The difference between "you *can* score a critical hit" and "you score a critical hit" should be obvious: the former provides an opportunity, the latter could be read to confer a result.

IMHO the more balanced interpretation is that you can't crit if you wouldn't hit anyway, but that's only one reading of this (annoyingly ambiguous) rule.

Sorry, -- N


----------



## Klaus (Aug 18, 2009)

Can't see anything ambiguous there. If you roll both dice high enough to hit, and both yield the same number, it's not only a hit, but a critical one.


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 18, 2009)

Nifft said:


> Unfortunately, I don't think it's quite clear either way.
> 
> The language in the PHB for the Epic feats which give you 19-20 crits looks like this:  (emphasis mine)
> 
> ...




This is also unambiguous.

"(only a natural 20 is an automatic hit)"

Does the path feature say that it is an automatic hit?  No?  It doesn't?  Then there's no exception to the above -unambiguous rule-.

I rolled two 8s.  Awesome.  Are they natural 20s?  No?  Then they are not an automatic hit.  Does the path feature say anything about automaticly hitting?  No?  Is their a rule that covers when you crit without a natural 20?  Yes?

Then, you apply the rule.  Show me where you don't.



> Can't see anything ambiguous there. If you roll both dice high enough to hit, and both yield the same number, it's not only a hit, but a critical one.




That part, fortunately, is pretty well understood.  It's a different case that seems to provide problems.


----------



## Nifft (Aug 18, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> This is also unambiguous.
> 
> "(only a natural 20 is an automatic hit)"
> 
> ...





			
				Compendium said:
			
		

> Holy Ardor (11th level) : Whenever you make two attack rolls because of your oath of enmity, you score a critical hit if both dice have the same roll, except if both rolls are 1.



 Let me highlight the bit you've somehow missed: 







			
				Compendium said:
			
		

> Holy Ardor (11th level) : Whenever you make two attack rolls because of your oath of enmity, *you score a* critical *hit* if both dice have the same roll, except if both rolls are 1.




 -- N


----------



## BobTheNob (Aug 18, 2009)

The wording in ambiguous for me too. The thing is, when I crunched the numbers I found that the crit chance if gave you (if you assume it needs to hit) is all of a (trumpets and drumroll) 2.25% Better chance if you need an 11 to hit. As you go down the scale (i.e. it gets easier to hit) this improves to 4.5% at a target roll of two. As it gets harder, this diminishes down to 0% (at your normal crit number).

So, its as good as some other paragon paths IF I was attacking a creature I would slaughter anyway! Unfortunately, RAW it sounds great on paper, but if you really do the analysis...its weak. Really weak.
The thing with this is I am interested in rolling up an avenger, but looking at all of the boards on how to compose an avenger, NONE of them recommend this PP for this reason. They all to cheeseball things like multiclass cleric/radiant servent, multiclass warlock/Student of Caiphon, multiclass rogue/daggermaster.

With any character, I hold the convication that they are defined both by there efficacy (i.e. what are there numbers and how do abilities synergise to produce results) and there theme. I hate multiclassing into something I didnt see as the theme of my toon to be effective a I hate sacrificing efficacy for the sake of the theme. Best character are those that have both.

With avengers dropping crit rating has a profound effect on overall chance to crit, and I think the deisgners understood this and gave an ability that increased crit rating without leveraging against the double roll, problem is RAW it just came out weak.

My gut feel sais RAI we are meant to give the crit on a double roll even if roll is naturally a miss. It just doesnt work otherwise


----------



## Marshall (Aug 18, 2009)

I think Nifft has it right. The other reading makes the "Two 1's" line superfluous.


----------



## pascalnz (Aug 18, 2009)

gah I just missed out on pointing out the whole missing on two ones is superflous thing.

to be completely straight it says you score a crit unless it's a double one. which is completely uneeded because you auto miss on ones anyway.

Unless!! this ability negates the normal rules for auto hits/misses and crits.


so if you read it so that it isn't a pointless phrase you crit[not just hit] on any double roll unless it's a double one. 

another odd corner case this creates. if you would miss the target on a twenty but you roll a double twenty with this ability, you crit the target. 

and, as the math shows it's really just kind of nice and nowhere near broken for it to work this way. it ups your accuracy a tiny amount and your chance to crit at most 5%. most of the time around 2.5.

also .. it's fun


----------



## Mirtek (Aug 18, 2009)

Marshall said:


> I think Nifft has it right. The other reading makes the "Two 1's" line superfluous.




No, it's still important if you're buffed so high for a nova turn that you could actually hit on a 1.


I also don't think the difference between "you can score" and "you score" matters at all, since looking at how movement granting powers are also worded in both variants with PHB2 stating that it's always a "you can move" even if the power is written with "you move" it just seems that the designers of 4e did not care at all about the difference between writing "you do" and "you can"


----------



## pascalnz (Aug 19, 2009)

you can never be buffed so high you hit on a one.

rolling a one is an auto miss, just like a twenty is an auto hit.

it's in the same rules section.


----------



## Flipguarder (Aug 19, 2009)

At the very least, I think it is currently up to interpretation and therefore, not worth much attention in an argument.


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 19, 2009)

Nifft said:


> Let me highlight the bit you've somehow missed:
> 
> -- N




Here's the WHOLE rule again.  With the parts -you- missed highlighted.  Read it.  Then read it again. It applies to this -very- situation.  The feature says you score a critical hit, great.  Then that means that Precision then kicks in.  You've got general, now let's get specific.

Precision: *Some class features and powers allow you to score a critical hit when you roll numbers other than 20* (only a natural 20 is an automatic hit).

Precision is a rule designed to interract with features and powers that allow you to roll a critical hit with other than 20.  Yes?

This feature allows you to roll a critical hit with other than 20.  Yes?  Does it say, explicitly, that Precision does not apply?  Does it say, explicitly, or even implicitly, that you automaticly hit as well as score a crit?  No?  Does the ability say 'You automatically hit?'  No?

Precision applies to this feature.

Simple as that.  If it didn't, then it wouldn't apply to any other crit-altering mechanic either.  And that means the Precision rule does nothing.

Seriously.  The rule is -right there-.  It is -unambiguous.-  The rule applies -directly- to the situation.

According to the rule specificly regarding altered critical hit possibilities, *only a natural 20 is an automatic hit.* 

Please explain where the feature suggests otherwise.  Scoring a critical hit is already covered by Precision, -explicitly-.  Show me where the words 'automatic hit' come into play here, other than it only happening with 20s.


----------



## Turtlejay (Aug 19, 2009)

I think I am with Nifft on this one.  The wording of the PP ability is more specific than the rule about criticals.  Specific trumps general.  The quoted wording of the ability has no mights or cans or maybes, it just says "you score a critical hit".  Also, the point about rolling two ones is a good one.  With Dracosuave's interpretation you wouldn't need that little bit.

Jay


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 19, 2009)

Actually the two 1's line is indicating explicitly that the text is not an exception to the 1s automaticly miss rule.  It has nothing to do with Precision, as Precision has nothing to do with natural 1s.



> The wording of the PP ability is more specific than the rule about criticals.  Specific trumps general.




The PP is an ability that says you score a critical in a situation other than rolling natural 20.  Precision is a rule that tells you how to adjudicate such abilities.  The PP does not have a specific exception written out.  The General => Specific order goes like this:

General:  You score critical hits on natural 20s, and they are automatic hits.
  Tier 1 Specific:  You score critical hits when both dice come up the same number.
     Tier 2 Specific:  Scoring a critical does not automaticly hit unless the number is a natural 20.

See how that works?  The paragon path is an exception to the natural 20 rule about rolling the critical, but as an ability 'that allows you to score a critical on numbers other than 20', Precision then is a specific rule that trumps the feature.

Had the feature included text saying that it -did- autohit, then it'd go ahead and trump the Precision rule.  Without it, the Precision rule has -no reason- not to apply.


----------



## Bryan Reese (Aug 19, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> Okay, let's say you need to roll an 11 or better to hit.
> 
> Without this, the Avenger has a 39/400 chance of rolling a critical, and a 261/400 chance of rolling a hit.
> 
> ...




Actually, this is not Daggermaster territory. A Daggermaster scores a crit 15% of the time, rather than your standard 5%, giving it a 10% increase. 

This, if you allow a roll of 2 2 to be a crit, scores a crit 18/400 of the time. That is an increase of 4.5%, not even half of a Daggermaster's increase. And really, the discussion is only about the difference between critting on a miss or not. Assuming you need an 11 to hit, that means the looser viewpoint gets the numbers 2-10 extra, or an extra 8 in 400. That is a 2% increase vs. the Daggermasters 10% increase.

The reality is the wording can be interpreted either way, and the difference is about 2% one way or another. For a mere 2%, my feeling is let the players have fun with it. It is one of the few Avenger PPs worth using.


----------



## BobTheNob (Aug 19, 2009)

Another idea might be to houserule it



> "If you hit your oath of enmity and the hit is not a critical, roll another dice. If the result is a natural 20, upgrade the hit to a critical hit"



That way the crit rate it provides is consistent : 5% as opposed to 2.25% at 11+, scaling down with difficulty and up with ease.

It provides a critical hit chance that does not scale up due to the avengers double roll (remember, every time you reduce the crit target by 1, for an avenger the crit chance increase by just shy of 10%)

It doesnt increase avenger accuracy.


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 19, 2009)

Bryan Reese said:


> Actually, this is not Daggermaster territory. A Daggermaster scores a crit 15% of the time, rather than your standard 5%, giving it a 10% increase.




5% + close to 5% for Oath + close to 5% for feature = close to 15%.

15% IS Daggermaster country.

Only if it's auto hit tho.



Edit:  Also, another reason why the ambiguity should not exist:

Let's say you have a monster with Vulnerable Fire 5.

You attack him with a fireball, and your fireball normally does 3d6 + Intellegence Modifier.

Now, do you deal those extra five damage, or do you ignore vulnerability because the power says '3d6 + Intellegence Modifier' which is "clearly an exception to the vulnerability rules"?  

Why, of -course- you deal the extra five damage.  Unless the power told you to ignore vulnerable, you'd apply it, because that is the only thing that makes logical sense.  Vulnerable is an ability of the logical form "When Situation X, Do Y." and Fireball is a clear example of Situation X.

The rule Precision is also an ability of the logical form "when situation X, do Y" except Situation X is 'when a feature allows you to roll numbers other than 20 for a critical' and do Y is "Do not automatically hit unless the roll is a 20."

The feature is even written using the same language as Precision: 'score' a  critical hit. There's no indication -not- to apply it.


----------



## Nifft (Aug 19, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> Here's the WHOLE rule again.  With the parts -you- missed highlighted.  Read it.  Then read it again. It applies to this -very- situation.  The feature says you score a critical hit, great.  Then that means that Precision then kicks in.  You've got general, now let's get specific.
> 
> Precision: *Some class features and powers allow you to score a critical hit when you roll numbers other than 20* (only a natural 20 is an automatic hit).
> 
> ...



 It says you hit. (Specifically, it says you score a critical hit.)

That means: *you hit*.

The word "automatic" doesn't come into play, because it's NOT automatic. It only occurs under certain conditions. (Those conditions are spelled out in the rules, but I'll repeat them if you don't remember what I'm talking about.)

Sheesh, -- N


----------



## abyssaldeath (Aug 19, 2009)

One thing my DM brought up is that the more you increase your crit chance(feats, magic items, powers) the less useful Holy Ardent becomes, especially if you are required to hit.


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 19, 2009)

Nifft said:


> It says you hit. (Specifically, it says you score a critical hit.)
> 
> That means: *you hit*.




Except that Precision comes around and says you do not, in fact, automatically hit.  

Right.  I get that.  You read the path feature.  Now read Precison.  Notice it says 'Score a critical hit.'  Same exact language.  Verbatim.  So, when you score a critical hit, Precision applies.  Situation A means Apply B.  

It says that yes, some abilities allow you, verbatim, to score a critical hit.  And then it says -Only a natural 20 is an automatic hit.-  Verbatim.

So, therefore, *when you score a critical hit,* only a natural 20 is an automatic hit.

Mentioning that the feature allows you to score a critical hit is relevant, because it tells you to apply the damn rule about scoring critical hits without rolling 20s.

Saying otherwise is logically like saying that vulnerability to fire doesn't apply to Fireball because fireball says you do that damage, and doesn't say you do more.   Look, it even says exactly how much damage you deal!  Vulnerability does not apply!

The only ambiguity that exists is one that involves ignoring the rules as written.

So, then, explain again, please, why 'scoring a critical hit' means that you don't apply Precision.  And please, explain what Precision means by 'score a critical hit' because the only way there is an ambiguity is if you believe that 'score a critical hit' doesn't mean the same as 'score a critical hit.'


----------



## Nifft (Aug 19, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> Except that Precision comes around and says you do not, in fact, automatically hit.
> 
> Right.  I get that.  You read the path feature.  Now read Precison.  Notice it says 'Score a critical hit.'  Same exact language.  Verbatim.  So, when you score a critical hit, Precision applies.  Situation A means Apply B.
> 
> ...



 Are you really asking me why a specific rule (which even you can see says that *you hit*) should trump the general rule?

I explained the difference in language between this particular rule and the feats to which Precision applies in my first post to this thread.

I even used bold to help people figure out what was different.

 -- N


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 19, 2009)

Nifft said:


> Are you really asking me why a specific rule (which even you can see says that *you hit*) should trump the general rule?
> 
> I explained the difference in language between this particular rule and the feats to which Precision applies in my first post to this thread.
> 
> ...




You bolded the words 'score a critical hit.'  Precision also has the words 'score a critical hit.'

They are the same thing.

The words 'You Hit' does not exist in the feature.  I know, I read it twice.  Only 'Score a critical hit.'  And precision then applies.

Or are you saying that every time 'Score a critical hit' appears, precision doesn't apply?

Cause... um... then [weapontype] Mastery, Daggermaster, and all critical-hit affecting stuff that say 'You score a critical hit' also automaticly hit, because apparently 'You score a critical hit' to you means, you hit.

In which case, what does Precision mean?  Because your interpretation means that that rule -does nothing.-


----------



## Nifft (Aug 19, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> In which case, what does Precision mean?  Because your interpretation means that that rule -does nothing.-



 It is a general rule.

It is trumped by several specific rules.

When a specific rule trumps it, it does not apply (and it can use its free time to do whatever it wishes, including nothing).

 -- N


----------



## Eldorian (Aug 19, 2009)

> Holy Ardor (11th level) : Whenever you make two attack rolls because of your oath of enmity, you score a critical hit if both dice have the same roll, except if both rolls are 1.
> 
> Precision: Some class features and powers allow you to score a critical hit when you roll numbers other than 20 (only a natural 20 is an automatic hit).




I'm not seeing the issue.  Class features and powers that allow you to score a critical hit when you roll numbers other than 20 still require you to actually hit before the roll is considered a critical hit.


----------



## BobTheNob (Aug 19, 2009)

Nifft does have a point. Precision is the general rule in this scenario (its the rule of thumb designed to cover numerous scenarios), Holy Ador is specific (it covers one scenario for one PP). Not the other way around.

If you want to argue that specific trumps general, then Holy Ador crits on matching rolls regardless of hit or miss chance.

But put the "it has this word" and the "look at page XXX sub paragraph YYY" into your back pocket and think about this.

Its a defining PP ability and should be potent and defining. Unfortunately, if you have to hit to get this extra crit chance...its piss weak. If you allow to crit even when its a miss its *nearly* ass good as other PP crit boosts and you get an almost insignificant boost to to hit.

If you want to peak into the minds of the designers and figure out what they intended (before Sally the typist made a mistake leading us to this rules lawyer debate) crunch the numbers and compare.

Without new evidence, it has to be RAW and RAI that hit or miss the crit applies on a double roll.


----------



## N8Ball (Aug 19, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> Cause... um... then [weapontype] Mastery, Daggermaster, and all critical-hit affecting stuff that say 'You score a critical hit' also automaticly hit, because apparently 'You score a critical hit' to you means, you hit.




None of these things you mentioned say "you score a critical hit".  They all say "you *can* score a critical hit" - meaning possibility not certainty.

"you score a critical hit" reads with certainty and that's why precision doesn't apply in this case, because that specific rule disagrees with the general rule of precision.

In fact, it's such a strong exception to general rules (more than just precision) that it was necessary to spell out what general rules were preserved. (missing on ones).


----------



## Eldorian (Aug 19, 2009)

BobTheNob said:


> Nifft does have a point. Precision is the general rule in this scenario (its the rule of thumb designed to cover numerous scenarios), Holy Ador is specific (it covers one scenario for one PP). Not the other way around.
> 
> If you want to argue that specific trumps general, then Holy Ador crits on matching rolls regardless of hit or miss chance.
> 
> ...




The rule precision is a very specific rule about powers and class features that allow critical hits on rolls other than 20.  The paragon path feature is a rule that is referenced BY the precision rule.

And the paragon path ability doesn't need to be awesome.  I can point out several rather crappy paragon path abilities, powers, etc.  The paragon path we're talking about has some pretty decent powers, and its level 16 ability is nice.  It's not like ALL it has is the crit on doubles ability.


----------



## Flipguarder (Aug 19, 2009)

Outside of actual rules and language, it makes much more sense that it's not an automatic hit.


----------



## BobTheNob (Aug 19, 2009)

Eldorian said:


> The rule precision is a very specific rule about powers and class features that allow critical hits on rolls other than 20. The paragon path feature is a rule that is referenced BY the precision rule.
> 
> And the paragon path ability doesn't need to be awesome. I can point out several rather crappy paragon path abilities, powers, etc. The paragon path we're talking about has some pretty decent powers, and its level 16 ability is nice. It's not like ALL it has is the crit on doubles ability.



I think we are confusing what is a specific rule vs a specifically worded rule. I agree, precision is very specifically worded rule. However the rule is designed to cover the bulk of cases in the game, and therefore (specifically worded as it may be) is by nature a general rule.

Wording in PHB, page 11
"If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins"

There is one thing I have no doubt of at the moment. We all have very different ideas of what the "clear" solution is here.

(p.s. I am actually finding this an interesting discussion and am now at the point of contributing not specifically to resolve this case, but more to help me understand how to adudicate similar issues in future. Keep it coming, this is interesting)


----------



## N8Ball (Aug 19, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> Outside of actual rules and language, it makes much more sense that it's not an automatic hit.




Well I can agree with that, but bobthenob makes a good point about the *really* low power level in that case.  That is, it would only apply in about 9 out of 400 attacks, assuming normal hit chances.  (and even less once you get mastery).

Reading it that way also nerfs the 16th level feature as well.

As others have pointed out, once you actually look at the likelihood of this feature activating, the more restrictive approach (no auto hit) make this PP pretty damn weak.  

The more permissive reading only makes the path a contender among several other good options.  So strictly from a balance (compared to other PP) perspective, I would read it more permissive.  (although I also think the RAW and RAI support this position as well)


----------



## Eldorian (Aug 19, 2009)

N8Ball said:


> As others have pointed out, once you actually look at the likelihood of this feature activating, the more restrictive approach (no auto hit) make this PP pretty damn weak.




Why is the PP weak if this one paragon path ability is read to only crit when you hit?


----------



## N8Ball (Aug 19, 2009)

Eldorian said:


> Why is the PP weak if this one paragon path ability is read to only crit when you hit?




I didn't think the rest of the PP powers and features were good enough to stand on their own in light of other good PP options.

Ardent Action - for an AP feature, this is pretty good stuff.

Holy Ardor (restrictive read) - nearly worthless at a 1 in 40 chance of being activated

Ardent Fury - Would be good if it didn't rely on crits to activate...hmmm now that I think about it, I forgot that Avengers crit almost 10%... this power is better than I thought before.

Fanatical Fury - good power, par for 11th level powers.

Battle Rapture - Strong damage boost, but a nasty disincentive for your allies to help you. (?!)  This invites generally bad tactics (spliting damage among enemies)

Irresistible Ardor - standard 20th level goodness, not game-changing, but good.

On futher reading and realization this path is more passable that I thought previously.  The 16th level feature is nice when you realize that you'll get the extra attack in 1/10 as opposed to 1/20 of the time.  I certainly don't think that another 9/400 chances for a crit will break the power bank, but I guess it could stand by itself.


----------



## Mirtek (Aug 19, 2009)

pascalnz said:


> you can never be buffed so high you hit on a one.




You can be buffed so high that rolling a 1 would generate a sufficiently high result.



pascalnz said:


> rolling a one is an auto miss




And for this reason it's repeated in the PP feature lest people start to argue that a double 1 is turned into a crit as long as it's enough to hit. And that's why this added reminder is not redundant



N8Ball said:


> None of these things you mentioned say "you score a critical hit".  They all say "you *can* score a critical hit" - meaning possibility not certainty.




Which is completly unimportant as seen by so many movement granting powers.


----------



## Flipguarder (Aug 19, 2009)

Mirtek said:


> And for this reason it's repeated in the PP feature lest people start to argue that a double 1 is turned into a crit as long as it's enough to hit. And that's why this added reminder is not redundant




That may be the most intelligent thing I've read all day. Granted I have been readin Ayn Rand...


----------



## ObsidianCrane (Aug 19, 2009)

Why are people seperating "hit" from "critical"?

The language of the game is "critical hit" they are not distinct terms in their use, and the existence of the word "hit" in the sentance does not in anyway imply that the attack is a hit. 

Further the text of the power in no way trumps the following specific rules.

ATTACK RESULTS
When you make an attack, compare your attack roll to the appropriate defense score of the target.
✦ Hit: If the attack roll is higher than or equal to the defense score, the attack hits and deals damage, has a special effect, or both.
Automatic Hit: If you roll a natural 20 (the die shows a 20), your attack automatically hits.
Critical Hit: If you roll a natural 20 (the die shows a 20), your attack might be a critical hit (page 278). A critical hit deals maximum damage, and some powers and magic items have an extra effect on a critical hit.

Critical Hits
When you roll a natural 20 and your total attack roll is high enough to hit your target’s defense, you score a critical hit, also known as a crit.

Natural 20: If you roll a 20 on the die when making an attack roll, you score a critical hit if your total attack roll is high enough to hit your target’s defense. If your attack roll is too low to score a critical hit, you still hit automatically.

In short nothing to see here move along, just a hedge of misuse of rules.


----------



## BobTheNob (Aug 19, 2009)

Eldorian said:


> Why is the PP weak if this one paragon path ability is read to only crit when you hit?



Can I answer that with a question? Does it matter?

Fact is that one ability, if you twist your thinking in the non favorable manner, it is singularly lack luster.

If however you take the permissive approach (which by my perception is actually RAW until someone can prove to me the Precision is NOT the general rule, and I repeat, its not wording that makes a rule specific, its breadth of application) it puts the power on par with similar crit effecting PP's.

So the question becomes, if by interpreting permissibly the net result is that the power goes from lackluster to passable (and balanced against other PP's)...why wouldn't you?


> Further the text of the power in no way trumps the following specific rules.



We really have to get our heads around what specific vs general is. Specific does not mean "thoroughly worded" or "well documented". Specific means that the rule applies to a limited subset.

Likewise a "General" rule is not one with ambiguous of loose wording. It means a rule with a breadth that covers the normal case of the game dynamic.

So all the normal rules regarding crits (natural 20 is a crit is can hit, natural 20 is the only automatic hit, yada yada) are very clearly worded and I am glad we understand them, but they are the *General Rules*.

Therefore, given Holy Ardor is a specific rule (as defined by the fact that it pertain to a much narrower game subset) that conflicts with these, the rule of specific trumps general applies, and therefore the two rolls hit regardless of whether it would naturally have been a miss.


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 19, 2009)

N8Ball said:


> None of these things you mentioned say "you score a critical hit".  They all say "you *can* score a critical hit" - meaning possibility not certainty.




Fireball does not say you 'can' deal 3d6 + Intellegence damage.  So the damage cannot be reduced by general rules such as immunity or resistance.  You can't increase it by feats.  I know these things -say- you can, but because Fireball doesn't say you 'can' do that amount of damage, this specific power trumps all these other cases.

Thunderwave says I push a creature my wisdom modifier in squares.  Now, it doesn't say I -can- so even tho a rule exists saying I can, that doesn't apply because the language is 'definate' and therefore I must push exactly that number of squares.



> "you score a critical hit" reads with certainty and that's why precision doesn't apply in this case, because that specific rule disagrees with the general rule of precision.




No, the rule disagrees with the general rule of rolling 20s.  It has explicit language that contradicts it.  It gives you a situation where you score criticals outside of rolling 20s.  That is how an exception works.  They are explicit and direct.

The rule doesn't go on to say you automaticly hit, which means that the rule that -governs- those exceptions still applies.

There IS an exception to the first general rule.  The second is unmentioned.  You are applying it to the wrong rule

How, -exactly- does it do so?  Where does the darn ability say you -actually automaticly hit-?

You have a rule that states, BLATANTLY, that scoring a critical hit does not mean that you automaticly hit.

So, what part of 'scoring a critical hit' means that suddenly you can automaticly hit?  Exactly?  The absense of the word 'can'?  Is -that- the difference?  Wouldn't it actually be -explicit- when it automatically hit?

Because, and I want to point out, Precision doesn't -actually care.-  Whether or not the ability says 'can' is -irrelevant- to Precision.

Check.  Is the ability an ability that allows you to score critical hits on non-20 rolls?  Yes.  Then Precision can apply.  Does the ability have any text that -explicitly- states otherwise?  No.  The 'score critical hit' wording doesn't mean that it is automatic, because if it did, it'd actually say so.

The absense of the word 'can' is not relevant.  The absense of the word 'automatic' is the more -telling- word.  No language in the ability says otherwise.

There IS no exception, you actually have ti twist the language to find one... and dubiously at that. 



> In fact, it's such a strong exception to general rules (more than just precision) that it was necessary to spell out what general rules were preserved. (missing on ones).




Because they never include redundant rules text or clarifications in 4th edition?

Because they wanted it to be certain the ability is in no way an exception to the 1s auto miss rule?

This is a strong exception to the rules:  Oath of Emnity.  It doesn't ambivalantly hint that you might be able to roll two dice.

This ability is -not- a strong exception to the rules.  It merely mentions a case that never happens with any other critical range altering ability, because no other ability can 'potentially' crit on a 1.  

I thought that was obvious, I mean you don't expect an ability that says 'you can crit on a natural roll of 18-20' to say 'oh by the way, you still miss on a 1' because that IS redundant.

I dunno how better to explain it.  You might think 'score a critical hit' doesn't mean 'score a critical hit' and that Precision uses magical space language to ignore it, or it uses magical space language to ignore Precision, but the fact is clear.

The terms used are -the same- and -verbatim-.  And no other language suggests otherwise.  You have a rule.  No exception exists.  Apply the damn rule.

It's -really- that straightforward.

Until then, look for the word 'automatic' in that feature and get back to me when it magically shows up.


----------



## ObsidianCrane (Aug 19, 2009)

BobTheNob said:


> Therefore, given Holy Ardor is a specific rule (as defined by the fact that it pertain to a much narrower game subset) that conflicts with these, the rule of specific trumps general applies, and therefore the two rolls hit regardless of whether it would naturally have been a miss.




Only if you abandon the useage of the term "Critical Hit" as a term, and seperate it into its component parts. It also only works that way if you ignore the fact that Automatic Hit is seperate from Critical Hit.

The only specific way this power overrides the general is in the dice result required to obtain a critical hit - with this feature you can score it buy rolling the same result on 2 dice with your Oath of Enmity power not just on a 20.


----------



## BobTheNob (Aug 19, 2009)

So after all of this, the general position is to interpret this to ensure the PP has a 2.25% crit increase (the smallest crit increase obtainable in the game) which diminishes with difficulty.

I havent seen one build in the build forums (gleemax) that actually uses an avenger PP. They *all* multiclass to something that gives them enhanced crit range (and thus a 10% minimum crit change increase!!!!). Its so cheeseball and predicatable, its practicaly depressing.

Now we have a PP for the avenger which is closer and actually offers something close to the same viability, and you would actually choose to deny it that last few percent...for what?

I guess this is what is frustrating me. Its so easy to interpret it either way, but people actually choose the lesser option for reasons of...actually, I dont even know how to guess at reasons. Leaves me a little baffled.

I like to think as DM that the decisions I make are for the better of the game, so I think I know how I will decide.

I thank you all for your time.


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 19, 2009)

BobTheNob said:


> So after all of this, the general position is to interpret this to ensure the PP has a 2.25% crit increase (the smallest crit increase obtainable in the game) which diminishes with difficulty.
> 
> I havent seen one build in the build forums (gleemax) that actually uses an avenger PP. They *all* multiclass to something that gives them enhanced crit range (and thus a 10% minimum crit change increase!!!!). Its so cheeseball and predicatable, its practicaly depressing.
> 
> ...




Do understand, those critical hits aren't just critical hits.  Those are critical hits that turn into other attacks that have a good chance to critical hit.

I'm not saying it's broken to make them automatically hit... but it's one of the few ways to get stackable Crit range on a character that already has stackable crit range.

So, start with Str 16, Dex 13, Wis 16, and Elf.  You only need to increase your strength once and then take Demigod (or +2 Strength Epic Destiny of choice.)  Heavy Blade Mastery is easily taken at this.

So.... let's see what the math is here for critical chance...

A little less than 23% of the time... and after each critical you get a free attack... with a 23% chance to crit.  With a Fullblade. 

Wow.

Compare to Daggervenger which is 28% of the time, but doesn't toss in free attacks just for critting.  And is a 1d4 weapon.  Not a 1d12 weapon with high crit... that can be Vorpal... and can HBO... Avenger+HBO?  Nice.

An interesting comparison.


----------



## BobTheNob (Aug 19, 2009)

Yea, them be pretty bad numbers long run (I actually went flail to preserve a little bit on strength and no extra feat required. Still does heaps at 30 by design, just not the full crit. I just keep rethinking it constantly

But put like that is is substnatial. I guess Im just a little peaved they couldnt do it in the paragon level


----------



## Eldorian (Aug 19, 2009)

BobTheNob said:


> So after all of this, the general position is to interpret this to ensure the PP has a 2.25% crit increase (the smallest crit increase obtainable in the game) which diminishes with difficulty.
> 
> I havent seen one build in the build forums (gleemax) that actually uses an avenger PP. They *all* multiclass to something that gives them enhanced crit range (and thus a 10% minimum crit change increase!!!!). Its so cheeseball and predicatable, its practicaly depressing.
> 
> ...




Dude, I'm not arguing because I want this paragon path to read what I read it as.  I'm arguing because that's what it says.

The rule that is the exception is precision.  It applies because this paragon path allows you to critical on rolls other than 20s.  

Exception vs general works like this:  if you have a rule that references another rule, that the rule that references is the exception.

Exception means that the rule specifies how things differ from what normally is possible.  Normally, a 20 crits.  Except, pairs crit if you have this paragon path.  Except, only pairs that lead to a hit crit because of precision.

Precision references the paragon path's crits on rolls other than 20 which references critical hits being only on 20s.  Follow the line of reference.


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 19, 2009)

BobTheNob said:


> Yea, them be pretty bad numbers long run (I actually went flail to preserve a little bit on strength and no extra feat required. Still does heaps at 30 by design, just not the full crit. I just keep rethinking it constantly
> 
> But put like that is is substnatial. I guess Im just a little peaved they couldnt do it in the paragon level




Well, yeah, but, you have the only Paragon Path so far that has better than 19-20 crit that isn't Daggermaster or action point-spendy.

I mean, it isn't 18-20, but second best is still second best.

Epic only blows it out of the water and into omgwtfbbq country.

And I'd rather having almost dagger master with a huge beatsword than daggervenger with a crappy little breadknife.

Originally I concepted it with a light blade build and then I realized 'Screw that, Dex isn't -that- pivotal that it must be the highest at level 1.'  Granted, it needs Demigod/Strength Boosting Epic, but that's okay, this is a twink build.

Personally I'd dive into Eternal Defender...

1d12 highcrit becomes 2d6 reach 2 highcrit.

Assassin's point with a vicious dagger becomes a crit for (not counting static bonuses that don't affect comparison) 108+6d12+1d10 damage... or 115-190 damage + static mods... 152.5 crit.  Not bad.

Let's see, 2d6 vorpal averages to... 
Grr... let v = 1d6 vorpal, v = 15/6 + (v+6)/6... 6v = 15 + v + 6... 5v = 21... v = 4.2

2d6 = 8.4 average...

So Final Oath's crit with a large fullblade becomes 18(6)+6d12+6d6vorpal+1d10...

108+39+25.2+5.5...

....177.2 average critical.


So... the crits from this Critvenger at level 29 (assuming maximum power in the attack) is higher than the crits from the daggermaster.  (I'm sorry, Brutal Scoundrel won't make up for 20 points of difference here.)

Wow.  Average damage is also better for the avenger, because of vorpal and the larger number of dice involved.


Just.  Wow.


----------



## N8Ball (Aug 19, 2009)

The disagreement boils down to this:

Myself, Nifft and others think that the words "you score a critical hit" necessarilly means you hit.

Draco and others think the words "you score a critical hit" means you still might have missed.

Can we agree on that much?



How would you read it if the power said,
"When you roll doubles, you score a hit, except when you roll double ones"


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 19, 2009)

As a completely different animal... moot point tho.

...mainly because the rules template used for that would be 'When you roll doubles, you hit.' in its simplest form.

You don't score hits, as far as I am aware.  You simply hit.  The only scoring going on is with critical hits.


----------



## N8Ball (Aug 19, 2009)

So you agree that the arrangement, "If you roll doubles, then X" means that X will apply regardless of that the normal rules for X are.  

The normal rules for hitting say that you need to roll a hitting number AND precision says that only a 20 is an automatic hit.

So if "X" is "you hit", you've acknowledged that both of these general rules are overruled by the specific rule right?


----------



## Stalker0 (Aug 19, 2009)

Nifft said:


> It says you hit. (Specifically, it says you score a critical hit.)
> 
> That means: *you hit*.




I think this is the crux of Nifft's argument, and is what I will make my counterpoint against.

I think everyone agrees that the PP ability gives you a critical hit. But....Draco's point is that the rules specifically say that a *Critical Hit* DOESN'T mean its an *Actual Hit*.

Critical "hit" is a misnomer. The Precision rule states that critical hits on die rolls other than a 20 may not be a hit. You still have to confirm the attack roll.

So if I roll 2 2's on my die, its a critical hit. But the precision rule states that I have to check the die rule to see if its an actual hit. More than likely its not, so I still miss.



That said, I believe there is a rule that states that if a critical hit "misses", you still treat it like a regular (non critical) hit. However, perhaps that rule is only rolling on a 20, and I could be completely mistaken on this point.

Lastly, let me say that its good to see an actual rules debate in the rules forum. This forum had gotten quite boring lately!


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 19, 2009)

Stalker0 said:


> That said, I believe there is a rule that states that if a critical hit "misses", you still treat it like a regular (non critical) hit. However, perhaps that rule is only rolling on a 20, and I could be completely mistaken on this point.




Only on natural 20s that you'd otherwise miss with.

Technically doesn't happen often enough to worry about tho.


----------



## N8Ball (Aug 19, 2009)

Stalker0 said:


> I think this is the crux of Nifft's argument, and is what I will make my counterpoint against.
> 
> I think everyone agrees that the PP ability gives you a critical hit. But....Draco's point is that the rules specifically say that a *Critical Hit* DOESN'T mean its an *Actual Hit*.
> 
> Critical "hit" is a misnomer. The Precision rule states that critical hits on die rolls other than a 20 may not be a hit. You still have to confirm the attack roll.




Excellent summary Stalker.

I believe that the rules do support that a critical hit is a hit.  My reasoning comes from the descriptions of "Critical hit" under attacks on page 277 and twice under the "Critical hit" section on page 278.

under Attacks  PHB 277: "If you roll a natural 20 your attack might be a critical hit."

under Critical Hits PHB 278: "When you roll a 20 and your total attack roll is high enough to hit your targets defense, you score a critical hit.."

The wording in each those cases already includes caveats for the hit to satisfy *before it qualifies* as a critical hit.  Those caveats need to be satisfied *before* the rules even declare a critical hit.  So the term critical hit does not include the requirements, they were met before we even got to the term.

The sections "Natural 20" and "Precision" tell you when to apply the crit, the next 2 sections tell you what a critical hit is.

Normal requirements for a crit:  your attack roll must hit the defense, you must roll a 20.  
Effects of a crit:  max damage, some extra damage from magic and such.

My point is that the term "critical hit" only implies a max damage hit, and the normal rules surrounding *when* to apply that are superceded by the specific conditions set out in the feature.


----------



## Nifft (Aug 19, 2009)

Stalker0 said:


> I think this is the crux of Nifft's argument, and is what I will make my counterpoint against.
> 
> I think everyone agrees that the PP ability gives you a critical hit. But....Draco's point is that the rules specifically say that a *Critical Hit* DOESN'T mean its an *Actual Hit*.
> 
> ...



 There are two counter arguments:

1. The word "can". There's a word of difference between "you can crit" and "you crit", and that word could mean a world of difference. I'd argue "you can score a critical hit" doesn't conflict with Precision, while "you score a critical hit" does conflict.

2. Specific trumps general. Since two rules conflict, we need to decide which one is more specific. Is *Precision* more specific than *Holy Ardor*? It looks like Precision is more general to me, but I'm not sure there's an objective way to measure specificity.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 19, 2009)

N8Ball said:


> The sections "Natural 20" and "Precision" tell you when to apply the crit, the next 2 sections tell you what a critical hit is.




Actually, Precision doesn't tell you when to apply a crit.  It tells you that other abilities exist that tell you when to apply a crit, and that those abilities do not automaticly hit.

That's a big difference.


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 19, 2009)

Nifft said:


> There are two counter arguments:
> 
> 1. The word "can". There's a word of difference between "you can crit" and "you crit", and that word could mean a world of difference. I'd argue "you can score a critical hit" doesn't conflict with Precision, while "you score a critical hit" does conflict.
> 
> ...




Sure there is.  Precision refers to abilities that tell you to score a critical hit other than a natural 20.  Holy Ardor is such an ability.  Therefore Precision refers to and trumps it.  Precision does not apply to abilities that give you automatic critical hits (for example, Channel Divinity: Righteous Cheese of Tempus pre-errata) nor to abilities that change the die roll to a natural 20 (Oath of Emnity.)

As well, exceptions to rules are not exempt from the rules that govern those exceptions.  For example, feats that let your powers knock things prone don't get to ignore the rules for how prone works without an explicit out.  Sure, knocking things prone as a feat is an exception to the normal ways it is done, but the rule that governs prone is still applicable.

Contrast that with abilities that knock a guy prone then say he can't get up for a turn.  The rule for prone governs it, but the 'can't get up for a turn' then acts as an exception to -that- rule.

So, while I definately agree that the class feature IS an exception to a general rules on how crits work, I don't agree that the same feature is an exception to Precision, simply because Precision is a rule that explicitly governs exceptions to how critical hits work, and nothing in the feature acts as an exception tot he rules that govern abilities of that type.


----------



## N8Ball (Aug 19, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> Actually, Precision doesn't tell you when to apply a crit.  It tells you that other abilities exist that tell you when to apply a crit, and that those abilities do not automaticly hit.
> 
> That's a big difference.




There's a fundamental problem with a general rule (like precision) putting restrictions on specific feats and features that are meant to break the general rules.

Like Nifft said, Precision does not contradict the mastery feats.  They all say you can score a critical hit, just like the rules for a crit say you *can* crit with a 20 if you meet other requirements.  Even the general rule for natural 20s doesn't have such strong language saying you DO crit.

Holy Ardor does not say you can crit, it says you *DO* crit.  Applying precision to this case is having the specific rule overruled by the general rule.  

That ain't right.


----------



## urzafrank (Aug 19, 2009)

*why is this confusing?*

On page 276 in the PHB It has rules that state that a natural 20 roll may not be a critical hit. On page 278 it defines what a critical hit is and how you get them. They even go to the trouble of giving a critical hit another name (crit) to prevent this type of absurd argument. The games uses terms some of these terms are made up of more than one word. Splitting up the words in the terms is a mistake. If this feature had used the language crit as opposed to critical hit no one would be having this debate and since the terms are interchangeable i do not see what the issue is. The specific trumps general is in cases of contradiction but there is none of that here. Critical Hit and Automatic Hit are terms and as cannot be separated into the component words. Precision refers to Critical Hits and only to Critical Hits. The part about only 20 being an Automatic Hit is just a reminder of a different rule which is why it is in parentheses.


----------



## Nifft (Aug 19, 2009)

urzafrank said:


> If this feature had used the language crit as opposed to critical hit no one would be having this debate



 Agreed. If they'd either used the word "can" or the word "automatic", then there would be no room for debate.

They didn't, so there is.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Flipguarder (Aug 19, 2009)

BobTheNob said:


> If however you take the permissive approach (which by my perception is actually RAW until someone can prove to me the Precision is NOT the general rule, and I repeat, its not wording that makes a rule specific, its breadth of application) it puts the power on par with similar crit effecting PP's.




I believe you are intelligent enough to know that balancing all crit effecting PP features around one another and ignoring the power of the rest of each paragon path is not a correct way of thinking.

That's not to say that after you do that, the PP is underpowered in your stated case. But I just wanted to make sure we were all on the same page as far as balancing path features.


----------



## Montague68 (Aug 19, 2009)

BobTheNob said:


> So all the normal rules regarding crits (natural 20 is a crit is can hit, natural 20 is the only automatic hit, yada yada) are very clearly worded and I am glad we understand them, but they are the *General Rules*.
> 
> Therefore, given Holy Ardor is a specific rule (as defined by the fact that it pertain to a much narrower game subset) that conflicts with these, the rule of specific trumps general applies, and therefore the two rolls hit regardless of whether it would naturally have been a miss.




FWIW Cust. Serv agrees with Bob. I called about this very issue last week.

It seems that the editor(s) of the books are relying a bit too heavily on the specific vs. general thing with regards to rules. The simple addition of "the player scores an _automatic _critical hit" would be far less ambiguous. Edit - Or basically what Nifft said


----------



## BobTheNob (Aug 19, 2009)

Gearjammer said:


> FWIW Cust. Serv agrees with Bob. I called about this very issue last week.
> 
> It seems that the editor(s) of the books are relying a bit too heavily on the specific vs. general thing with regards to rules. The simple addition of "the player scores an _automatic _critical hit" would be far less ambiguous. Edit - Or basically what Nifft said




You know, I posted that Precision was the general rule twice already and you are the first person to acknowledge it. Once precision is defined as the general rule, the debate is over, because its automatically trumped. 

I repeat (third time) the rules of natural 20 and precision are general rules. It doesnt matter if they are specifically or exactly worded. It doesnt make a lick of difference. They are rules that cover the broadest set of scenarios (99%+) and are therefore, by definition, general.

Specific trumps general. Therefore, the hit applies.

And now it appears that Cust Serv agrees with my interpretation. You wouldnt have a referenece to this cust service on the web would you?


----------



## Marshall (Aug 19, 2009)

urzafrank said:


> On page 276 in the PHB It has rules that state that a natural 20 roll may not be a critical hit. On page 278 it defines what a critical hit is and how you get them. They even go to the trouble of giving a critical hit another name (crit) to prevent this type of absurd argument. The games uses terms some of these terms are made up of more than one word. Splitting up the words in the terms is a mistake. If this feature had used the language crit as opposed to critical hit no one would be having this debate and since the terms are interchangeable i do not see what the issue is. The specific trumps general is in cases of contradiction but there is none of that here. Critical Hit and Automatic Hit are terms and as cannot be separated into the component words. Precision refers to Critical Hits and only to Critical Hits. The part about only 20 being an Automatic Hit is just a reminder of a different rule which is why it is in parentheses.



'automatic hit' is not a defined game term.

The lack of the word 'can' and the presence of the 'two ones' rule signals that its meant to be an automatic hit. If doubles dont auto hit, than 'two ones' is wasted space since you auto miss on either die result.


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 19, 2009)

[quoite]'automatic hit' is not a defined game term.[/quote]

Actually, 'automatic hit' and 'you hit automatically' are, in fact, language pulled directly from the PHB rules that govern the general situation you automatically hit in, when you roll a natural 20.  The game book disagrees that 'automatic hit' is not in the game, because it uses the term.

So yes, it -is- perfectly legitimate game terminology.



Gearjammer said:


> FWIW Cust. Serv agrees with Bob. I called about this very issue last week.
> 
> It seems that the editor(s) of the books are relying a bit too heavily on the specific vs. general thing with regards to rules. The simple addition of "the player scores an _automatic _critical hit" would be far less ambiguous. Edit - Or basically what Nifft said




And how did tier 1 tech support explain this, exactly?

I'm sorry, but I find this entire thing to be addlecoved.  I do not understand how Precision could not possibly apply.  I do not possibly comprehend how the ability blows it off without it saying or refering to blowing it off in any way.  I do not understand how 'you score a critical hit' does not get 'some abilities allow you to score a critical hit' applied to it.

It's -exactly- like saying that ongoing damage from two abilities stack because it doesn't say 'The target -can- take ongoing damage' or because specific powers trump *the very rules that tell you how to use that effect that is the exception in the first place.*

So, -unless the feature says it is an automatic hit- then it is governed by the rules that tell you how to adjudicate when you score a critical hit.  Those rules don't say 'If it tells you you score a critical hit, you automaticly hit, but if it only mentions the possibility, blah.'  Not at all.  They say, flat out 'Some abilities allow you to break the critical hit rules, and when they do, only a natural 20 is an automatic hit.'  

The rule Precision is a rule governing specific exceptions to the critical rule.  



> If a specific rule *contradicts* a general rule, the specific rule wins



is the rub of this.

So what does the path feature contradict?  The rule about rolling 20s to crit?  Yes.  It does.  So we use the specific rule.

But does it contradict Precision?  Can precision be applied to this path feature without a contradiction?  

The answer is yes, because Precision specifically calls out rules-violations of this type and says 'And this is how you get to work.'

The truly dumbfounding thing, is that Precision is -verbatim- about abilities that allow you to -score critical hits.-

So saying 'You score a critical hit' is how you get around precision is like saying the Fire keyword in Fireball means you don't get to add bonus damage from Astral Fire.

It.  Doesn't.  Make.  Sense.


----------



## Mirtek (Aug 20, 2009)

BobTheNob said:


> Once precision is defined as the general rule, the debate is over, because its automatically trumped.




Only if there's a specific rule specifically contradicting the general rule. Holy Ardor doesn't say that it contradicts the general rule.



Marshall said:


> If doubles dont auto hit, than 'two ones' is wasted space since you auto miss on either die result.




Since you can easily buff your attack high enough to get a high enough number on a rolled 1, the 'two ones' is needed to clarify that this doesn't matter.

15 (lvl) + 6 (enchantment) + 3 (proficieny) + 3 (expertise) + 8 (ability) = 35
Average AC of level 30 monsters: 45

Flank with your leader buddy giving you a +8 to hit (righteous brand cleric anyone?) and you would get a sufficiently high number on a every roll. The 'two ones' is indeed needed to clarify that you don't.

If anything the 'two ones' indicates that rolls that are no sufficient to hit are not turned into a hit, because otherwise there were no real need to not just let them hit on a double 1 too.


----------



## BobTheNob (Aug 20, 2009)

I think this is where we are not going to agree. I have both books open and am looking at the paragraphs in each. Im trying to consider your position whilst doing so, but as much as I do, I still come to the conclussion that Holy Ardor and Precision conflict with each other.

If we look at dagger master it sais "you can score a critical hit on 18-20". Its wording is ambiguios ("can" is a non definitive word) in regards to this debate and therefore does not conflict with Precision. My understanding would be (and I think this is very clear cut) Precision applies in this case

Holy Ardor explicately states (with no ifs, butts or maybes) that a double roll is a critical hit. There is no ambiguity or uncertainty in the syntax and therefore (by my understanding) Holy Ardor does conflict with precision. In cases of conflict, specific over general.


----------



## Montague68 (Aug 20, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> [quoite]'automatic hit' is not a defined game term.




And how did tier 1 tech support explain this, exactly?

[/quote]

"Jason" said simply that the ability overrides precision. I didn't have a horse in the fight so I didn't really press him on it. I don't have a web reference because this was over the phone.


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 20, 2009)

BobTheNob said:


> I think this is where we are not going to agree. I have both books open and am looking at the paragraphs in each. Im trying to consider your position whilst doing so, but as much as I do, I still come to the conclussion that Holy Ardor and Precision conflict with each other.






> If we look at dagger master




Here's the rub.  We are not talking about daggermaster.  Daggermaster is not relevant to the conversation.  Whether it says 'can' or not is irrelevant to the conversation.  



> Holy Ardor explicately states (with no ifs, butts or maybes) that a double roll is a critical hit.




And then Precision explicitly states (with no ifs, butts or maybes) that scoring a critical hit does not mean an automatic hit with 20s.

What Holy Ardor does NOT do is state that critical hits from it actually automaticly hit.  In the -absense- of an explicit exception, apply the original rule.

This is the -exact- same argument form you present:

'Fireball says you deal 3d6+Intellegence modifier damage.  No, you can't reduce that damage with resistance, or immunity!  You do that much damage, no more, and no less.  Outside rules cannot modify it, because the power does not explicitly allow for modification from outside rules.  It is specific, and therefore trumps general.  It doesn't say you -can- deal that much damage!  It says, flat out, that creature takes that damage.  No, it doesn't matter that the rules for how damage works tells you you can do it.  Specific beats general.'

That argument form is thusly defeated, proof by contradiction.

Precision's language doesn't -care- if the ability is 'optional' about the critical hits.  It says, without ambiguity, that features that allow non-20 critical hits do not automatically hit.  Which means that the onus to prove that it doesn't goes back to the original ability to show that it -explicitly- gets to break the rule on how to govern 'scoring a critical hit.'

All you've established is that Holy Ardor scores a critical hit.  No one is arguing that, that IS unambiguous.  Now, you need to establish that it gets to break the rules on how abilities that allow you to score a critical hit work. This what you haven't done, just like the above Fireball argument hasn't actually established how Fireball breaks the rules on how damage work.

And it can't do so, because it -doesn't- break those rules.


----------



## pascalnz (Aug 20, 2009)

wow I'm away for a day, good debates.

mirtek your argument is slightly odd.

you are aware that rolling a natural one on a dice is an automatic fail no matter how much of a bonus you have?

so the miss on double ones could only be there to say the ability lets you cirtically "hit" on any number. except on natural ones. because the clause at the end is there. 

I don't want to seem a pain but I'm just not getting that part of your argument, unless you think you can hit on ones if your bonus is high enough


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 20, 2009)

pascalnz said:


> wow I'm away for a day, good debates.
> 
> mirtek your argument is slightly odd.
> 
> ...




Or it could simply be reminder text.  Reminder text -does- exist in fourth edition, you know. It isn't a contradiction to the Precision rule, however, nor does it indicate that it is.

I mean, the words 'the attack automaticly hits and' isn't rocket science.  If they wanted the ability to automaticly hit, don't you think they'd have blatantly said so?

The argument 'The ability says, clearly, that you can miss in this particular case, so therefore, all other cases where it could miss do not apply' is so flawed I don't feel the need to pick it apart.

But I will, because apparently, it IS necessary.

Set A is the set of occurances where rolling doubles is not an automatic hit.  p(x) is the situation where the number x is rolled on both dice.

The natural 1 rule on Holy Ardor says that p(1) is in the set.

Now, how, -exactly- does that say that other members of the set cannot exist?



> I don't want to seem a pain but I'm just not getting that part of your argument, unless you think you can hit on ones if your bonus is high enough




They wanted it to be clear that the missing on 1s rule (which isn't a rule governing critical hits) clearly works on this ability, due to the fact that the critical hit rules, and the missing on 1s rule never actually interact due to Precision kicking in anyways.

Clarification is often a good thing in these games.  They wanted to make something -clear-.


----------



## BobTheNob (Aug 20, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> And then Precision explicitly states (with no ifs, butts or maybes) that scoring a critical hit does not mean an automatic hit with 20s.



That is absolutely true. Precision is states its case exactly. I have never argued that it doesnt (in fact, I have stated multiple occasions that it does).

But so does doly ardor. What is sais is completely explicate and completely contradicatory to Precision.

The example of the fireball (read any power that does damage). I could argue that, given a good 80-90% of attack powers stipulate damage, that the base damage stipulated on a power is the general rule and that the boosters to this (Weapon Focus for example) are the specifics. But I wouldnt argue it becaue its an example which is in no way in debate. It is the understood and accepted norm, so we dont even need to apply rules of specific vs general to it. Its comparing apples and oranges.

Now you said the daggermaster is irrelevant to this discussion (yet you thought comparing fireball damage was?). I included him as an example of when precision is applied and pointed out why, so no, its not irrelevant at all because it helps us understand when precision is applied. Same goes for weapon mastery and I could just as easily used them as the example. In both cases, the syntax against them is non explicate and therefore there is no conflict.


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 20, 2009)

BobTheNob said:


> That is absolutely true. Precision is states its case exactly. I have never argued that it doesnt (in fact, I have stated multiple occasions that it does).
> 
> But so does doly ardor. What is sais is completely explicate and completely contradicatory to Precision.




All Holy Ardor states is it is an ability that allows you to score critical hits.  This is why Precision applies directly to it.  Because Precision governs abilities that score critical hits.

It doesn't govern abilities that 'can score a critical hit'  It governs abilities that allow you to score critical hits.  That's the difference.  You're arguing that the absense of the word 'can' excepts Precision from affecting it, but nothing in Precision indicates that -potentiality of a critical hit- is necessary for it to work.

Because class features don't -give- permission to their governing rules to work, the rules just work unless the feature says it does not.



> The example of the fireball (read any power that does damage). I could argue that, given a good 80-90% of attack powers stipulate damage, that the base damage stipulated on a power is the general rule and that the boosters to this (Weapon Focus for example) are the specifics. But I wouldnt argue it becaue its an example which is in no way in debate. It is the understood and accepted norm, so we dont even need to apply rules of specific vs general to it. Its comparing apples and oranges




Ah, and that is why your argument fails.  *Because it means, catagorically, that a class feature, power, or other specific endevor does not have to state potentiality for rules to govern it in order for those rules to, in fact, govern it.*  In other words, a specific rule does not have to say 'You -can- do X' in order for rules that govern how 'do X' works apply.

Fireball does not have to state permission to resistance to resist it.
Push powers do not have to state permission for the rule on how pushes work to state movement away.
Teleport powers do not have to state permission for OAs to fail against them.
Ongoing damage does not have to state permission for you to apply only one of each damage type.

And this means one very simple fact.

*Some exceptions have specific game rules that govern or restrict how they work.*  All of the above are exceptions to the rules on how things work.  And all of them have -other- rules that govern them and tell you how to adjudicate those exceptions.

In the absense of specific text outlawing those governing rules, you apply those governing rules.  So restistance -can- work on fireball.  Teleport powers -do- avoid OAs.  Ongoing damage of the same type -does not- stack.




> Now you said the daggermaster is irrelevant to this discussion (yet you thought comparing fireball damage was?).




It's called disproof by counterexample, where you take the same argument form your opposition presents, and you substitute other premises while retaining the form of the argument intact.

In other words, your argument (that Precision doesn't work because Holy Ardor doesn't mention you 'can' score a critical) is debunked because other instances in the game work fine without that magic word 'can'.  Fireball doesn't tell Resist Fire how to do business, Resist Fire tells Fireball what is what.  Fireball doesn't say 'can' deal damage?  Who cares.  Irrelevant to how all this works.

You're saying 'This situation over here must be different because of the absense of a single word.'  My rebuttal to that is 'That word is not necessary.  Here is why.'

And I have proven it is not necessary, by using other examples of its absense, and noting that its absense does not affect the situation, that its absense does not change how things interract.

You have stated that the word 'can' is necessary for a governing rule to apply.  I have proven to you, by counter example, that it is not.  It is at this point no longer an 'opinion' that it is unnecessary, it is a proven fact.  The word 'can' is not relevant.

At that point, a discussion on the word 'can' becomes a discussion on whether or not it is more elegant to include it or not.  And not relevant to the task at hand.



> I included him as an example of when precision is applied and pointed out why, so no, its not irrelevant at all because it helps us understand when precision is applied. Same goes for weapon mastery and I could just as easily used them as the example. In both cases, the syntax against them is non explicate and therefore there is no conflict.




But the word 'can' is not necessary for governing rules to work.  The word 'can' isn't important because governing rules don't care.  So yeah, daggermaster says 'can' but that doesn't matter because Precision is a governing rule, and it applies to the situations it describes.  Pushes still move away, even tho the powers in question don't say 'You can push a creature away from you'.  Thunderwave doesn't need to permit the push rules to restrict how it works.  They just do.

The word 'can' is there for aesthetics, and nothing more.  Proven as above.  So it's inclusion or non-inclusion is not considered as part of the argument, and is rejected thusly.  Please do not continue to insist it matters.  It clearly does not.

In other words, Holy Ardor doesn't need to give the rules on what 'score a critical hit' can and cannot do permission to apply.  What it has to do is say when those rules do -not- apply, which it hasn't actually done.


----------



## BobTheNob (Aug 20, 2009)

I think at this stage both of us have stated our respective arguments repeatadly and neither have managed have sway the other. To respond at this stage would just be to repeat my position (which failed to win you over) again, and your counter response would mean the same to me.

Your points about the niggly nature of wording involved are well received and understood.

I think my next point of call on this will be Customer Service (FWIW) and will use the discussion in this thread in concert with the information I receive as official clarification to determine how it will be intereted for our groups game.

Who knows, maybe Divine Mastery eratta will add the key word that clarifies exactly how this is meant to work. We can only hope.

Thanks again to all contributers (Look forward to seeing you in another thread Draco )


----------



## pascalnz (Aug 20, 2009)

ah ok mirtik, you think it doesn't say that it is hitting automatically and I think that is excactly what is is saying.

you think it's reminder text, I can't fathom such a basic rule would ever need reminding of. I've seen a very tiny amount of reminder text, but it's usually on barely used easy to mistake rules, not a rule you see in place and used every encounter while also being beyond any kind of debate as to how it migh work.

it's a rule even less complex than if you roll a 20 you score a critical damage unless you couldn't normally hit, then it's just regular damage.

and I would balk at a reminder saying remember you can't miss on a twenty, which is the equivalent of this.


basically if you think it's a reminder that's fine. 

if it's not reminder it can't mean anything else except  that you do actually critically hit on any double numbers except ones...
where you miss. 

surely?


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 20, 2009)

pascalnz said:


> if it's not reminder it can't mean anything else except  that you do actually critically hit on any double numbers except ones...
> where you miss.
> 
> surely?






> Set A is the set of occurances where rolling doubles is not an automatic hit. p(x) is the situation where the number x is rolled on both dice.
> 
> The natural 1 rule on Holy Ardor says that p(1) is in the set.
> 
> Now, how, -exactly- does that say that other members of the set cannot exist?




Surely not.  It'd be easier to say 'It automaticly hits except on ones' if that were the intent.  You know.  Saying things directly.

That's what rules do in these parts.


----------



## Nifft (Aug 20, 2009)

Gearjammer said:


> basically what Nifft said



 I think life would be more harmonious for all parties if this were CustServ's stock response.

Cheered, -- N


----------



## Samir (Aug 20, 2009)

This debate has been raging for a while on gleemax, and the more I see of it the more I'm convinced that double 2s means a critical hit, but some more CS responses would definitely be helpful.


----------



## Nifft (Aug 20, 2009)

Samir said:


> This debate has been raging for a while on gleemax, and the more I see of it the more I'm convinced that double 2s means a critical hit, but some more CS responses would definitely be helpful.



 IMHO, CustServ has very low cred*.

I'd rather they address this with errata, or at least in the FAQ.

Cheers, -- N

* (That cred goes up every time they agree with me, of course.)


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 20, 2009)

Nifft said:


> IMHO, CustServ has very low cred*.
> 
> I'd rather they address this with errata, or at least in the FAQ.
> 
> ...




Heh, I -do- agree with you on that point.

The trick is, as always, to ask them why it works.  Generally you get better responses that way.


----------



## Eldorian (Aug 20, 2009)

The biggest thing that bothers me is that people are claiming that the Holy Ardor rule is somehow an exception to the precision rule, when in fact it is the precision rule which is an exception to rules that allow crits on rolls other than 20s, which is what Holy Ardor is.

The rule which is most specific is the first rule in the line of reference.  Precision refers to paragon path abilities which let you score a critical hit on rolls other than 20s, which refer to the rules on critical hits.


The word "can" here is irrelevant.  I suppose that abilities which say you "can" score a critical hit allow you to make the choice of not scoring a critical hit when you roll a 19 and hit or whatever, and that Holy Ardor does not let you make this choice.  I guess you could make the argument that if you can crit on a 19, and you hit an ally with a 19 accidentally, then you can choose not to critically hit, and that argument could be discussed.


----------



## TDarien (Aug 20, 2009)

The argument that the omission of the word "can" in the PP feature makes no difference to the application of precision is valid.  However, if this is the case, if it supposed to work exactly like all the other powers and feats that say "you can score a critical hit on X", WHY is there a need for different wording?  Obviously there was some rules oversight involved.  Either precision was overlooked and the intent is that doubles equals an critical hit regardless of whether the roll would have hit, or the wording on the multitude of other examples was overlooked.

Personally I think it more likely that precision was overlooked and the intent of the power is that "you score a critical hit" is meant to be different than "you CAN score a critical hit".


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 20, 2009)

TDarien said:


> The argument that the omission of the word "can" in the PP feature makes no difference to the application of precision.  However, if this is the case, if it supposed to work exactly like all the other powers and feats that say "you can score a critical hit on X", WHY is there a need for different wording?




Because it's a different rules template.  The other abilities are all 'You can score a critical hit on a natural x-20'.  This ability isn't an ability of that exact type.  It doesn't describe a range between x and 20 wherein criticals are now allowed to occur, but instead says a different sort of situation that allows a critical to occur.

So, of course the wording is going to be different.

The first case is 'You can do blah when you roll blah'.  The second is 'Whenever blah, do blah if blah except blah.'  

The other question is, does the word 'can' refer to the potential to crit, or does it simply mean 'Hey buddy.  You see that rule over there?  You know how it says you can't do something?  Well I'm saying you can.'

Is it mentioning potentiality, or is it simply giving you permission to crit?

And the language isn't so formal in D&D books that a 'may' vs 'can' argument comes up.

Especially considering that 'may' can also be used in both senses.



> Obviously there was some rules oversight involved.  Either precision was overlooked and the intent is that doubles equals an critical hit regardless of whether the roll would have hit, or the wording on the multitude of other examples was overlooked.




Or those examples have subtle differences that mean that the rules templating for them are not the same as the rules templating for this, new, unique ability.  There's other differences in how the ability is written as well.  Does the ability function differently because it starts with the word 'Whenever'?

The only other instance of a critical hit that isn't roll-range based -was- Tempuscheese, but the situation involved in that was 'You hit' and so it isn't necessarily the same deal.



> Personally I think it more likely that precision was overlooked and the intent of the power is that "you score a critical hit" is meant to be different than "you CAN score a critical hit".




The rules templating is totally different between the two, the word can is a very minor difference, given that the -order- and -layout- of the two templates are not even close to similiar.  The first is a mention of a single condition, the third is a damn pretzel of triple conditionality.  Expecting it to read the same is an exercise in failed expectations.


----------



## Mirtek (Aug 20, 2009)

BobTheNob said:


> Its wording is ambiguios ("can" is a non definitive word)




In the normal world yes. In the world of D&D 4e officalese it doesn't matter as even definitive formulations have been rendered non definitive by further sources.

Maybe the author of this ability wated to have it turn every double roll into a hit/crit regardless of the AC being hit or not. Maybe the author of this ability thought that by writting "you score" instead of "you can score" he would leave no room for doubt. If this is the case he can thank his colleagues for diluting the distinction between "you can do" and "you do" so much with their previous powers that it just no longer matters in D&D 4e.



pascalnz said:


> so the miss on double ones could only be there to say the ability lets you cirtically "hit" on any number. except on natural ones. because the clause at the end is there.




Yet in this case there is no mechanical reason to waste letters on adding this clause. If you have decided to let them hit on every double roll, for gods sake just let them hit on double 1 too if for no other reason than saving a few letters worth of space in the book. Adding the double 1 to the allowed hits is mechanically so unimportant that it just not worth wasting time to specifically exclude it if you actally allow 2/2, 3/3, ...


----------



## ObsidianCrane (Aug 20, 2009)

I'm yet to see a person manage to explain where Holy Ardor says you automatically hit. Those words do not appear in the power at all, nor s there any text in the power that references those rules.

It says "critical hit" and then gives an if clause, and an exception.

The rules for critical hits are clear, they are only a critical hit if you would hit. Nothing in Holy Ardor explicitly over-rides this text. People are adding additional meaning to the text of Holy Ardor due to ommision of words, without allowing for different gramatical structure from other powers.

The presence of the "except on double 1's" part seems to be adding to the confusion, however that exception is likely present to clarify that the "you miss on a 1" rule is still in effect, other wise you get the following conflict.

General Rule: Automatic Miss - Miss on a 1.
Specfic Rule: Score a Critical Hit when rolling the same number on 2 dice.
Specific Rules References General Rule #2 - Critical Hits.
Critical Hits say that if you would hit with your result then your damage is maximised.

By putting in the exception the possible conflict between the Specific Rule of the power, and the General Rule of Missing on a Nat 1 is clarified.

This is the text for Holy Ardor: 
Holy Ardor (11th level) : Whenever you make two attack rolls because of your oath of enmity, you score a critical hit if both dice have the same roll, except if both rolls are 1.


Here it is with the rules call outs added:
Holy Ardor (11th level) : Whenever you make two attack rolls because of your oath of enmity, you score a critical hit (Critical Hits pg 278) if both dice have the same roll (Precision page 278), except if both rolls are 1 (Automatic Miss).

Critical Hits Pg 278: When you roll a natural 20 and your total attack roll is high enough to hit your target’s defense, you score a critical hit, also known as a crit.

Do you say anywhere in the power that says your attack roll does not need to be high enough to hit your target's defense? (I do not.)

Critical Hit Damage: page 278
Natural 20: If you roll a 20 on the die when making an attack roll, you score a critical hit if your total attack roll is high enough to hit your target’s defense. If your attack roll is too low to score a critical hit, you still hit automatically.

Do you see anything in the power that says your roll is a natural 20? If no then this specific rule does not apply, if yes then it does. (I do not.)

Precision: Some class features and powers allow you to score a critical hit when you roll numbers other than 20 (only a natural 20 is an automatic hit).

Do you see a class feature allowing you to score a crtical hit when you roll a number other than 20? (I do) If yes then Precision applies, unless explicitly over-ridden. Note Precision expressly calls out the need for a Natural 20 to gain an automatic hit. 

There is no point referencing how damage works for crits as it is irrelevant to the discussion.

The power at no time creates an explicit exception to the Automtic Hit rule which is found on page 276, and nor does it use language to explicitly over-ride the relevant specific elements of the general critical hit rules - Natural 20 or Precision.

The only way it does is if the game term of "critical hit" is seperated into its component words "critical" and "hit" which it doesn't have text to support.


----------



## urzafrank (Aug 20, 2009)

Nifft said:


> Agreed. If they'd either used the word "can" or the word "automatic", then there would be no room for debate.
> 
> They didn't, so there is.
> 
> Cheers, -- N



If that is so and since WOTC considers the terms the same as stated in the PHB why do you not think of them as the same?


----------



## Nifft (Aug 20, 2009)

urzafrank said:


> If that is so and since WOTC considers the terms the same as stated in the PHB why do you not think of them as the same?



 Would you mind posting the text you're talking about?

Thanks, -- N


----------



## Mirtek (Aug 20, 2009)

Nifft said:


> Would you mind posting the text you're talking about




He's talking about movement powers, there's a lot of them that use either definitve or non-definitive wording, yet per PHB2 even definitive wordings are actually non-definitive.

E.g.:

Bond of Pursuit, Avenger Attack 1: [...]you can shift[....}

as opposed to

Overwhelming Strike, Avenger Attack 2: [...]you shift[...]


One non-definetivly worded, one definitively worded. Yet per PHB 2, page 219 they both are non-definitive.


----------



## N8Ball (Aug 20, 2009)

Mirtek said:


> He's talking about movement powers, there's a lot of them that use either definitve or non-definitive wording, yet per PHB2 even definitive wordings are actually non-definitive.
> 
> E.g.:
> 
> ...




I see what you mean, but your comparison is not a perfect one.

With certain things like movement and applying forced movement there is an understood (and explicit in the case of forced movement) option on the players part.  There is a choice to be made depending on the preference of the player (to use the full movement or some lesser amount).

With the application of hit rules and critical hit rules "can" should never be read as implying a preferential choice on the part of the player.  It refers to a possibility of the event occuring, subject to other pertinent rules.

In the case of movement granting powers "can" refers to a player option, even though the option is assumed anyway.  With more mechanical portions of the rules, "can" refers to a possibility of occurance.  But we all know that hitting or critting it is not a player option, but a mechanical possibility depending on other factors of dice rolls, defenses, etc. 

One of the fundamental bases for this debate is that we ALL agree that hitting and critting should be a definitive thing not an option.  We're just arguing about the definition.


----------



## Regicide (Aug 20, 2009)

This is why we can't have any nice things.

People arguing general and specific are wrong.  There is no rules interplay here.

The PP gives you a critical hit, it says nothing about how to handle the critical hit.  When you have a critical hit you then apply the critical hit rules which include precision and the fact that a critical hit can be a miss.  No rule interplay, so there isn't any general and specific, both are specific about unrelated things.

Although Nifft's interpretation is the sensible one, it is, by RAW, the wrong one.  Nifft's sensible intuition is that a critical hit is a hit, but that is not the case.  Yet another example of how bad the 4E designers are.  Critical hits not being hits.  Utter incompetence.  Fire the lot of them.  

If you agree with Nifft go get the whiteout and marker that you've used to cover huge swaths of your PHB1  adding errata in and add "hit and" in front of "critical hit."  Better yet grab a big black marker and black out the retarded precision section (pg 278 PHB1) of the critical hit rules.


----------



## Nifft (Aug 20, 2009)

Mirtek said:


> He's talking about movement powers, there's a lot of them that use either definitve or non-definitive wording, yet per PHB2 even definitive wordings are actually non-definitive.



 Ah, I see. Yeah, it's not a perfect comparison.

But it's another example of why human beings need to interpret things reasonably.



Regicide said:


> There is no rules interplay here.
> 
> The PP gives you a critical hit, it says nothing about how to handle the critical hit.  When you have a critical hit you then apply the critical hit rules which include precision and the fact that a critical hit can be a miss.  No rule interplay, so there isn't any general and specific, both are specific about unrelated things.



 Wait, really? Critical hits are unrelated to hits that are critical?

Secondly, if you're going to use my name to define a position, please let it be this one.

Thanks, -- N


----------



## Flipguarder (Aug 20, 2009)

Nifft said:


> Wait, really? Critical hits are unrelated to hits that are critical?




Actually the answer to this question is yes. Critical hits are an extra deal that happens in certain situations. Normally it only counts for rolling a 20 on an attack roll. If you have crit range, or in this case, gain this Ardent champion path feature, you gain the ability to score critical hits in other situations.

But this does not change the fact that the only way to score an AUTOMATIC hit, is to roll a 20. There is a completely separate rule to this. The term Critical Hit, is a misnomer.


----------



## Nifft (Aug 20, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> But this does not change the fact that the only way to score an AUTOMATIC hit, is to roll a 20.



 That's not true at all.

Aside from the well-known original Righteous Rage power, here's another.

 -- N


----------



## Flipguarder (Aug 20, 2009)

Nifft said:


> That's not true at all.




I hope you are being funny and know what I meant. 

PHB 278 "(only a natural 20 is an automatic hit)."

Actually now that I'm reading this more thoroughly 


> Precision: Some class features and powers allow
> you to score a critical hit when you roll numbers
> other than 20 (only a natural 20 is an automatic hit).




I see this as instantly eliminating the issue. for a few reasons.

1. Obviously precision is meant to include feats, item properties, path features what not.
2. In any case of crit possibility expansion, it still retains the idea of "critical hit".
3. If you take critical hit to mean automatic hit, then the last sentence of the precision rule is absolute nonsense.
4. It is safe to assume that the designer meant for that sentence to make sense within their system. Therefore it is SAFER to assume that the rule applys then to assume that specific versus general completely makes absurd this rule.


----------



## Regicide (Aug 20, 2009)

Nifft said:


> Wait, really? Critical hits are unrelated to hits that are critical?





  Avoid argument by nonsensical word play.  Lovely.  I'll pretend you're being serious.

Rule 453:  If A then do rule 8.
Rule 8:  If X then miss, else apply extra damage.

  Are rule 453 and rule 8 related in a specific and general sense?  No.  They are both DnD rules, and the application of one requires the other but they are not related.


----------



## Nifft (Aug 20, 2009)

Regicide said:


> Avoid argument by nonsensical word play.  Lovely.  I'll pretend you're being serious.
> 
> Rule 453:  If A then do rule 8.
> Rule 8:  If X then miss, else apply extra damage.
> ...



 No, see, the whole discussion so far has centered around the (perceived) ambiguity of the phrase: "you score a critical hit".

If that phrase means: "you hit, and the hit is a critical", then the phrase is a specific rule which overrides the general one.


But honestly, if you can't be arsed to at least skim the pages of this discussion, you're not treating those of us who *typed* those pages with a whole lot of respect.

Repeating arguments that have already been discussed isn't going to garner the quality of response you seem to want.

 -- N


----------



## Nifft (Aug 20, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> I hope you are being funny and know what I meant.
> 
> PHB 278 "(only a natural 20 is an automatic hit)."
> 
> ...



 You're making the same mistake Draco made.

*Precision* sure looks like a meta-rule -- a rule which governs other rules.

But 4e isn't about "base" rules and "meta" rules. It's got a single, clear standard of precedence. That standard is: *specific beats general*.

Precision applies until and unless it conflicts with a more specific rule. It does conflict with *Holy Ardor*, so it does not apply.

- - -

The last sentence of Precision isn't nonsense. It's there to separate "can crit" from "do hit".

All those epic feats which give you 19-20 crit range (and do not say anything about "do hit", only about "can crit") are unambiguous because of Precision.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## urzafrank (Aug 20, 2009)

Nifft said:


> Would you mind posting the text you're talking about?
> 
> Thanks, -- N




In my earlier post i made the statement that if the book had used the words "crit" instead of "critical hit" there would be no argument. Your response was that you agree with that idea and then added that had if they included the words "can" or "automatic hit" again there would be no debate. My post is to point out that on Page 278 of the PHB the rules state that the term "Critical hit" is also called a "crit" 

So my question to you is that if WOTC uses the terms as to mean the same thing  why do you not?


----------



## Nifft (Aug 20, 2009)

urzafrank said:


> In my earlier post i made the statement that if the book had used the words "crit" instead of "critical hit" there would be no argument. Your response was that you agree with that idea and then added that had if they included the words "can" or "automatic hit" again there would be no debate. My post is to point out that on Page 278 of the PHB the rules state that the term "Critical hit" is also called a "crit"
> 
> So my question to you is that if WOTC uses the terms as to mean the same thing why do you not?



 What I agreed with was: *the rule needs to be more clearly written*.

Then, I gave an example of what (to me) would be clear writing.

Why do I NOT agree that "under X condition, you score a critical hit" is identical to "under Y condition, you can score a critical hit"? Because they say different things. One says "can crit", the other says "*do* crit".

"_Do-be-do-be-do-be-do_", -- N


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 20, 2009)

Nifft said:


> But 4e isn't about "base" rules and "meta" rules. It's got a single, clear standard of precedence. That standard is: *specific beats general*.




Governing rules don't exist?

Then what is the entire purpose of the tactical movement section in the PHB other than to tell you what 'teleport' 'push' 'pull' 'crawl' and all that means?

The list of conditions?  I'm interested how you knock people prone in your games, because according to your above statement, 'prone' doesn't have a governing rule telling you how to run it.

The entire combat section is page after page after page after page of meta-rules.  Of rules that govern how the exceptions work.

Seriously.  Those things work but somehow, critical hits don't, because 'There are no meta-rules?'

That's simply incorrect.


----------



## Mirtek (Aug 21, 2009)

Nifft said:


> That's not true at all.
> 
> Aside from the well-known original Righteous Rage power, here's another.
> 
> -- N



Actually the original Righteous Rage power required you to hit before turning it into a crit.


----------



## BobTheNob (Aug 21, 2009)

Wow, this was hotly contested. I had signed out of it (was just getting too argumentative for me) but then something occured to me.

I was jacked off that it was such a pissy power when compared to some of the alternatives. I didnt like that it wasnt nearly as potents as more cheesy builds could offer. Someone did rightly point out that the sum of a PP is its whole, not one ability. Still left a bitter taste in my mouth that cheese builds (especially student of caiphon...just how many avenger/warlocks are there people!! Play a theme for $&*# sake) offered crit ratings that were so much (a full 8% for just a 19) better.

But ya know something that is crackerjack out this ability. If you can summon the stats to get weapon mastery (i.e. sacrifice some dex to stack strength) or use a jagged weapon...this stacks with it. In fact, its the only example of a crit chance increase that does (which I know of).

Put the whole debate aside (because the point of having raised it in the first place was to address the inherent weakness of this ability) and remember, this might not offer much crit rating, but it stacks. So, its not really as bad as I thought it in the first place. If you dont get your crit rating down by other means, and therefore have nothing to stack against, it remains piss weak (an extra crit every 44 rounds in ideal circumstances) but given I would be willing to make the strength sacrifice required to get weapon mastery, this is looking alot better.


----------



## Nifft (Aug 21, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> Governing rules don't exist?



 Don't be disingenuous. Of course they exist -- that's why I was able to point to one as an example.

But you seem to think they have "special rights" to not be overridden by specific rules.

That's simply incorrect. Specific always trumps general.

Cheers, -- N


@ *BobTheNob*: Sure it stacks with Jagged, but Jagged is terrible at high level, because the ongoing damage won't stack with itself. Bloodiron is teh sexy.

Also, *if* the generous "2 + 2 = crit" interpretation holds, this ability adds about +0.25 to expected accuracy (turning a few misses into hits). That's worth something.


----------



## BobTheNob (Aug 21, 2009)

Nifft said:


> Don't be disingenuous. Of course they exist -- that's why I was able to point to one as an example.
> 
> But you seem to think they have "special rights" to not be overridden by specific rules.
> 
> ...




Its ok Nifft, I have been on your side of the debate all along, and still are. I agree with your interpretation 100%.

Just wanted to keep perspective on this whole thing. The reason I started this thread was to address what looked like an unnecessarily piss weak ability. Just pointing out its not so piss weak after all.


----------



## Flipguarder (Aug 21, 2009)

Honestly I think we are just on two sides of a fence.

I believe Draco and I are of the opinion that the phrase can crit, and do crit are synonymous within D&D sourcebooks. I think it is too legalistic to read any other way. 


I feel that the precision rule isn't a case of specific versus general. I believe the percision rule is stated TO GOVERN those cases in which additional options to crit are given. It is stated to clarify that those powers, feats etc. that give more options to critically hit something don't automatically hit.

I understand that you believe there is a difference between the two phrases. I feel that is a reasonable conclusion, I simply don't agree with it.

*hugs*


----------



## BobTheNob (Aug 21, 2009)

Right back at ya

*manly nudge on the shoulder*


----------



## Nifft (Aug 21, 2009)

BobTheNob said:


> Its ok Nifft, I have been on your side of the debate all along, and still are. I agree with your interpretation 100%.
> 
> Just wanted to keep perspective on this whole thing. The reason I started this thread was to address what looked like an unnecessarily piss weak ability. Just pointing out its not so piss weak after all.



 Sorry if my tone was confrontational rather than "ooo, yeah, and check this out too"... investigative, I guess?

I do agree that there are some uses and interesting implications of the ability, even if it's not that strong.



Flipguarder said:


> Honestly I think we are just on two sides of a fence.
> (...)
> I feel that is a reasonable conclusion, I simply don't agree with it.



 Hey, my position has always been that both are reasonable readings, and the rules need to be clarified... so we agree at last. 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Flipguarder (Aug 21, 2009)

Nifft said:


> the rules need to be clarified... so we agree at last.




No I don't think it needs to be clarified...




HA HA GOTCHA! 

YAY CLOSURE!


----------



## Mirtek (Aug 21, 2009)

Let's compare the situation to other specific vs. general cases.

General: You can not shift while prone
Specific: Power X (e.g. the aforementioned overhelming strike) saying "Hit: whater and you shift X squares."

Would you say that the power overrules the general no shift rule because it says you shift? Even without the power mentioning that it intends to lift the general rule about prone movement?


----------



## N8Ball (Aug 21, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> I feel that is a reasonable conclusion, I simply don't agree with it.






Flipguarder said:


> No I don't think it needs to be clarified...




Really?


----------



## CovertOps (Aug 21, 2009)

Mirtek said:


> Let's compare the situation to other specific vs. general cases.
> 
> General: You can not shift while prone
> Specific: Power X (e.g. the aforementioned overhelming strike) saying "Hit: whater and you shift X squares."
> ...




Note my changes to your text.  I think you got it wrong while nailing it right on Mirtek.

General: Power X (e.g. the aforementioned overhelming strike) saying "Hit: whater and you shift X squares."
Specific: You can not shift while prone

The power in this case is the general rule allowing you to shift X squares which then needs to be filtered through the specific rules on shifting.  Can't shift while prone, can't shift through difficult terrain, etc.  I think the power in question is the same way.  It gives you a critical hit which then needs to be filtered through the specific critical hit rules (Precision).  RAW: You can miss with double 2's if 2 is not high enough to hit.  RAI: I think the designers intent was that you can hit AND crit with double 2's just because it's a cool mechanic.


----------



## Flipguarder (Aug 21, 2009)

N8Ball said:


> Really?




Oblivious, meet Sarcastic.


----------



## Eldorian (Aug 22, 2009)

N8Ball said:


> Really?




I don't think it needs to be rewritten.

No matter how many times Nifft screams out specific beats general, he will never be right that Ardent Power is more specific than Precision, because Precision REFERS to Ardent Power.

Just as "you cannot shift while prone" refers to every power in the game that lets you shift.  A power which says, "You shift X squares, even if you are prone" is the only way out of that.


----------



## Regicide (Aug 22, 2009)

Nifft said:


> But honestly, if you can't be arsed to at least skim the pages of this discussion, you're not treating those of us who *typed* those pages with a whole lot of respect.
> 
> Repeating arguments that have already been discussed isn't going to garner the quality of response you seem to want.
> 
> -- N




  I read the thread, you're wrong.  In fact you're not even making sense.  You're treating precision as if it's some separate rule.   It isn't.   It is part of the crit rule, trying to separate it, pretend it's a general and ignore it when it isn't separate and it isn't general because it's not related.  You can't ignore that a critical hit isn't always a hit, even the natural 20 that is a critical hit isn't necessarily a hit, read page 276.  Maybe had you an argument you'd garner the quality of response you seem to want.  I agree the rules SHOULDN'T be that way, but it's pretty clear they are.


----------



## Artoomis (Aug 22, 2009)

Eldorian said:


> I don't think it needs to be rewritten.
> 
> No matter how many times Nifft screams out specific beats general, he will never be right that Ardent Power is more specific than Precision, because Precision REFERS to Ardent Power.
> 
> Just as "you cannot shift while prone" refers to every power in the game that lets you shift.  A power which says, "You shift X squares, even if you are prone" is the only way out of that.





There is some truth to this, but Ardent Power is very different.

It is not a case where a different value (18 or 18, say) gives you critical hit, but an entirely new rules gives one (two of the same roll).

Thus, perhaps Precision does not apply.



> Precision: Some class features and powers allow
> you to score a critical hit when you roll numbers
> other than 20 (only a natural 20 is an automatic hit).




*Hmmm... is rolling  matching numbers on two dice the same as "roll numbers other than 20?"  As written, Precision may only apply when rolling a normal attack dice where your roll may or may not be a critical hit, as opposed to the new special case which is an entirely new mechanic for determining if you get a critical hit.*

Plus, the "Precision applies" argument pretty much has a very weak argument over the reason that double ones is pointed out as not being a critical hit, since a one would always be a miss and this rule either would otherwise override that (making its mention needed) or, if a hit was first required for it to be a critical, that this is so incredibly unneeded as to be almost shocking in its inclusion.

To me, as written, you get a critical hit if you roll the same number twice in a row (a 4.75% chance ( a total of 19 possibilities out of 400 possible combinations).

Probabilities:

If we add in that you might critical anyway on a 19 or 20, then the added combinations that give you a critical are 17 out of 400, or 4.25% chance of getting a critical when you otherwise would not.

Otherwise, assuming an 11 needed to hit, the chance of a getting a critical on an 11-17 becomes 7 out of 400, or 1.75%.

Thus, the chance of a critical hit moves from 10% (19-20 on a d20) to either 11.75% or 14.25%.

One way is nearly insignificant, the other seems like a somewhat reasonable increase.  Note that the amount of increase goes down the easier it is for you to get a critical hit otherwise, which seems right.


----------



## N8Ball (Aug 22, 2009)

Regicide said:


> ... even the natural 20 that is a critical hit isn't necessarily a hit, read page 276.




I hope you didn't really mean what you just wrote, because you got that significantly backwards.

The rules never say that a 20 *IS* a critical hit, they say it *MIGHT* be a critical hit (read page 276).  You'll also find on that same page that a 20 IS a hit. Always.

But you have hit on the crux of mine and Nifft's argument.  Page 276 and 277 both talk about critial hits in the form of:

IF (A and B) then X.  
A = rolling a 20.
B = having a attack roll high enough to hit the defense
X = score a critical hit.

Pg 277 says this twice. Once in the opening text for Critical Hit*S*, and once under "Natural 20". According to the general rules for critical hits, A and B *MUST* be met before X is implemented.  That is how it's worded.  

To imagine that A and B are contained within X doesn't make sense when X needs to be the conclusion.  (Actually, it creates an infinite do-loop.)


----------



## N8Ball (Aug 22, 2009)

Here are a couple definitions that I think are tripping some of us up.

General rules: Adventuring and Combat sections of the PHB and DMG (and small bits in other books)
This is how the game normally runs.  How attacks are made, how movement and conditions are handled, actions types and when you can use them, etc.  In the absence of contradictions, this gives us the baseline for how forced movement normally works, how cover and targeting normally works and so on.  All the regular stuff.

Specific Rules: Racial abilities, Class, PP and ED features and powers and Feats.
These are the special sauce that break the general rules and provide exceptions to what is the normal way of doing things.  
Not all feats and powers break the rules, skill training doesn't, Tide of Iron doesn't.  It just has a push effect that is neatly described by the general rules.
But some powers and feats do.  Dwarves use their second wind as a minor action despite how second wind normally works and Rogues with Fleeting Ghost can move quickly without the normal penalty.  These are specific departures from the general rules, but it's ok because the standard was established.  Specific beats general *IF* there is any conflict.  (Yes, I know you don't think there's a conflict)


----------



## Eldorian (Aug 22, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> *Hmmm... is rolling  matching numbers on two dice the same as "roll numbers other than 20?"  As written, Precision may only apply when rolling a normal attack dice where your roll may or may not be a critical hit, as opposed to the new special case which is an entirely new mechanic for determining if you get a critical hit.*





Rolling matching numbers to crit is a different situation than rolling a 20 to crit.  I can't believe people are still arguing this.




Artoomis said:


> Plus, the "Precision applies" argument pretty much has a very weak argument over the reason that double ones is pointed out as not being a critical hit, since a one would always be a miss and this rule either would otherwise override that (making its mention needed) or, if a hit was first required for it to be a critical, that this is so incredibly unneeded as to be almost shocking in its inclusion.




Your argument is that they needlessly state a rule that's already in the book?  So?  Rules are repeated in DnD books.  This shouldn't surprise you.


Also, I'm quite good at combinatorics, even going so far as to teach university classes on it, so I'm aware of the numbers, and I know that Ardent Power is not as good as critting on 19-20.  But it's still good, and the rest of the paragon path is also pretty good.

If the paragon path just gave Avengers a crit range of 19-20, who here would argue that it ISN'T the best Avenger paragon path?  There is a reason that Avenger optimization always goes for the 19-20 crit range.

I think Avengers should have to make potent sacrifices to get the 19-20 crit range, including grabbing strength they don't need, or multiclassing into powers that aren't as good.


----------



## Eldorian (Aug 22, 2009)

N8Ball said:


> Here are a couple definitions that I think are tripping some of us up.




I disagree with your definitions.  Rules aren't either specific or general.  It's merely a means of comparing two rules.  The more specific rule is the rule that refers to the more general rule.

My interpretation is better:  It allows conflicting, say, racial features/paragon path features to be resolved.  For example, A dragonborn Fighter/Inner Dragon has the feature:

Dragonborn Fury (11th level): While you are bloodied, your racial bonus to attack rolls is +2, instead of +1.

This conflicts with the dragonborn's racial ability.  But since Dragonborn Fury REFERENCES the dragonborn's racial ability, it is the more specific.

Obviously, no one has argued this paragon path's features, but the point remains that there is a conflict in rules (exception based games are almost entirely built of conflicts), and there is a way to resolve the conflict.

If anyone here has played the wargames Warmachine or Hordes, they know about the abilities "Stealth" and "Eyeless Sight".

A model with Stealth is automatically missed by ranged and magic attacks from over 5 inches away.  A model with eyeless sight ignores stealth.  Both rules are presented in the same way, as a line on the card (in the new, mark 2 rules, both are represented by an icon meaning the model has the rule stealth or Eyeless Sight).  But since Eyeless Sight REFERENCES the rule Stealth, it takes effect.


----------



## Madred (Aug 22, 2009)

sacrifices they ALL make.

care to print more paragon paths that will never see the light of day ?

it is already too late.. Avengers have some options to increase crit range. The question is: are the other PP, even if not giving a crit range as good, are worth it ?
so far, no. (aside from very few weird builds.. half elf ?).


----------



## N8Ball (Aug 22, 2009)

Eldorian said:


> ... because Precision REFERS to Ardent Power.




How can that be?  Precision was put out MORE THAN A YEAR before Holy Ardor.  At best, precision mentions that there may be some exceptions to the normal critical hit criteria but doesn't refer to any of them specifically and it certainly didn't refer to any that didn't exist yet.

If anything, Holy Ardor refers to precision because it talks about critical hits and therefore modifies at least some of the rules therein, and we already agree on that because we know it modifies at least SOME of the critical hit criteria, we're just arguing about how much was modified.

Anyway, it offered no new restrictions or guidance on crits.  The second part in parentheses simply reminded us of another rule, "Automatic Hit" that is not in the crit section, but in "Attack Results" on 276 (call that rule C in relation to my formula above).


----------



## Eldorian (Aug 22, 2009)

N8Ball said:


> How can that be?  Precision was put out MORE THAN A YEAR before Holy Ardor.  At best, precision mentions that there may be some exceptions to the normal critical hit criteria but doesn't refer to any of them specifically and it certainly didn't refer to any that didn't exist yet.
> 
> If anything, Holy Ardor refers to precision because it talks about critical hits and therefore modifies at least some of the rules therein, and we already agree on that because we know it modifies at least SOME of the critical hit criteria, we're just arguing about how much was modified.
> 
> Anyway, it offered no new restrictions or guidance on crits.  The second part in parentheses simply reminded us of another rule, "Automatic Hit" that is not in the crit section, but in "Attack Results" on 276 (call that rule C in relation to my formula above).





Precision: Some class features and powers allow you to score a critical hit when you roll numbers other than 20 (only a natural 20 is an automatic hit). 


Holy Ardor is a paragon path feature that allows you to score a critical hit when you roll numbers (pairs) other than a 20.  It does not refer by name, it refers by category.  Features that allow crits.

It's not about which one applies least often.  It's not about which one came out most recently.  It's about which one, in its language, refers to the other.  

For example, the feat Spear Push (PHB) refers to charge attacks made by the paragon path Warforged Juggernaut.  Despite the fact that spear push came out first, a year before the other, it refers to the paragon path feature that lets you push people when you hit with a charge attack.


----------



## CableRouter (Aug 22, 2009)

BobTheNob said:


> The thing with this is I am interested in rolling up an avenger, but looking at all of the boards on how to compose an avenger, NONE of them recommend this PP for this reason. They all to cheeseball things like multiclass cleric/radiant servent, multiclass warlock/Student of Caiphon, multiclass rogue/daggermaster.




Bah, make your own cheese!

Avenger/Pit Fighter/Eternal Defender
At Level 24 your melee reach increases to 2 with a Large Fullblade, for extra fun, make it Vorpal and combine with Gauntlets of Destruction and a War Ring.  2d6 Brutal 1 per W, if you roll a 6, keep it and roll another d6!

End game at-wills are 4d6 + 31 damage.  With Heavy Blade Mastery crits due to Oath of Emnity are plentiful for 55 +8d6 (2d6 War Ring, 6d6 High Crit) + 6d12 damage (Vorpal).  Those extra dice are affected by the gauntlet and vorpal properties, average of 155 damage for critical hit with 2[W] at-will.


----------



## Mahali (Aug 22, 2009)

Bryan Reese said:


> A Daggermaster scores a crit 15% of the time, rather than your standard 5%, giving it a 10% increase.



300% percent increase.  5% x 300% = 15%


----------



## pascalnz (Aug 22, 2009)

for more cheese use a vorpal executioners axe, 2d6 brutal 2


----------



## ObsidianCrane (Aug 23, 2009)

I like this summary:


N8Ball said:


> IF (A and B) then X.
> A = rolling a 20.
> B = having a attack roll high enough to hit the defense
> X = score a critical hit.




Becaue Holy Ardour makes it read:
IF (A and B) then X.  
A = rolling a 20 or the same result on both Oath of Enmity dice.
B = having a attack roll high enough to hit the defense
X = score a critical hit.

Nothing in the text of the power says anything about scoring an automatic hit.

Yet people keep trying to say that the power does include text that makes it an automatic hit, despite the clear lack of such text from the power.


----------



## N8Ball (Aug 23, 2009)

Cailte said:


> Becaue Holy Ardour makes it read:
> IF (A and B) then X.
> A = rolling a 20 or the same result on both Oath of Enmity dice.
> B = having a attack roll high enough to hit the defense
> X = score a critical hit.




No, that's not exactly right.  The original equasion is the form of the PHB wording; Holy Ardor has significant differences.  

Let's keep A as "roll a 20".  You could think of the mastery feats changing this to "roll a 19 or 20".

Holy Ardor reads likes this if you wanted to put it in logical form.

IF (D and not E) then X

D = Roll doubles on Oath of Enminty dice
E = Roll double ones.

This feature creates a new avenue for achieving X.  You still have the original way (A and B) to reach X.  The old rules are not replaced, you're just going around them.

The counter argument by DS and others is that the requirements A and B (from PHB and the original equasion) are part of X.  Hence their oxymoronic interpretation that a critical hit is not necessarily a hit.

Note- "oxymoronic" is not meant to be inflamatory in any way, I'm just pointing out that it is an apparent contradition.


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 23, 2009)

N8Ball said:


> No, that's not exactly right.  The original equasion is the form of the PHB wording; Holy Ardor has significant differences.
> 
> Let's keep A as "roll a 20".  You could think of the mastery feats changing this to "roll a 19 or 20".
> 
> ...




And Precision tosses in the extra logical step that makes it D and not E and F.  You keep ignoring the fact that Precision exists.



> This feature creates a new avenue for achieving X.  You still have the original way (A and B) to reach X.  The old rules are not replaced, you're just going around them.




You actually have yet to point out -exactly- how this gets around precision.  Precision describes Holy Ardor.  Holy Ardor is an ability that allows critical hits on other than a 20.  Precision CALLS THAT GUY OUT.  So how does Holy Ardor dodge it?  You keep saying it does.  But you do not actually say -how-.  And the text you note, is the text that describes the ability as one that Precision affects.



> The counter argument by DS and others is that the requirements A and B (from PHB and the original equasion) are part of X.  Hence their oxymoronic interpretation that a critical hit is not necessarily a hit.




We know it is not necessarily a hit.  It's not oxymoronic, it's hardcoded into the ruleset.  This is how the game's been since the beginning.  How does Holy Ardor change this?

And -please- do not say 'the word 'can' is absent.'  It's already been *proven* in multiple ways and fashions that the word 'can' is not necessary for rules to work.  We -know- this cannot be the case, because the rules -work- without it for -every other ability and case in the game-.  Critcal hits ain't special in that regard.


----------



## Flipguarder (Aug 23, 2009)

N8Ball said:


> Hence their oxymoronic interpretation that a critical hit is not necessarily a hit.



I don't see it as oxymoronic, I see it as what the rule says:


> Precision: Some class features and powers allow
> you to score a critical hit when you roll numbers
> other than 20 (only a natural 20 is an automatic hit).


----------



## jeffhartsell (Aug 23, 2009)

A critical hit <> hit per the precision rules. It is interesting to read the back and forth debate about the Ardent Champion feature allowing you to hit + crit even though you rolled too low to normally hit. All the PP feature allows for is a critical hit, which is not inclusive of a hit.

Use the logic circles from 3rd grade... (critical ((critical hit)) hit). You can have a critical that is not a hit and hit that is not a critical. When they intersect you have a critical hit.


----------



## Artoomis (Aug 24, 2009)

Here's the rules on a Critical Hit as presented in the Rules Compendium:



			
				Critical said:
			
		

> Natural 20: If you roll a 20 on the die when making an attack roll, you score a critical hit if your total attack roll is high enough to hit your target’s defense. If your attack roll is too low to score a critical hit, you still hit automatically.
> 
> Precision: Some class features and powers allow you to score a critical hit when you roll numbers other than 20 (only a natural 20 is an automatic hit).
> 
> ...




Note that Precision is given in the context of of rolling a single number on a attack die, and the whole set of rules is presented somewhat differently here.

The situation here is an entirely new one - rolling the same number on the two attack dice granted by an Avenger's Oath of Enmity.

So, is "If you roll a 20 on the die when making an attack roll, you score a critical hit...

So, I have a question, and I think it is truly the key question is:

"If you roll a 20 on the die when making an attack roll, you score a critical hit *if your total attack roll is high enough to hit your target’s defense*..." applicable when you are using the result of an attack roll but are instead using *matching die rolls* on the two attacks rolls granted by the oath of enmity class feature?" 

In my opinion, the Holy Ardent PP class  feature *creates an entirely new situation* that is not based upon the results of an attack roll, and therefore is entirely independent of the previously-existing rules on how to determine a Critical Hit.

This is because the previous rules where all in the context of making a single attack roll, or, previous to Holy Ardent, the best result of more than one attack roll if a power gave you more than one attack roll.  Holy Ardent presents an entirely new situation that is a new context for Critical Hits - that of matching two d20 die rolls.

I am not entirely sure what was intended, but I think that's the way it is written.  Mind you, the line about two 1s is some supporting evidence of intent, but... maybe, maybe not.


----------



## N8Ball (Aug 24, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> And Precision tosses in the extra logical step that makes it D and not E and F. You keep ignoring the fact that Precision exists.




 The logical equasion I gave describes the *text* of Holy Ardor concisely and accurately.  It needs no addition.

 If you would like to argue that X has logical arguments (F) within it, then that may be consistent with your argument, but X *IS* the result of meeting Holy Ardor's conditions.  Saying you need F before you get to X is not consistent with the arguments in your last post or the rest of this thread.



DracoSuave said:


> You actually have yet to point out -exactly- how this gets around precision.




 I will tell you how it gets around Precision when we settle on what X really is.  Perhaps this argument will be more productive if we establish some common foundations of definition.



Flipguarder said:


> I don't see it as oxymoronic, I see it as what the rule says:





DracoSuave said:


> We know it is not necessarily a hit.  It's not oxymoronic, ...




"oxymoronic" is an adjective that has nothing to do with underlying meaning or truth of the phrase as a whole.  It's simply a reference to the fact that the word elements are contradictory.  A critical *hit* that is a *miss* is an oxymoron, ask Webster.


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 24, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> In my opinion, the Holy Ardent PP class  feature *creates an entirely new situation* that is not based upon the results of an attack roll, and therefore is entirely independent of the previously-existing rules on how to determine a Critical Hit.




Well, this is easy to resolve.  Even tho the trigger isn't based on the specific number rolled, it does still qualify as allowing you to roll a critical hit with numbers other than 20.

If you roll 20 with both dice, it would have been a critical -anyways- (assuming the roll is high enough to hit), so that's hardly under consideration.

What this means that if you have any other pair, you are still rolling a number.  It isn't an unknown quantity what you roll, as oath of emnity does have a specific result.  Therefore, when the ability of Holy Ardor kicks in, it -only does so- for numbers other than 20. 

Which means that the original Precision still describes it.

In before 'But it also triggers on a 20!'--so does any ability that says you 'can crit on an 19 or 20' which Precision applies to.


----------



## Flipguarder (Aug 24, 2009)

N8Ball said:


> "oxymoronic" is an adjective that has nothing to do with underlying meaning or truth of the phrase as a whole.  It's simply a reference to the fact that the word elements are contradictory.  A critical *hit* that is a *miss* is an oxymoron, ask Webster.




Thanks for being reasonable about the discussion...

Anyway, a critical hit that misses is an oxymoron sure. Well guess what, there's an oxymoronic rule in the book. Read precision, read the PHB version, and the rules compendium version. They BOTH CLEARLY create situations in which what would be a critical hit turn out to miss.

For instance, according to precision and the daggermaster PP feature, if you roll an 19 on your attack roll  with a +20 to hit against an ancient red dragon, by rules you would critically hit, but you miss.


----------



## Artoomis (Aug 24, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> ...What this means that if you have any other pair, you are still rolling a number....




Well, no - you are rolling a *number pair*, not a number.  An entirely new creation for Holy Ardor.

I can readily agree, though, that it can be thought of either way and that there is no 100% entirely correct reading based upon RAW only.

My opinion is that the preponderance of the evidence suggests that it applies even if the number pair does not have a result that would have been high enough to hit.  This is based upon the actual language (which omits any possibility of a "possibility" of a critical hit) as well as the inclusion of the mention of a [air of ones being a miss, which truly only has actual meaning if any pair represents a critical hit as opposed to a possible critical hit.

Still, even accepting all the above, that merely makes it more likely than not that the rule is meant to be an automatic critical hit as opposed to a critical hit only if the number on the underlying number pair would have hit anyway. 

My conclusion?  Any matching pair of dice, other than a pair of ones, is an automatic cortical hit whether the number on the dice would have hit or not.  The case for this, however, is far from overwhelming; it is merely somewhat stronger than the case against.

This is one of those cases where a FAQ entry would be very useful.


----------



## CovertOps (Aug 24, 2009)

Cailte said:


> I like this summary:
> 
> 
> Becaue Holy Ardour makes it read:
> ...






N8Ball said:


> No, that's not exactly right.  The original equasion is the form of the PHB wording; Holy Ardor has significant differences.
> 
> Let's keep A as "roll a 20".  You could think of the mastery feats changing this to "roll a 19 or 20".
> 
> ...




The correct equation would look like this:

A = Rolls a 20
B = Class feature that allows you to roll some other number than a 20 and get a crit
C = A roll high enough to hit the target

if (A or B) AND C

Further modified to the following for Holy Ardor:

D = If you roll doubles when using your OoE class feature

if (A or B or D) AND C

Precision specifically allows ways to get a critical other than rolling a 20, but does not say anything about those rolls being an auto-hit.
Holy Ardor gives a way to get a critical other than rolling a 20, but does not say anything about being auto-hit.
You can keep adding as many cases to the ( or  or  or  or ) part above for as many ways as the designers can think up to grant a crit, but that does not make them an automatic hit unless the power says so.



Artoomis said:


> The situation here is an entirely new one - rolling the same number on the two attack dice granted by an Avenger's Oath of Enmity.
> 
> So, is "If you roll a 20 on the die when making an attack roll, you score a critical hit...
> 
> ...




You have to refer back to the base rules for OoE:  No books at work so I'm going to have to paraphrase (but if someone has access to compendium feel free to post the exact quote).  You are allowed to roll 2 dice (under certain conditions) to hit and "PICK ONE" or "PICK THE HIGHER OF THE TWO" of those results to determine if you hit.  Obviously if you roll doubles there is no choice as both rolls are the same.  This leaves you with 2 die rolls so you can determine if you have a chance to critical AND it leaves you with a single result with which to evaluate the result of C (a roll high enough to hit).  Again this is NOT a new situation as the rules already give you a way to evaluate the result of 2 dice rolls.  Also, if this were true think of all the other rules that the two dice rolls would break if your intrepretation was correct.

Continuing to make the same assertion over and over does not make it true.  "Critical hit" is not equal to a hit.  A crit can be a miss.  You can also hit with a 20 and not crit.  Nothing in Holy Ardor contradicts with anything in precision.  They work together as intended.  The fact that you have to parse the phrasing of the power and read something into it that is NOT specifically stated to arrive at your conclusion should be a hint that you are reading it wrong.  Does Holy Ardor say that it automatically hits AND crits if you roll doubles? No? Then it doesn't.  It's that simple.


----------



## Artoomis (Aug 24, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> ...Again this is NOT a new situation as the rules already give you a way to evaluate the result of 2 dice rolls...  Also, if this were true think of all the other rules that the two dice rolls would break if your intrepretation was correct.




The requirement that two rolls be equal is entirely different from picking the higher of two rolls - this is brand new with Holy Ardor.  Until Holy Ardor, one might be able to roll twice and pick the better result, but that changes nothing about how to handle that result.  

Using the situation where the two die rolls are equal is something entirely new, which may or may not follow the pre-existing rules that require the attack roll to be a hit before it is considered a critical hit.



CovertOps said:


> Continuing to make the same assertion over and over does not make it true.




That applies equally to both sides.  



CovertOps said:


> ... Does Holy Ardor say that it automatically hits AND crits if you roll doubles?...




Maybe, maybe not.  It depends on how you read it.  Thus this whole thread.  

Again, I think both sides have valid arguments (I think mine is a bit better, but still...), thus, by RAW, neither side is actually wrong.  Why not leave it at that?

*Why must one side be right and the other wrong??*


----------



## Artoomis (Aug 24, 2009)

Key question:

Is rolling identical numbers on two d20 the same as rolling numbers other than a 20 on a d20?

If yes, then you must hit with the attack roll for it to be a crit with holy Ardor as the normal critical hit rules, including "precision," apply.

If no, then you don't need to hit with the attack roll and get an auto-crit instead if you get a pair as this overrides the normal critical hit rules, including "precision."

I think it's as simple as that.

So..., answer the question above and you have your answer.

In my opinion, there are two valid answers.  "Yes," and "No."


----------



## keterys (Aug 24, 2009)

As far as I can tell, no matter how you try to wrangle things, no matter what you do, in 4e you need to _hit_ for something to be a critical hit. I can't fathom any case in which the game is improved by avoiding that case.

If they want to make this ability automatically hit _and_ be a critical, then I'd cheerfully encourage them to add language making it automatically hit as noted above.

I'm very curious how many pages this discussion can go for.


----------



## CovertOps (Aug 24, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> Key question:
> 
> Is rolling identical numbers on two d20 the same as rolling numbers other than a 20 on a d20?




I will make a comparison that is the same.
Is rolling identical numbers on two d20 (other than 20), using Holy Ardor, the same as rolling an 18-19, using the Daggermaster class feature?
Frankly there is only one valid answer to this question.

Just for the record I am in the camp that the INTENT might have been as you claim, but the current wording does not support that.  In order for me to believe that a roll of double 2's is a hit and a crit with Holy Ardor it would have had to have been worded like this:



> Holy Ardor (11th level) : Whenever you make two attack rolls because of your oath of enmity, if both dice have the same roll, except if both rolls are 1, you automatically hit and treat that hit as a critical.




This overrides the automatic hit rules (20 only) and it overrides the critical rules (you don't crit if the roll isn't high enough to hit).  There is no guesswork in phrasing like this.  Since it is not worded this way we are left with the other possibility.  They didn't intend to override either of those rules.

And just let me second what keterys just posted while I was writing this.


----------



## Artoomis (Aug 24, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> ...Is rolling identical numbers on two d20 (other than 20), using Holy Ardor, the same as rolling an 18-19, using the Daggermaster class feature?...




Nope.  Very different.

Daggermaster:  "Dagger Precision (11th level): You *can* score critical hits with daggers on a roll of 18–20." (emphasis added)

Ardent Champion:  "Holy Ardor (11th level): Whenever you make two attack rolls because of your oath of enmity, you score a critical hit if both dice have the same roll, except if both rolls are 1."

Very, very different.

The first fits very nicely into:

"Natural 20: If you roll a 20 on the die when making an attack roll, you score a critical hit if your total attack roll is high enough to hit your target’s defense. If your attack roll is too low to score a critical hit, you still hit automatically.

Precision: Some class features and powers allow you to score a critical hit when you roll numbers other than 20 (only a natural 20 is an automatic hit)."

The second does not fit.  It's an entirely new mechanic.  Now, I can see how we can *make* it fit, but my reading is that it does not as written.

There are several reasons:

1.  Rolling the same number of two dice is not the same as rolling numbers other than a 20, especially when one realized the context for precision is a single attack roll (which might be the best roll if mutiple rolls are allowed by a power).

2.  The omission of the word "can."

3.  The "except if both rolls are 1" clause which is only needed if  matching numbers are a new situation not needed to score a hit to be able to be a critical hit.

Of course, I do see the validity of the opposing argument and agree that both sides of this one are correct (with my side being slightly more correct )


----------



## N8Ball (Aug 24, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> It's that simple.




It is only that simple if I make the same assumptions that you do about the definition of "critical hit", but I'm not, so it isn't.

More importantly, you've mixed arguments between your logical equasions and what you wrote below them.



CovertOps said:


> if (A or B) AND C
> ...
> "Critical hit" is not equal to a hit. A crit can be a miss.




The logical equasion wasn't finished because it didn't have a "then" statement, but I'm going to go out on a limb as hope that you meant "then X" to be after the equasion.  If that's the case then *when* "(A or B) and C" isn't true, you never arrive at X.  

That is functionally different than saying that "a critical hit can be a miss".  The first requires you to have a hitting roll before you declare a crit, the other declares the crit and then checks to see if you hit.

For the sake of clarity I will place the opposing argument (crit != hit) in logical form and we'll see how it jives with the rulebooks.  (Please remember I'm trying to argue your position here, so please correct me if I put forth a paradigm that you don't agree with.)

A = roll a 20
B = an attack score high enough to hit the defense
C = roll a 19
D = roll doubles
E = Double ones
H = you hit
M = Max damage hit, plus extra damage
X = "Critical Hit" which includes the following:  (If B, then M)
Z = miss

SO, the standard rules give us this form: 
IF B then H
IF A then X and H
IF not H then Z

The logic returns H or Z and possibly M in either case.

This allows the game to score a hit that is not a crit but not (yet) a crit that is not a hit.  (Prior to mastery feats there were not "crittable" numbers that were not also hits.)

Mastery feats included the line (anywhere before the last line)
IF C then X

This allows for an attack roll to be a 19, engage the X function and still miss, creating a max damage miss or in other words, a crit that misses.

Holy Ardor also adds a line to the list in the form of:
IF D and not E then X

This preserves your interpretation of the precision rule because it's built into X.  This allowing you to roll double 2s and miss because B wasn't satisfied in the X function.

For my worthy opponenets in this debate, please look this over carefully.  It took me a while to get this right, but I think it describes your position relatively well.



Flipguarder said:


> Thanks for being reasonable about the discussion...



You're quite welcome, I definitely appreciate the same from everyone.  There's no way we could make any progress otherwise.


----------



## Artoomis (Aug 24, 2009)

N8Ball said:


> ...For the sake of clarity...





Sorry but:

1.  I don't think you are really introducing clarity.

2.  It's trivally easy to put the opposing argument into the same terms and come out a winner, with your side the loser.  Nothing is gained by using logic (if, and, or, then, etc.) here - it is the underlying assumptions that are in question.


----------



## N8Ball (Aug 24, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> Sorry but:
> 
> ...Nothing is gained by using logic (if, and, or, then, etc.) here - it is the underlying assumptions that are in question.




We must find some common ground if we are to make any progress.  If one side argues logic while another argues semantics we'll get nowhere.  Heck, even arguing semantics versus semantics only got us 6 pages of repeating the same arguments.  

Logic is a bit less subjective and I think may help to break the dam, so I'm trying to frame both sides into a logical form that we can compare.

I was simply trying to ask them if this is what they think and how they imagine the rules interact.  I made several assumptions that I didn't agree with in there for the sake of understanding my opponents side of the argument.


----------



## keterys (Aug 24, 2009)

Eh, I don't think discouraging him is particularly helpful there. The logic looked roughly correct from where I'm sitting.

I think the coolest part would be to find someone who tries to play it both ways with something like Reaping Strike or a daily. 'Well, I got two 2s, so that's a critical hit. Take... 67 damage. Oh, and a 2 also misses, so take another 5.'  

After all, p276 Attack Results still requires that you compare the attack result to the hit and miss and you only automatically hit if you roll a 20 by the rules there, so... cake and eat it too?

But, maybe not, Precision specifically applies to whenever you roll 'numbers' other than 20, and I'm pretty sure a pair of twos are numbers other than 20, so any argument that Precision doesn't apply might equally make 'Maximum Damage' not apply. And now you're in a paradoxical situation where you rolled dice and no one knows what happened 

I'm extremely willing to believe the _intent_ is for this ability to make the double 2s an automatic hit and crit. As soon as the WotC boards are up, I encourage someone who cares sufficiently (say, you've got a character with this paragon path) to submit an errata to clarify or fix the text.


----------



## Artoomis (Aug 24, 2009)

N8Ball said:


> We must find some common ground if we are to make any progress.  If one side argues logic while another argues semantics we'll get nowhere.  Heck, even arguing semantics versus semantics only got us 6 pages of repeating the same arguments.
> 
> Logic is a bit less subjective and I think may help to break the dam, so I'm trying to frame both sides into a logical form that we can compare.
> 
> I was simply trying to ask them if this is what they think and how they imagine the rules interact.  I made several assumptions that I didn't agree with in there for the sake of understanding my opponents side of the argument.




Well, I don't think that helps, in my opinion, because I can re-state it another way:

A = roll a 20
B = an attack score high enough to hit the defense
C = roll a 19
D = roll doubles
E = Double ones
H = you hit
M = Max damage hit, plus extra damage
X = Critical Hit 
Z = miss

Cutting right through it all, Holy Ardent creates a new situation where:

If D but not E, Then X, where H is irrelevant.

Or, I could re-state it as:

A = roll a 20
B = an attack score high enough to hit the defense
C = roll a number other than 20 that can still score a critical hit
D = roll doubles, but not double ones
H = you hit
M = Max damage hit, plus extra damage
X = Critical Hit 

Then we get:

The general rule is If B then H and if not B than not H

For critical hits, before Holy Ardent

If (A or C) and B then X

For critical hits after Holy Ardent new situation

If ((A or C) and B) or D then X

But we could spend forever on this and get nowhere.  Our focus should be on whether rolling doubles is the same as rolling numbers other than 20.

The trick of properly applying logic (or, for that matter, statistics) is to first get solid agreement on the assuptions.  In other words, a good argument starts wqiht a good foundation.

The foundation here is the answer to the question of whether rolling doubles is the same as rolling numbers other than 20.


----------



## abyssaldeath (Aug 24, 2009)

keterys said:


> Eh, I don't think discouraging him is particularly helpful there. The logic looked roughly correct from where I'm sitting.
> 
> I think the coolest part would be to find someone who tries to play it both ways with something like Reaping Strike or a daily. 'Well, I got two 2s, so that's a critical hit. Take... 67 damage. Oh, and a 2 also misses, so take another 5.'
> 
> ...




My buddy played one in a marathon session this weekend(17 hours of DnD, woooo). We were playing it that 2 identical rolls were a automatic crit(hit). He never rolled doubles that would have missed if it weren't a crit so it was never an issue. He did roll double ones though. It was quite humorous.

There already is a thread in the Divine Power errata forum on the WotC boards.


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 24, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> The foundation here is the answer to the question of whether rolling doubles is the same as rolling numbers other than 20.




1 in 20 outcomes (when doubles are successfully rolled) it is the same as rolling 20.

19 in 20 outcomes it is impossible not to roll a number other than 20 when making doubles.


----------



## N8Ball (Aug 24, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> But we could spend forever on this and get nowhere.  Our focus should be on whether rolling doubles is the same as rolling numbers other than 20.




I disagree.  The question about whether doubles = "numbers other than 20" is a question that pertains to the argument, but it's far less foundational than our disagreement on what a critical hit is.  I may argue your position in the future, but right now I'm just trying to pin down what each of us is actually saying in terms more precise than vernacular english.

Also, I'm not saying you did anything wrong but correctly combining logical functions as you have gets tricky and leaves too much room for errors.  I used simpler equasions that layer their logic on each other to more closely match the words in the PHB.   This also makes it easier to see if we've written them correctly.

The question remains whether or not Draco and Flip agree with my interpretation of their logic.


----------



## Artoomis (Aug 24, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> 1 in 20 outcomes (when doubles are successfully rolled) it is the same as rolling 20.
> 
> 19 in 20 outcomes it is impossible not to roll a number other than 20 when making doubles.




I am sorry, I could not follow this or undertsand your point.  Could you re-state this another way?


----------



## Artoomis (Aug 24, 2009)

N8Ball said:


> I disagree.  The question about whether doubles = "numbers other than 20" is a question that pertains to the argument, but it's far less foundational than our disagreement on what a critical hit is...




But you won't really get there, I think, without answering the question of whether double = number other than 20 or not.,

For we know, as re-stated for the rules compendium, exactly what a critical hit is, without regard to Holy Ardor:

*"Natural 20: If you roll a 20 on the die when making an attack roll, you score a critical hit if your total attack roll is high enough to hit your target’s defense. If your attack roll is too low to score a critical hit, you still hit automatically.

Precision: Some class features and powers allow you to score a critical hit when you roll numbers other than 20 (only a natural 20 is an automatic hit).

Maximum Damage: Rather than roll damage, determine the maximum damage you can roll with your attack. This is your critical damage. (Attacks that don’t deal damage still don’t deal damage on a critical hit.)

Extra Damage: Magic weapons and implements, as well as high crit weapons, can increase the damage you deal when you score a critical hit. If this extra damage is a die roll, it’s not automatically maximum damage; you add the result of the roll."*

The first two paragraphs are relevant as they determine if an attack is a critical hit or not, the second two only deal with damage, which is out of scope for this argument.

Thus, pre-Holy Ardor, the logic is simple:

*Hit = attack roll meets or exceed defense score
PotentialCrit = roll on a die is high enough to be a critical hit (20, or, per Precision, a lower number)
Critical = Score a Critical Hit (get max damage, etc.)

If PotentialCrit and Hit then Critical.*

The rule post-Holy Ardor is more difficult because one must first decide if Holy Ardor creates a new situation or not.

If so, then:

*Hit = attack roll meets or exceed defense score
PotentialCrit = roll on a die is high enough to be a critical hit (20, or, per Precision, a lower number)
Critical = Score a Critical Hit (get max damage, etc.)
Doubles = Holy Ardor power used and doubles rolled, (except for double ones)

If (PotentialCrit and Hit) OR Doubles, then Critical.*

If not, then

*Hit = attack roll meets or exceed defense score
PotentialCrit = roll on a die is high enough to be a critical hit (20, or, per Precision, a lower number) OR Holy Ardor power used and doubles rolled, (except for double ones)
Critical = Score a Critical Hit (get max damage, etc.)

If PotentialCrit and Hit then Critical.*

And so, once again, the key point becomes whether or not Holy Ardor doubles is simply another potential critical hit or creates a new category where one scores a critical hit even on a low attack roll (by rolling doubles).


----------



## Artoomis (Aug 24, 2009)

BTW, I have submitted the following to CustServ:

There has been much discussion around the Arden Champion's Holy Ardor power which reads:

Holy Ardor (11th level): Whenever you make two attack rolls because of your oath of enmity, you score a critical hit if both dice have the same roll, except if both rolls are 1.

The question comes down to whether this a new exception (specific rule) that overrides the rules on determining a critical hit such that any doubles (other than when both rolls are 1) will be a critical hit, even if that number would have otherwise been a miss on the attack die.

If you would, please, give not only the answer as to whether this creates a new auto-critical situation (regardless od whether the roll would have hit), but also why, that would be greatly appreciated.

Also, please submit this for a FAQ or rules update as appropriate.

See http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4t...-adent-champion-rules-lawyers-required-7.html for much discussion of this power.


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 24, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> I am sorry, I could not follow this or undertsand your point.  Could you re-state this another way?




Precision, in my interpretation, is a rule that applies when you have a situation where you rolled something other than a 20 and scored a critical hit.  This situation must occur with Holy Ardor 19 out of 20 times.  

In the 20th time, Holy Ardor doesn't have a meaningful effect anyways, so it doesn't matter, as you've already satisfied the natural 20 rules.

So the statement then is... prove that you've done something -other- than roll a number other than 20 when rolling Holy Ardor and applying it's effect. (and obviously, 20/20 is ruled out as a counterargument already)


----------



## N8Ball (Aug 24, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> And so, once again, the key point becomes whether or not Holy Ardor doubles is simply another potential critical hit or creates a new category where one scores a critical hit even on a low attack roll (by rolling doubles).





I follow your logic and I happen to agree with it, but they won't because you've made assumptions that they disagree with....  Specificly, the definition of Critical hit.  You define it as a max damage hit, they define it similarly but *include* the possibility of a miss.

The end of any argument is not valid unless the assumptions are valid.   So then, we must establish the definitions of contentious terms explicitly before we can talk about them with any rigor.  

This is a bottleneck in the argument, and it must be dealt with first.


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 24, 2009)

N8Ball said:


> I follow your logic and I happen to agree with it, but they won't because you've made assumptions that they disagree with....  Specificly, the definition of Critical hit.  You define it as a max damage hit, they define it similarly but *include* the possibility of a miss.




No, we define 'score a critical hit' as something that Precision applies to, and therefore trumps.  We do not assume that it hits, we assume that a rule exists that tells you 'wait, no, that might not hit, hang on a minute.'

It's a subtly different argument.  However, it -creates a situation- where you can 'score a critical hit' and still not hit.  But that's a product of the argument, and not the point of the argument itself which is:

Holy Ardor is a feature that allows you to score a critical hit on numbers other than a 20.
Precision is a rule that applies when you are allowed to score a critical hit on numbers other than a 20.

Therefore, Precision applies to Holy Ardor.


Hense why the discussion on whether Holy Ardor is a 'numbers other than 20' case.


----------



## Flipguarder (Aug 24, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> Precision, in my interpretation, is a rule that applies when you have a situation where you rolled something other than a 20 and scored a critical hit.  This situation must occur with Holy Ardor 19 out of 20 times.
> 
> In the 20th time, Holy Ardor doesn't have a meaningful effect anyways, so it doesn't matter, as you've already satisfied the natural 20 rules.
> 
> So the statement then is... prove that you've done something -other- than roll a number other than 20 when rolling Holy Ardor and applying it's effect. (and obviously, 20/20 is ruled out as a counterargument already)




If you roll 2 18s, according to holy ardor, you critically hit. That is explicitly a situation in which you crit without rolling a twenty. I have no idea what you are trying to prove.


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 24, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> If you roll 2 18s, according to holy ardor, you critically hit. That is explicitly a situation in which you crit without rolling a twenty. I have no idea what you are trying to prove.




By brute force, that Holy Ardor is a feature that allows you to roll critical hits on numbers other than 20.


----------



## Flipguarder (Aug 24, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> By brute force, that Holy Ardor is a feature that allows you to roll critical hits on numbers other than 20.




I have a hard time believing someone would argue against this. Any takers?


----------



## N8Ball (Aug 24, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> It's a subtly different argument.  However, it -creates a situation- where you can 'score a critical hit' and still not hit.




So you define "critical hit" as a *situation* that requires other tests (successful attack roll) to determine the outcome (max damage or miss), right?

It seems that that is functionally identical to calling "Critical hit" the function X which includes the precision rules within it, since every time you refer to X, you must then test to see if precision has been satisfied, and thereby making the determination of max damage or miss.


----------



## N8Ball (Aug 24, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> I have a hard time believing someone would argue against this. Any takers?




Actually, no.  I agree with that statement wholeheartedly.

I was hesitating to post this agreement because I'm relatively sure that somebody is going to rage all over me tell me how this can't jive with my own arguments rather than actually listen to my argument to it's conclusion as see if it holds any water.

....But the thread has been pretty reasoned and civil so far so I'm showing some of my cards in spite of my reservations.


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 24, 2009)

N8Ball said:


> So you define "critical hit" as a *situation* that requires other tests (successful attack roll) to determine the outcome (max damage or miss), right?




I am not defining critical hit.  And notice, I'm not talking about 'critical hit'.

I'm discussing the term 'score a critical hit' which is the crux of this, and your, argument.  The definition and rules for 'score a critical hit' include Precision as part of their baggage.



> It seems that that is functionally identical to calling "Critical hit" the function X which includes the precision rules within it, since every time you refer to X, you must then test to see if precision has been satisfied, and thereby making the determination of max damage or miss.




Perhaps.  But that is not what I'm doing, exactly.  I'm doing this:

It is stated that you can X in certain abnormal circumstances.  However in that very same statement, it -additionally- states that if you do not Y, you cannot Z in abnormal circumstances, and without Z, you cannot X.  Therefore, if in those abnormal circumstances, even if the ability says you X, and without fail X, X -itself- is telling you you must also Y, or you didn't -actually- X.


----------



## Flipguarder (Aug 24, 2009)

My whole argument comes from two things:

1. I believe precision is a rule intended to denote that the only way to automatically hit a target is by rolling a 20. (Yes I'm just completely ignoring the idea of crits here.)
2. When an Avenger with Holy Ardor rolls two attack rolls and each are the same number (excepting 20), but separately they would not hit the target, it is not an automatic hit. Because only 20s are automatic hits.


----------



## N8Ball (Aug 24, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> I am not defining critical hit.  And notice, I'm not talking about 'critical hit'.
> 
> I'm discussing the term 'score a critical hit' which is the crux of this, and your, argument.  The definition and rules for 'score a critical hit' include Precision as part of their baggage.
> 
> ...




We can't very well have a useful argument unless we agree on the terms we're using.  That's why I'm stuck on defining the terms, because they're so central to everything about the discussion.

Very well, so we'll define X as "scoring a critical hit" instead.
And you believe that "scoring a critical hit" includes Y (precision rules) and can have 2 outcomes, either a miss or max damage.  

Is that right?


----------



## Flipguarder (Aug 24, 2009)

N8Ball said:


> We can't very well have a useful argument unless we agree on the terms we're using.  That's why I'm stuck on defining the terms, because they're so central to everything about the discussion.
> 
> Very well, so we'll define X as "scoring a critical hit" instead.
> And you believe that "scoring a critical hit" includes Y (precision rules) and can have 2 outcomes, either a miss or max damage.
> ...




As far as I can tell, yes that is what I believe. I understand that this goes against standard definition of hit, but them's the rules.


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 24, 2009)

N8Ball said:


> We can't very well have a useful argument unless we agree on the terms we're using.  That's why I'm stuck on defining the terms, because they're so central to everything about the discussion.
> 
> Very well, so we'll define X as "scoring a critical hit" instead.
> And you believe that "scoring a critical hit" includes Y (precision rules) and can have 2 outcomes, either a miss or max damage.
> ...




If X occurs in abnormal circumstances (not rolling a natural 20) and those abnormal circumstances do not dictate otherwise, then yes.  This is for the same reason that forced movement has rules that imply when it can and cannot work, why conditions say when you can and cannot do things, etc.


----------



## Artoomis (Aug 24, 2009)

I hate to get picky over terminology, especially when I don't think it matters to the point that my learned opposition is making, but:

"*Score a critical hit*"  is when you have passed whatever tests exist and actually get to do the critical damage.

Per the Rules Compendium:

"Natural 20: If you roll a 20 on the die when making an attack roll, *you score a critical hit* if your total attack roll is high enough to hit your target’s defense. If your attack roll is too low *to score a critical hit*, you still hit automatically."

This, of course, still leaves open the question of whether Holy Ardor sets up an entirely new condition (roll two matching numbers on two d20) or falls under "roll numbers other than 20."

So , basically, the question comes down to whether "roll numbers other than 20" is all-inclusive of any situation or whether the context of rolling a single value excludes the new situation of using "doubles."


----------



## Flipguarder (Aug 24, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> I hate to get picky over terminology, especially when I don't think it matters to the point that my learned opposition is making, but:
> 
> "*Score a critical hit*"  is when you have passed whatever tests exist and actually get to do the critical damage.
> 
> ...




I see NO reason to create an entirely new condition for critting in this scenario. Could you give me any?


----------



## Artoomis (Aug 24, 2009)

Oh my... I just realized that the terminology used on Holy Ardor is not ambiguous as i thought.

"Ardent Champion: "Holy Ardor (11th level): Whenever you make two attack rolls because of your oath of enmity, you score a critical hit if both dice have the same roll, except if both rolls are 1.""

"Natural 20: If you roll a 20 on the die when making an attack roll, you score a critical hit if your total attack roll is high enough to hit your target’s defense. If your attack roll is too low to score a critical hit, you still hit automatically"

The language is very specific around the phrase "score a critical hit."

It looks to me like "score a critical hit" can only mean one thing - you have actually scored one, and get to do the critical damage.  This means the omission of the word "can" in Holy Ardor is very, very significant.  Of course it could be a simple oversight or typo, but, as written, it is a more specific rule than "Precision" and overrides it.

A search in the Rules Compendium for "score a critical hit" gives interesting results.  Here's a few:

A high crit weapon deals more damage when you score a critical hit with it....

Aberrant Bane (11th level): Your attacks against bloodied aberrant creatures can score critical hits on rolls of 19–20.

Holy Ardor (11th level): Whenever you make two attack rolls because of your oath of enmity, you score a critical hit if both dice have the same roll, except if both rolls are 1.

Lethal Action (11th level): If you spend an action point to make an attack against your oath of enmity target, the attack can score a critical hit on a roll of 18–20.

Wild Push (16th level): Whenever you score a critical hit with a melee attack while you are raging, you push the target a number of squares equal to your Strength modifier.

Dominating Presence (16th level): Whenever you score a critical hit, your allies gain a +2 bonus...

Volley Fire (16th level): If you score a critical hit with a ranged bard attack power...

Deeds not Words (16th level): When you bloody an enemy, reduce an enemy to 0 hit points, or score a critical hit with a melee attack...

Illuminating Attacks (11th level): Your powers that have the radiant keyword can now score a critical hit with a natural die roll of 19 or 20.


----------



## Artoomis (Aug 24, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> I see NO reason to create an entirely new condition for critting in this scenario. Could you give me any?




I don't need a reason, just the fact that WotC created this brand new scenario when they created Holy Ardor.

Whether I agree with it or not, or understand why they did this or not, is not the point.  I am just looking at what's published and trying to determine what it means.


----------



## Flipguarder (Aug 24, 2009)

I'm sorry for everyone who disagrees, but "Only a 20 is an automatic hit" is applicable, precise, exact, and overriding in this scenario.


----------



## N8Ball (Aug 24, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> If X occurs in abnormal circumstances (not rolling a natural 20) and those abnormal circumstances do not dictate otherwise, then yes.




Absolutely true.  Specific unusual circumstances can change the basic rules. everyone agrees with that.



Artoomis said:


> Per the Rules Compendium:
> 
> "Natural 20: If you roll a 20 on the die when making an attack roll, *you score a critical hit* if your total attack roll is high enough to hit your target’s defense. If your attack roll is too low *to score a critical hit*, you still hit automatically."




Artoomis makes a good point here though.  The rules have the requirement of a successful attack roll before you score a critical hit.  Requiring that "scoring a critical hit" again checks to see if you hit is redundant - not logically contradictory, I'll give you that, but it's certainly not needed in the standard case.

Also, allowing "score a critical hit" to include some misses creates some serious unintended consequences.

Suppose I "score a critical hit" but miss on a big monster.  With that interpretation, there are TONS of powers that could kick off on that miss, like Font of Radiance, Triumphant Attack and a slew of item powers that trigger off of "scoring a critical hit".

Then, you have the trouble of the other examples and text on critical hits throughout the book.



			
				High Crit said:
			
		

> A high crit weapon deals more damage when you score a critical hit with it.  A critical hit deals maximum weapon damage and an extra...





			
				Critical Hit said:
			
		

> A critical hit deals maximum damage and some powers and magic items have an extra effect on a critical hit.





			
				Example: Valenae PHB 276 said:
			
		

> If she scores a critical hit, she deals maximum damage of 23 points and adds 2D6 thunder damage from her thundering longsword.




The very beginning section on critical hits also makes the point that the term "crit" is synonymous with scoring a critical hit.

For those reasons (and others already listed in this thread) I believe that the term crit, critical hit and score a critical hit are virtually interchangeable and simply describe the  maximum damage hit we all know and love.

However, all is not lost! Precision still has a place, but you may not be surprised to hear that my interpretation is slightly different than yours.  I hope that you will find it consistent with the rest of my argument.

Unfortunately, I'm off to GM Shadowrun right now so I'll be back in about 5 hours.  I apologise for making you wait on my take on precision (that's a long post too).  Duty calls.


----------



## CovertOps (Aug 24, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> Oh my... I just realized that the terminology used on Holy Ardor is not ambiguous as i thought.
> 
> "Ardent Champion: "Holy Ardor (11th level): Whenever you make two attack rolls because of your oath of enmity, you score a critical hit if both dice have the same roll, except if both rolls are 1.""
> 
> ...




I am really starting to think that the basis of all our disagreements is a lack of understanding about how exception based design works or a least a disagreement about how it works.

Example:

Power X:
Hit: You do d8 + Wisdom modifier fire damage.

Resistance: You subtract your resistance value from any damage you take of that type.

I hope we can agree that a target with fire resistance will take less damage than d8 + Wis mod.  There was nothing in this power that says you can OR can't ignore the general rule so it stands in tact.

Example:

Stealth: If you move more than half your movement you take a -10 to your stealth roll.

Rogue utility: Fleet Feet?
Effect: You can move your full move with no penality to your stealth roll.

In this case the power specifically says what you can do and how it overrides the general rule.

Nowhere in Holy Ardor does it say that it ignores Precision nor does it give new rules text to use in place of precision.  It also does not say anything about replacing the auto-hit rules (only on a 20).

Exception based design means that you can't go look at what other powers do to determine how some other power works.  Each power stands on it's own and either follows the general rules or provides a specific way in which the power lets you ignore the general rules.


1. Effect: You slide 3 squares.
2. Effect: You *can* slide 3 squares.

Rule: You cannot slide if you are prone.

Tell me Artoomis.  Would you make a case for these 2 powers to act differently?  Because the way I see it that's exactly what you are trying to do with Holy Ardor.  Does the absence of the word "can" suddenly allow you to ignore the prone restriction?  Does it's inclusion "allow" the general rule to apply?


----------



## nogray (Aug 25, 2009)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> "score a critical hit."




You left one out.  I'm sure others would point this out, soon, anyway, but here's another use of the phrase:



			
				PHB said:
			
		

> Precision: Some class features and powers allow you to score a critical hit when you roll numbers other than 20 (only a natural 20 is an automatic hit).




Note that it also uses the definite "score a critical hit" language, even though it goes on to mention that when you "score a critical hit," you might not actually hit anything.

I'm personally still undecided as to which side of the argument I'm on, but I'm leaning against the "autohit-and-crit" side, because the power would otherwise allow hits 14.25% of the time, no matter how high the defenses of the target. (Ridiculous example, +20 to hit vs. defense score of 80: just about everyone else hits 5% of the time (no crits possibe), normal avengers hit 9.75% of the time (no crits possible), and--under the more liberal interpretation of the rules--Ardent Champions would hit 14.25% of the time and crit 4.75% of the time.

I'm not saying it's broken, but it seems peculiar, to say the least, that Ardent Champions can hit so much more reliably and crit what no one else can.

Just something more to think about in this crazy head of mine... 

(And I need to type faster or type more succinctly.)


----------



## Artoomis (Aug 25, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> ...Tell me Artoomis.  Would you make a case for these 2 powers to act differently?  Because the way I see it that's exactly what you are trying to do with Holy Ardor.  Does the absence of the word "can" suddenly allow you to ignore the prone restriction?  Does it's inclusion "allow" the general rule to apply?




The lack of the word "can it very important, but, truly, even more important is the new mechanic of rolling doubles.

This is, arguably, not the same as when one uses the result of a single die (or highest roll, which is the same thing, really).

Thus one can argue that the new rule, Holy Ardor, creates an entirely new exception to the rules.

It's a bit odd, but adding in all the evidence together supports that Holy Ardor is a new rule that *creates a new exception.*

Thinks of it this way.

Rule one:  You can only auto-hit on a 20.
Rule two:  Rolling doubles on two d20 means you automatically get a critical hit.

Now, does rule two create a new situation that overrides rule one?


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 25, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> Rule one:  You can only auto-hit on a 20.
> Rule two:  Rolling doubles on two d20 means you automatically get a critical hit.
> 
> Now, does rule two create a new situation that overrides rule one?




It would.

Notice, however, that Holy Ardor does not say, nor even imply, that the hit is automatic.

It just says you score a critical hit, and -that- is fully governed by Precision.


----------



## Artoomis (Aug 25, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> It would.
> 
> Notice, however, that Holy Ardor does not say, nor even imply, that the hit is automatic.
> 
> It just says you score a critical hit, and -that- is fully governed by Precision.





Well, maybe, maybe not.

Let's review that very point, because it is pretty core to our discussion:

The rules, in there entirety, on when you "score a critical hit" are:

*Natural 20: If you roll a 20 on the die when making an attack roll, you score a critical hit if your total attack roll is high enough to hit your target’s defense. If your attack roll is too low to score a critical hit, you still hit automatically.

Precision: Some class features and powers allow you to score a critical hit when you roll numbers other than 20 (only a natural 20 is an automatic hit).*

Note that precision states (its only a reminder, really) you only score an automatic hit on a 20 on the d20. 

That's true.  But what about when some odd new rule gets created that lets you "score a critical hit" with doubles on two d20.  Does the "20 on an attack roll" rule apply any more?

Well, maybe, maybe not.

The "doubles" have nothing to do with whether you hit or not, just whether you get the same result on both die.

So what do we have?

1.  If you roll a natural 20 on a d20, you get an automatic hit that may or may not score a critical hit. 

2.  You may be allowed by some power to score a critical hit on a number other than 20 - in other words, you might need only a 19, or an 18, but the rule on needing to hit before you can score a critical hit still applies.

3.  With Holy Ardor a new situation is created  - rolling doubles.

What we do not know for sure is if the doubles are simply another way to possibly score a critical hit, or are something else - a way to get an automatic critical hit regardless of whether you would have otherwise hit your target.

Can we agree on that much (note I have not drawn a conclusion yet in this post, only presented the question).

If we can agree on this much, then we have the basis for tackling the core question(s) we need.


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 25, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> 3.  With Holy Ardor a new situation is created  - rolling doubles.




And at this point, we check to see if this is a situation where you are allowed to roll a critical hit on numbers other than 20.

Here's the bruteforce method of checking.

If you roll a 1?  No.  Holy Ardor says you can't, we won't consider this anyways.

Two 2's?  This is doubles, and it is an attack roll that is a number other than 20.  (that number is defined by oath of emnity, and it is 2)
Two 3's?  Other than 20.  4's?  Other than 20.  5's?  Other than 20.  6's? 7's? 8's? 9's? 10's? 11's? 12's? 13's? 14's? 15's? 16's? 17's? 18's? 19's?  All are other than 20.

So, in this, we have found 18 cases where this Holy Ardor could allow you to score a critical hit on numbers other than 20.

So, in those 18 cases, Precision would apply.  In any other case it would not.  Of course, that case is a natural 20, and would be a crit without Holy Ardor.


----------



## Artoomis (Aug 25, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> And at this point, we check to see if this is a situation where you are allowed to roll a critical hit on numbers other than 20.
> 
> Here's the bruteforce method of checking.
> 
> ...




I think we are now focusing on the right issue.

When rolling two 2s what have you got?

1.  Two attack rolls, neither of which hit.
2.  Doubles, which Holy Ardor says "score a critical hit."

So now what?

Either "score as critical hit" means what it says and you get to score a critical hit (which means also, in effect, a brand-new mechanism for an automatic hit) or it really means you have the *possibility* of scoring a critical hit, even though that;s not what is actually says.

I think both interpretations are correct in that they can be defended by RAW.


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 25, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> Either "score as critical hit" means what it says and you get to score a critical hit (which means also, in effect, a brand-new mechanism for an automatic hit) or it really means you have the *possibility* of scoring a critical hit, even though that;s not what is actually says.
> 
> I think both interpretations are correct in that they can be defended by RAW.




The problem with that is both interpretations are covered by Precision, which as a governing rule isn't concerned with possibilities, but is a flat out denial of possibility, by the same token that a condition that denies you actions doesn't allow you to take actions even if other effects do.

So, you can have a million effects that say you do something, but it only takes one effect to say you can't to deny all of them.  The exception, of course, is when those abilities say you can do something -even tho- you normally can't.

Holy Ardor is not an example of that.


----------



## Flipguarder (Aug 25, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> Either "score as critical hit" means what it says and you get to score a critical hit (which means also, in effect, a brand-new mechanism for an automatic hit)




There is only one mechanic for an automatic hit, rolling a 20. There is no room for interpretation in that, I don't care how many 2s you roll. Just because you ALSO get a critical hit on a 20 does in no way mean that any critical hit is an automatic hit.

I (rolling a 20) eat apples (automatic hit)
I (rolling a 20) ride bikes (critical hit)
You (holy ardor rolling two 2s) ride bikes (critical hit)

This does not in any way mean that you eat apples. I am the only one who gets to eat apples, end of discussion. But you can ride bikes all you want. I don't care about that.


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 25, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> So now what?




You hope there's a rule that exists to cover situations where you would score a critical hit but not actually roll high enough to hit, while still not rolling a 20.

Fortunately, that rule exists.

So use it.


----------



## shadowoflameth (Aug 25, 2009)

DracoSuave is correct. Per the PHB, *only a natural 20 is an automatic hit*. If a natural 20 is not a high enough numerical result to hit, then you still score a normal hit, (not a critical hit). Powers and feats that give you the ability to critical hit on 19, 18 or lower still do give you this feature, and only a few very specific powers make any hit an automatic critical. Natural ones by the way, in the era off 4th edition, are not automatic misses, the 3e fumble is gone. With this ability however, ones are not automatic criticals if you roll two of them. Conversely, the 1:400 chance of rolling a pair of natural 20s would make the effect of the second roll a moot point.


----------



## urzafrank (Aug 25, 2009)

The term automatic hit is a term in the PHB. The part in Precision is just a reminder of the automatic hit rules. No where does Holy Ardor refer to that rule and how it would it would conflict so as result it does not. Automatic Hit and Critical Hit are not the same terms and since the PHB does not combine them why are some of the posters on this Board doing so?


----------



## Dan'L (Aug 25, 2009)

Let's try this:



Artoomis said:


> * Precision: Some class features and powers allow you to score a critical hit when you roll numbers other than 20 (only a natural 20 is an automatic hit).*






Artoomis said:


> When rolling two 2s what have you got?
> 
> 1.  Two attack rolls, neither of which hit.
> 2.  Doubles, which Holy Ardor says "score a critical hit."
> ...



So now:
- I've got two dice.  
- The dice have rolled "2" on each.
- "2s" are "numbers."
- Holy Ardor says "score a critical hit" because I have rolled these "numbers"
- Holy Ardor is a "feature"
- Precision says "Some class features and powers" (like Holy Ardor) "allow you to score a critical hit when you roll" (like what I did with the two dice) "numbers other than 20." (like 2s)

Therefore, Precision applies.

Or are you arguing that 2's are not numbers, simply because there is more than one of them?  Because, frankly, that's what it reads like from this corner.

-Dan'L


----------



## Eldorian (Aug 25, 2009)

Dan'L said:


> Let's try this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




In bizarre mathlogic world, 2s, that is, (2,2) is an ordered pair, and therefore not a number.  Fortunately, you didn't roll (2,2).  You rolled 2, twice.  Then your class feature kicks in and says you rolled a 2.  This 2 "scored a critical hit" because of Holy Ardor.  Precision says you still miss.

We don't want dnd rules to be written in mathlogic world.  Because in mathlogic world, all "or"s are inclusive, "any" and "every" are the same word, and a doughnut is a coffee cup.


----------



## pascalnz (Aug 25, 2009)

dear god

in 4th ed YOU MISS ON ONES. always.

this is for you shadowoftheflame read the darn section .


----------



## Artoomis (Aug 25, 2009)

Yes, it *is* true that the rolls on the two dice are numbers.

However, it is *also* that all other rules (other than Holy Ardor) are in the context of rolling a number (sometimes picking the best or worst of mutiple rolls) on a d20. 

Holy Ardor creates an entirely new situation of using a "doubles" result on two dice.

Holy Ardor also says "you score a critical hit" on a doubles - except double ones.

"You score a critical hit" is an unambiguous game term that means you have actually passed whatever tests exist (like, for example, hitting with a high enough value on the attack die) and you may apply the damage for the critical hit.

Since that is the case, *Holy Ardor has created a new exception to the previous rules on Crtical Hits *where you only score a crtical hit if you roll a 20 (or sometimes less if granted by a class feature or power) on the die when making an attack roll, you score a critical hit if your total attack roll is high enough to hit your target’s defense.

However, I do not discount all of my learned opponents' arguments entirely - I see the validity of them and maintain that both interpretations have validity and therfore clarification from WotC is required - especially if it is important for, say RPGA play.


----------



## keterys (Aug 25, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> "You score a critical hit" is an unambiguous game term that means you have actually passed whatever tests exist (like, for example, hitting with a high enough value on the attack die) and you may apply the damage for the critical hit.




You really haven't shown this to be the case... and as far as I can tell, it's the entire crux of your argument. I think that's essentially why you're not seeing eye to eye with any of the dissenters. Your apple is their orange.



> However, I do not discount all of my learned opponents' arguments entirely - I see the validity of them and maintain that both interpretations have validity and therfore clarification from WotC is required - especially if it is important for, say RPGA play.




Being blunt... don't try to do it at an LFR game without prior acceptance from the DM. It'd just be asking for trouble, so avoiding it in advance is a good idea.


----------



## Artoomis (Aug 25, 2009)

keterys said:


> You really haven't shown this to be the case... and as far as I can tell, it's the entire crux of your argument. I think that's essentially why you're not seeing eye to eye with any of the dissenters. Your apple is their orange.




I did show this, by quoting the Critical Hit rules and not being able to find any exception to where "you score a critical hit" means anything other than actually getting the critical hit - meaning you get to apply the critical damage.  Note that a different phrase, "you can score a critical hit," is used in instances where the normal roll of 20 is modified to be a 19/20 or and 18/19/20.

Also note that while this is important to my argument, it is also (perhaps equally) important that this is a new situation of using a "doubles" roll as opposed to looking to the result on an attack roll.



keterys said:


> Being blunt... don't try to do it at an LFR game without prior acceptance from the DM. It'd just be asking for trouble, so avoiding it in advance is a good idea.




Quite right.  that's why clarification from WotC is needed - as it is in every instance where the rules, as written, support two (or more) justifiable alternative intepretations.

The whole point of a common understanding how the rules are written is really about RPGA games and consistency.  For other games, well, it is not so important, really.  The DM and the group just agree amongst themselves (with the DM being final arbiter, of course).

That said, in an LFR game, it could, as written, be run either way and be correct.


----------



## keterys (Aug 25, 2009)

Unfortunately, no... it could _either_ be a critical that misses (which is a very paradoxical thing) or it could just be a miss (because of precision). You still haven't overcome the 'automatic hit' barrier, so your power still Misses because it failed to hit the defense. 

Critical hits are not automatic hits. Nothing gets past that. Again, I'd be extremely willing to believe it's intended that this ability count as an automatic hit, but it just doesn't.


----------



## N8Ball (Aug 25, 2009)

keterys said:


> Unfortunately, no... it could _either_ be a critical that misses (which is a very paradoxical thing)




First of all  "score a critical hit" = "crit" = "critical hit".  Pg 278 is explicit about that much.

The understanding of what a critical hit is must also allow for a distinction between *permissive *language when *determining* crits, as is used on page 276:



			
				Critical hit: said:
			
		

> *If* you roll a 20 your attack roll *might* be a critical hit.




** This allowance is what makes it possible to define critical hits _like the book doe_s in a number of places, specifically, "Critical hits:" pg 276, the Valanae example pg 276, and the section on High Crit, pg 217.  (Which I quoted on page 9 of this thread).  Each of these defines "critical hit" in *definitive* terms without qualification.  There are no, "if", "might", "can", "allow" or any permissive language in any of those.  That say what it *IS* and what you *DO* when you get a crit.

Every one of these examples talk about or define a critical hit as though it *IS* a hit, and assumes a definition of critical hit that is not paradoxical, but internally consistent.  

What about Mastery feats then?  Don't they say you crit on 19s and 20s? Not exactly.  

First of all, *even the basic rules don't say that you crit on a 20*, they say you _*MIGHT crit*_, _*IF*_ you satisfy the other conditions required apart from the number on the die.  So then, the mastery feats also folllow this same paradigm, by *allowing* you to get a crit on a 19 or 20, but not guaranteeing it, just like the good ole 20.  I know Draco will hate me saying this, but that's why the "can" is in those feats, so they read permissively instead of definitively.

The examples of "can" (or lack thereof) in all the movement powers involve player choice (a choice that is _explicitly_ granted in the case of forced movement).  There are no choices here, nor should there be.  This is mehanical rule adjudication, and the difference between permissive language and definitive language is meaningful and should be acknowledged.

Precision still has it's place, and will be respected. But what I've just said may need to be digested first.


----------



## CovertOps (Aug 25, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> I did show this, by quoting the Critical Hit rules and not being able to find any exception to where "you score a critical hit" means anything other than actually getting the critical hit - meaning you get to apply the critical damage.  Note that a different phrase, "you can score a critical hit," is used in instances where the normal roll of 20 is modified to be a 19/20 or and 18/19/20.




You cannot quote the general rules and then claim that they prove that some feature can now ignore the general rules.  That is a circular argument.  If that is the basis of your logic then we will get nowhere.  

We have already been over the presence/absence of the word "can" and that has absolutely no effect on the meaning.  "you score a critical" and "you can score a critical" are identical in meaning and function in that they both refer to the general rules on criticals.  Any other reading of such insignificant stylistic changes in grammar is simply ridiculous.  If WotC has to be that precise in it's wording of rules they better hire a lawyer and make the whole rulebook unreadable.

And I will keep coming back to the basic failure to understand exception based design in 4e.  A specific rule does NOT get to ignore the general rules UNLESS it SPECIFICALLY says that it can.  "Score a critical hit" does not say anything about ignoring the auto-hit rules therefore it does not ignore those rules.  "Score a critical hit" does not say anything about ignoring precision so it does not.


----------



## Dan'L (Aug 25, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> Yes, it *is* true that the rolls on the two dice are numbers.



So, then, would you consider that the "newly created situation" of rolling doubles then still _*also*_ qualifies as "roll(ing) numbers?"  And that if these numbers are not 20, then it further would qualify to "roll(ing) numbers other than 20?"   I really only bring this up because of your incessant insistence that this is new situation is somehow not governed by Precision, simply because it is new and different than 18/19-20.  I don't think it's the crux of the matter, in any case.



> Holy Ardor creates an entirely new situation of using a "doubles" result on two dice.



But unless you're using different dice than 99.99%* of the players out there, those "doubles" also qualify as "numbers."  New situation, same old rules applicability.

(*okay, this statistic I just completely made up, but you get the idea.)



> Holy Ardor also says "you score a critical hit" on a doubles - except double ones.



Yes, it does.  However, it does *not* allow you to "hit" on a double.  In 4ed, as has been shown, "critical hit" and "hit" are distinctly separate (though sometimes related) terms with different meanings.



> "You score a critical hit" is an unambiguous game term that means you have actually passed whatever tests exist (like, for example, hitting with a high enough value on the attack die) and you may apply the damage for the critical hit.



This is incorrect.  Nowhere in the rules that I have in my PHB, or that you have quoted from your PHB or the Compendium, actually indicate that scoring a critical hit allows you to *apply* the damage.  

The only places that I have found that allow you to apply damage are when you hit, when you miss with miss effects, or when other specific condition effects allow it(such as zones).   "Critical Hits" is not one of these places.  Let's examine another key portion of the critical hit rules:



			
				PHB p278 said:
			
		

> *Maximum Damage:* Rather than roll damage, determine the maximum damage you can roll with your attack. This is your critical damage. (*Attacks that don't deal damage still don't deal damage on a critical hit.*)



So what does this allow for upon scoring a critical hit?  Only for determining a damage amount, not for applying the damage.  Attacks that miss are  attacks that "don't deal damage" (unless there is a miss effect/effect to the contrary*)(relevant rules for a miss found on PHB p.276) and therefore by Critical Hit Damage rules "still don't deal damage."

So let's go back and look at Holy Ardor one more time.  Does it give a rule with a new condition for determining if you score a critical hit?  Yes.  Does it give a rule with a new condition for determining if you hit?  No.  For determining if you hit, and then by extension determining if you actually get to *apply* that wonderful critical hit max damage, you still must use your Oath of Enmity rules as before.  If your 2 from rolling double 2s doesn't add up to enough to equal or exceed the target's appropriate defense value then, as written, it's not a hit.  Critical Hit: yes, Hit: no.  

More to the point, if your total attack roll is lower than the target's defense value then the attack is a "Miss," and by the rules of attack results, an attack that misses (normally) deals no damage, and "attacks that don't deal damage" (such as attacks with a "miss" result and no "miss" damage effects) "still don't deal damage on a critical hit."

(*It is certainly arguable, though, that if you have Holy Ardor, roll double 2s, miss with a daily power that has a 1/2 damage miss effect then you get to apply 1/2 of your maximum damage and extra damage for the crit.)

-Dan'L


----------



## Flipguarder (Aug 25, 2009)

> There is only one mechanic for an automatic hit, rolling a 20. There is no room for interpretation in that, I don't care how many 2s you roll. Just because you ALSO get a critical hit on a 20 does in no way mean that any critical hit is an automatic hit.
> 
> I (rolling a 20) eat apples (automatic hit)
> I (rolling a 20) ride bikes (critical hit)
> ...



I'm quoting myself because I think some people in this thread need to read it.


There is only one way in all of D&D to automatically hit on an attack roll in which you actually have to roll a dice. An obscure path towards critical hits that omits the word "can" does not change this.


----------



## CovertOps (Aug 25, 2009)

@N8Ball:

I reference to my previous post I will have to admit one change.  The definitive or permissive forms will count within the general rule itself.  So within the rules on critical hits it DOES matter if you have the definitive or permissive clauses because that is the only way to be able to define the cases given.

As to any power or feature anywhere else my statement still stands.  There is no difference between "score a critical hit" and "you can score a critical hit".  Both refer to the general critical hit rules and are simply a stylistic change in grammar with no change in meaning.  If this difference were allowed to make the power read differently you could break the exception based design of 4e without having to explicitly state how you're breaking the general rule and what the limits are on breaking said rule.  This is the same as my other example "You shift 3 squares" vs. "You can shift 3 squares".  Both phrases require you to refer to the general rules on shifting otherwise you could start shifting while prone without specifically saying "you shift 3 squares *even if prone*"

Edit: changing slide for shift as keterys has rightly pointed out my mistake.

Also if there is a difference between "you shift 3 squares" and "you can shift 3 squares" I'd like to point out that you don't get to pick and choose which general rules on shifting you can or can't ignore and you wind up in the silly situation where you are REQUIRED to shift 3 squares even tho the general rules (which you are ignoring) allow you to not shift at all.


----------



## keterys (Aug 25, 2009)

N8Ball said:


> First of all  "score a critical hit" = "crit" = "critical hit".  Pg 278 is explicit about that much.




Absolutely. That's my objection to Artoomis' theory. 

Fwiw, it would help if people stop referring to not being able to slide while prone - you're thinking of shifting. Also, 1 does automiss (PHB276).  Please don't refer to other rules incorrectly when trying to argue a rule. It's going to muddy the issue up quite a bit


----------



## N8Ball (Aug 25, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> @N8Ball:
> As to any power or feature anywhere else my statement still stands.  There is no difference between "score a critical hit" and "you can score a critical hit".




That understanding is only possible if you define a crit as a possible miss, which doesn't agree with the three quotes I referenced.  The definition of a crit is consistent within the basic rules (those examples),  The feats and features in question only change how you get there, not what it IS.



CovertOps said:


> "You slide 3 squares" vs. "You can slide 3 squares". Both phrases require you to refer to the general rules on sliding otherwise you could start sliding while prone without specifically saying "you slide 3 squares *even if prone*"




I agree completely, and the general rules on crits include the precision section, which I believe isn't affected by holy ardor or mastery feats.  We agree on that.

I'll tell you how I think precision plays into it if we can come to terms on what a crit is and isn't before we include the precision rule.  Then we will put precision back into it and see how it changes things.


----------



## abyssaldeath (Aug 25, 2009)

N8Ball said:


> I'll tell you how I think precision plays into it if we can come to terms on what a crit is and isn't before we include the precision rule.  Then we will put precision back into it and see how it changes things.




A crit is when you roll a natural 20 and your total attack roll is high enough to hit your target’s defense you deal maximum damage.


----------



## Flipguarder (Aug 25, 2009)

N8ball, before we even need to define critical hit, I would need you to provide me any situation in which a critical hit is an automatic hit, without rolling a 20. Otherwise it doesn't matter if we define "critical hit" "score a critical hit" or "can critical hit" because all three fail to automatically hit without some precedent.


----------



## CovertOps (Aug 25, 2009)

N8Ball said:


> That understanding is only possible if you define a crit as a possible miss, which doesn't agree with the three quotes I referenced.  The definition of a crit is consistent within the basic rules (those examples),  The feats and features in question only change how you get there, not what it IS.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I'm not clear how you can have your cake and eat it too.  You disagree with my assertion that the word "can" has no change in meaning in regards to criticals, but turn around and agree it does not change the meaning with regards to another effect (shifting in this case). You'll need to pick one before we can continue.

And for reference I define "[you can] score a critical hit" as refer to the general rules on critical hits when it is used in features such as Holy Ardor or the dagger master PP feature which includes the possibility that you can both critical and miss.  The usage and context matter because if you had the phrase "you score a critical hit" within the critical hit rules then it might be referring to the actual case where you do max damage etc.  What this means is that there is more than one meaning to "score a critical hit" and context/usage matter (but NOT the use of the word "can").


----------



## CovertOps (Aug 25, 2009)

Ok N8Ball...I see what you mean.  Let me revise my definition of critical hit.

Within the context of the critical hit rules themselves the term refers to a hit that does max damage and whatever else is defined about the damage aspect of a crit.  In this case the use of the word "can" does make a difference.  Also in this context there is no such thing as a "crit" that "misses".

In ANY other location in the rules critical hit refers to the critical hit rules.  This is the section where the use or lack thereof of the word "can" makes absolutely no difference.  In this context you can have a "crit" that "misses" and it is in this context that this whole thread has raged on for 10 pages.  This is the context of usage in the feature "Holy Ardor".

These comments do not change my position in any way as the first part does not have any bearing on the debate about Holy Ardor.


----------



## Artoomis (Aug 25, 2009)

Dan'L said:


> ...This is incorrect.  Nowhere in the rules that I have in my PHB, or that you have quoted from your PHB or the Compendium, actually indicate that scoring a critical hit allows you to *apply* the damage.  ...-Dan'L




Indeed I have.    I shall do it again, just follow the bold text below:

Natural 20: If you roll a 20 on the die when making an attack roll, *you score a critical hit if your total attack roll is high enough to hit your target’s defense*. If your attack roll is *too low to score a critical hit*, you still hit automatically.

Precision: Some class features and powers allow you to score a critical hit when you roll numbers other than 20 (only a natural 20 is an automatic hit).

Maximum Damage: Rather than roll damage, determine the maximum damage you can roll with your attack. This is your critical damage. (Attacks that don’t deal damage still don’t deal damage on a critical hit.)

Extra Damage: Magic weapons and implements, as well as high crit weapons, can increase *the damage you deal when you score a critical hit*. If this extra damage is a die roll, it’s not automatically maximum damage; you add the result of the roll.

Note that "scoring a critical hit" is a two step process.

Step 1:  Roll an attack die and have it be high enough to possibly score a critical hit.
Step 2:  Check to see if your total attack roll is high enough to hit your target’s defense.

If both Step 1 and Step 2 are true, then you score a critical hit.

Step 3:  Apply critical damage.

Step 3 happens if, and only if, you "score a critical hit."  Also, Step 3 happens *every time* you "score a critical hit" (well, excluding interrupts and the like).

Holy Ardor creates a new situation that, as written, lets you "score a critical hit" based upon an entirely new new mechanic, rolling doubles, vs. the general rule based upon rolling an attack die. 

Also, note that before step 2 you have not "scored a critical hit."

All that said, so far CustServ disagrees with me.  Once it gets fully vetted and posted into the FAQs or rule updates, then, at that point, they (WotC) will have issued a formal clarification (or whatever you want to call it). 



			
				CustServ said:
			
		

> I can understand your confusion with this one. Let's say you roll a pair of 2's. Assuming your total of your attack bonus +2 does not hit, you would not crit the target. Your total still has to hit and then the hit turns to a crit, but it does not make a guaranteed hit; only a natural 20 does that.
> 
> I will happily pass this along for you and hopefully we can see an update to the FAQ in the future.




I have suggested the following update for WotC, assuming the intent is NOT to create a new crit rule:



			
				Modified Holy Ardor said:
			
		

> Holy Ardor (11th level): Whenever you make two attack rolls because of your oath of enmity, you can score a critical hit if both dice have the same roll, except if both rolls are 1. The rolls must still be high enough to hit for one to score a critical hit in this manner.




The language may not be perfect, but there can be no doubt about how to use this rule this way.


----------



## N8Ball (Aug 25, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> N8ball, before we even need to define critical hit, I would need you to provide me any situation in which a critical hit is an automatic hit, without rolling a 20.




Without agreeing on what a crit is, any situation I provide involving crits will have different underlying assumptions by each of us, and I don't think will get us anywhere.

But I will talk about Automatic hits here in a minute.


----------



## Dan'L (Aug 25, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> Indeed I have.    I shall do it again, just follow the bold text below:
> 
> Natural 20: If you roll a 20 on the die when making an attack roll, *you score a critical hit if your total attack roll is high enough to hit your target’s defense*. If your attack roll is *too low to score a critical hit*, you still hit automatically.
> 
> ...




None of your bolded text says that you actually get to apply the damage of a critical hit simply because it is a critical hit.  In fact, the parenthetical clauses of Precision and Maximum Damage make it clear that there are times when you do NOT get to apply the damage (I've gone ahead and bold-italicized the significant bits.)  All you've pointed out is that your maximum damage amount can be enhanced by magic weapons and implements, but it doesn't create a condition for applying the damage to your target; only "hit" and "automatic hit" (and some "miss" and "effect" lines) do that.

-Dan'L


----------



## CovertOps (Aug 25, 2009)

If you insist that you need new wording at least just point to the existing rules like so:



			
				Modified Holy Ardor said:
			
		

> Holy Ardor (11th level): Whenever you make two attack rolls because of your oath of enmity, you can score a critical hit if both dice have the same roll, except if both rolls are 1. The rules for critical and automatic hits still need to be followed.




Even that is annoying as it shouldn't be needed.  The lack of any overriding rule should make you use the general rules by default.


----------



## FurryFighter (Aug 25, 2009)

I think it does allow you to hit with a critical hit rolling doubles, and double 1 is always miss. wouldnt expect less from a PP power. its not like that increases its chance of hitting so much anyway, from 4% to 5-6% or something? Might as well take it RAW/RAR


----------



## CovertOps (Aug 25, 2009)

FurryFighter said:


> I think it does allow you to hit with a critical hit rolling doubles, and double 1 is always miss. wouldnt expect less from a PP power. its not like that increases its chance of hitting so much anyway, from 4% to 5-6% or something? Might as well take it RAW/RAR




Perhaps you missed the ruling from Customer Service above in the post by Artoomis who has been arguing that position for 10 pages of this thread and has now been ruled wrong.


----------



## N8Ball (Aug 25, 2009)

abyssaldeath said:


> A crit is when you roll a natural 20 and your total attack roll is high enough to hit your target’s defense you deal maximum damage.




This is for sure *one* way to GET a crit, but once you get there, what is it?  It's a maximum damage hit. (sometimes with extras as applied by the crit rules and other features that do whatever "when you score a critical hit".)



CovertOps said:


> Ok N8Ball...I see what you mean.  Let me revise my definition of critical hit.
> 
> Within the context of the critical hit rules themselves the term refers to a hit that does max damage and whatever else is defined about the damage aspect of a crit.  In this case the use of the word "can" does make a difference.  Also in this context there is no such thing as a "crit" that "misses".
> 
> In ANY other location in the rules critical hit refers to the critical hit rules.




OK, now we're getting somewhere.  

I would submit that what we mean by "Critical hit" should not change when we stop reading the critical hit rules (the context where you agree with me) and start reading the powers (the context where you do not).  

I agree that critical hits are governed by the crit rules. But I see that governance as not to imply the possibility of a miss and a crit.


----------



## N8Ball (Aug 25, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> Perhaps you missed the ruling from Customer Service above in the post by Artoomis who has been arguing that position for 10 pages of this thread and has now been ruled wrong.




Well that just makes it 1 cust serv for and 1 cust serv against.  Big surprise.

See the first post by Gearjammer on page 4.


----------



## N8Ball (Aug 25, 2009)

OK, here goes.  

Assumptions: (at least the most contentious ones)
- A Critical hit is a hit that does max damage (and extras)
- The permissive or definitive language used in the rules, feats and features surrounding Critical hits is meaningful and deliberate.

This is what I think precision does as written in the PHB.  I really hope I can explain this clearly because this may take a bit.  Please read each part in order because they build on each other.  I will talk first lay out how I see the basic rules and then how feats and features have modified them.

In the beginning...(you know this is going to be a long one)
In the basic rules, there are 2 rules that talk about rolling a 20 on an attack roll.  One is "Automatic Hit", the other is "Critical hit".  Automatic hit referred to rolling a 20 and was a hit regardless of the defense attacked.  "Critical hit" required not only a 20 but also an attack good enough to hit the defense.

Before feats and features enter into the equasion, there is no need for precision because it specifically talks about feats and features.  I think we can agree that it's only relavent when those begin to change other aspects of the general crit rules.

We can see that with a 20 that is also successful attack roll, the Automatic Hit rules apply but are not really meaningful since the attack roll was already good enough.

Furthermore, when you got a 20 and POSSIBLE crit, you already knew that you had hit, because there was 100% correlation from critical hit-> automatic hit.  (note the direction is important, because the reverse was not true).  

One common error that people make is confusing correlation with causation.  One might have erroneously assume that because you rolled a POSSIBLE crit, that it was at least an Automatic Hit.  (the advent of 4E was filled with erroneous assumptins like this) That faulty cause->effect thinking would have resulted in no incorrect results just using the basic rules, because there was 100% correlation from crit -> auto hit.  We know the possible crit was not causal, it was conincident because the 2 events were governed by 2 different rules that simply had some criteria in common.

It's also worth noting that any time that the Automatic Hit rule had any meaningful effect on the outcome, the possible crit had been already been denied because the other criteria had not been met (good enough attack roll).

*Then come along feats and features* that start to change the basic rules on what the POSSIBLE crit numbers are.  But they *only* change the qualifiers for achieving a crit.  The 100% correlation is no longer there because you can crit on a 19, but a 19 is not covered by the Automatic hit rules.  The erroneous causation assumption made before now creates problems for the player who thinks that because he rolled a 19 that he gets an automatic hit because he can crit on a 19.

Enter Precision.  It addresses feats and features that might allow you to achieve crits by other means (specifically rolling numbers other than 20).  The mastery feats definitely fit this description and I am of the opinion that Holy Ardor does as well.  It points out that while there may be feats that provide a looser criteria or other routes to the promised land of crits, that the Automatic hit rules are not changed by these crit enhancing rules.

So the guy who rolled a 19 and didn't get a attack score good enough to hit Orcus looks at this situation may think that Precision says he didn't hit, but all it really did was remind us that those "precision" feats and features don't change the automatic hit rules.

So what did Precision do?  It *clarified the scope* of "precision" feats and features.  The critical hit rules, even modified by mastery, say he didn't get a crit and the normal hit rules say he missed.  Actually, it was the same criteria in both cases that denied him (not rolling a good enough attack).

Precision does not have any binding parts, actually.  It simply and correctly applies the automatic hit rule as written on the previous page, but *that is not the same as enforcing a miss*.  THAT was satisfied by the basic hit rules in the first place.

It's important to note that the term "Automatic hit" is a game term (defined on page 276) that only speaks to 20s being hits.  The rule does not talk about missing or say when you miss.  It just makes a special case that a 20 is always a hit.  

Not having an "automatic hit" is not synonymous with missing, that much is clear.  "Automatic hit" is essentially a "last resort" rule when the regular hit rules have called a miss.  It denies nothing, it only grants a hit in a very narrow case.

I realize that several of you will disagree with some of my underlying assumptions, but as a whole I think that this way of thinking about thing is internally consistent, matches extremely well with the text as written and doesn't not require any terms to be contradictory.


----------



## Dan'L (Aug 25, 2009)

N8Ball said:


> It's important to note that the term "Automatic hit" is a game term (defined on page 276) that only speaks to 20s being hits.  The rule does not talk about missing or say when you miss.  It just makes a special case that a 20 is always a hit.




Right.  It's just a little bit below that on p. 276, under the heading "*Miss*" where it explicitly states:  "If your attack roll is lower than the attack score, the attack misses."

- The only exception found to this rule of "miss" is the aforementioned "Automatic Hit."  

- There is nothing in Holy Ardor that says rolling doubles is a "Hit," only a "Critical Hit," and these have been shown to be explicitly separate, though related, game terms.

- There is nothing in the section outlining the details of "Critical Hits" on PHB p. 278 which allows a critical hit to be an automatic hit or to apply it's maximum damage without also meeting the criteria for a "Hit."



> Not having an "automatic hit" is not synonymous with missing, that much is clear.  "Automatic hit" is essentially a "last resort" rule when the regular hit rules have called a miss.  It denies nothing, it only grants a hit in a very narrow case.




Correct.  But also somewhat irrelevant.  More relevant is that "critical hit" is not synonymous with "hit."  The specific rules governing critical hits, found on p. 278, also reinforce that a critical hit is neither synonymous with "automatic hit," nor with dealing damage on attacks that don't deal damage (such as an attack that fulfills the "miss" requirements.)

-Dan'L


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 25, 2009)

N8Ball said:


> very long post




I'm going to sum up the problem with this argument in one very simple way.

You've argued that we're making assumptions, and that Precision only applies to possible critical hits.

I rebut with this simple statement:

You've assumed, despite evidence to the contrary, that 'score a critical hit' is not itself a situation that is a 'possible critical hit.'

'Score' in the context of critical hits is not a signal of a definate critical hit.  Precision itself calls the term by name, and without dint of an altering verb implying possibility, only that of permission.

Therefore, the burden of proof is on you to prove that Holy Ardor is an automatic hit.  What you've supplied simply isn't good enough, and doesn't hold to be true, as *proven by counterexample.*

Furthermore, you've committed a fallacy, that just because other examples work correctly, that removing a single word will create the opposite intention.  This itself is *disproven by showing examples where that specific word's presence or absense has no impact on the situation.*

So, the burden of proof is therefore on you, to prove with a means other than pointing out the absense of the word 'can' (a method that is disproven), that the ability provides an automatic hit.  If you can do this, you have a case that it is an exception to the Precision rules.  If you cannot do this, you do not have a case. 

It is as simple as that.  Because now you're assuming that your premise is true *despite the fact that premise is proven false.*  If you wish to present your conclusion, you require a new argument with new premises.


----------



## N8Ball (Aug 25, 2009)

Dan'L said:


> Right.  It's just a little bit below that on p. 276, under the heading "*Miss*" where it explicitly states:  "If your attack roll is lower than the attack score, the attack misses."
> 
> - The only exception found to this rule of "miss" is the aforementioned "Automatic Hit."
> 
> - There is nothing in Holy Ardor that says rolling doubles is a "Hit," only a "Critical Hit," and these have been shown to be explicitly separate, though related, game terms.




And I have shown the term "critical hit" to be encompased  by "hit" through examples and direct quotes from the book.  (and it makes sense)



Dan'L said:


> There is nothing in the section outlining the details of "Critical Hits" on PHB p. 278 which allows a critical hit to be an automatic hit or to apply it's maximum damage without also meeting the criteria for a "Hit."




As I explained, "automatic hit" is a sometimes-coincident *result* with critical hit, and NEVER a criteria for it.  Looking for that wording is would be the basis for the faulty causation argument mentioned.  But we agree that is not there, we know that there are crits that are not automatic hits and automatic hits that are not crits.  

Obviously "Automatic hit" has never been a requirement for a crit just as it is not even a requirement for a hit.  The two may be coincident, but that is simple correlation due to similar requirements.  They are not at all dependent on each other.

But the criteria for achieving a crit *are modified *by feats and features.  The end result of satisfying those new or modified criteria is also a critical hit.

If a power or feature said you simply hit, then you would hit regardless of the normal requirements and restrictions on hitting.  And what's more, you'd hit even if you didn't have the word "automatic" in front of it, because although the "Hit:" section has requirements on hitting (just like critting), it also defines what a hit is (just like critting) and so a "hit" could be applied no matter what you rolled.


----------



## abyssaldeath (Aug 25, 2009)

N8Ball said:


> This is for sure *one* way to GET a crit, but once you get there, what is it?  It's a maximum damage hit. (sometimes with extras as applied by the crit rules and other features that do whatever "when you score a critical hit".)



You asked for the definition of a critical hit before moving on to precision. That is the most basic definition of a crit. Without the precision rules there is no other way because the precision rules tell you how the other ways work..


----------



## abyssaldeath (Aug 25, 2009)

N8Ball said:


> Obviously "Automatic hit" has never been a requirement for a crit just as it is not even a requirement for a hit.  The two may be coincident, but that is simple correlation due to similar requirements.  They are not at all dependent on each other.



That is very true, but what you are missing is that without the automatic hit you can not crit without rolling high enough to hit.


----------



## ChaosMage (Aug 25, 2009)

abyssaldeath said:


> That is very true, but what you are missing is that without the automatic hit you can not crit without rolling high enough to hit.




Even with an automatic hit you cannot crit without rolling high enough to hit.


----------



## abyssaldeath (Aug 26, 2009)

Sorry, you are right. I'm getting my thoughts all twisted up. My mistake just further proves that you need to roll high enough to hit in order to crit.


----------



## CovertOps (Aug 26, 2009)

ChaosMage said:


> Even with an automatic hit you cannot crit without rolling high enough to hit.




I don't think anyone is trying to argue that automatic hit and critical hit are the same rules.  They are separate rules that describe the requirements for two independent situations.  

It's really fairly simple.  If you treat all references to critical hits as a reference to the critical hit rules, except where that reference would create a circular reference (such as within the critical hit rules themselves), then you will be fine.  Note that a rule or power can reference the critical hit rules, and as in many examples I have put forth, and then provide a specific way in which that power can ignore the general rules.  So far nothing existing does this and this is the basis of exception based design.  

I have yet to see anyone on the opposite side try to oppose this argument and frankly this is the only one that matters.  Does Holy Ardor SPECIFICALLY give a way to ignore either the automatic hit rule or the Precision rule and provide alternate rules to use in their place?  If you're not willing to oppose this basic mechanic of how the rules are structured then there is nothing left to discuss.  Specific trumps general.  It has been said by both sides.  Everyone seems to agree with this, but no one who thinks that Holy Ardor gives you an auto-hit and auto-crit has provided the specific rule that overrides the general rules to prove this assertion.  Instead we jump through hoops, stand on one foot, point our hand to the northern start and if we twitch our nose just right we can arrive at a nonsensical result that violates the most basic rule of 4e.


----------



## keterys (Aug 26, 2009)

Given the CustServ response, any reason this really needs to continue?


----------



## Nifft (Aug 26, 2009)

keterys said:


> Given the CustServ response, any reason this really needs to continue?



 Nobody trusts them!

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Samir (Aug 26, 2009)

Still lurking. I'm just popping in to summarize what I think is the most important point.



> *Natural 20:* If you roll a 20 on the die when making
> an attack roll, you score a critical hit if your total
> attack roll is high enough to hit your target’s defense.




Notice that scoring a critical hit is not a test, it is the result of *succeeding* a test. It's analogous to the difference between making an attack and hitting.

Holy Ardor says on a double roll, you "score a critical hit."

So what happens when you double roll? That's right, you score a critical hit. What happens when you score a critical hit? You determine critical damage, and deal it.



> *Maximum Damage:* Rather than roll damage,
> determine the maximum damage you can roll with
> your attack. This is your critical damage.




Holy Ardor obeys the critical hit rules just fine. It just skips a few steps, much like Agile Opportunist skips a few steps when it allows you to make an opportunity attack.

It seems pretty clear to me.


----------



## Samir (Aug 26, 2009)

keterys said:


> Given the CustServ response, any reason this really needs to continue?



If CS responses mattered, this would have ended 8 pages ago.


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 26, 2009)

> It seems pretty clear to me.




That's because you omitted the paragraph in between.

Precision: Some class features and powers allow you to score a critical hit when you roll numbers other than 20 (only a natural 20 is an automatic hit).

So, how is it clear to you that this paragraph doesn't apply?


----------



## N8Ball (Aug 26, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> Does Holy Ardor SPECIFICALLY give a way to ignore either the automatic hit rule.....




Holy Ardor does not need to because we already have situations where you can crit or just hit without ignoring it.  Holy Ardor can do the same without ignoring it or changing it.



CovertOps said:


> ....or the Precision rule and provide alternate rules to use in their place?




Precision is not ignored either, since it simply states that "precision" feats and features (that are described by precision) do not change the automatic hit rules.  Holy Ardor does not ignore it or change it in any way, a 20 is still the only way to get an "Automatic hit".

I think I've found a few more foundational ways where we're not agreeing.

1)   Automatic Crit - this is not a game term (since it's not defined), so it can't really be required to be said.  In this case "automatic" is just an adjective that amplifies  but has no rules backup.

2)   The idea that an Automatic hit is the *only* way to get a hit that doesn't have a good enough attack roll.  OR 

3)  That any attack that doesn't have a good enough attack roll *MUST MISS* unless the power says "Automatic hit".

The problem with that idea is that these restriction are not explicitly expressed in any rules, and they are materially different than saying that a 20 is the only way to a automatic hit.

The standard or modified rules may come to these conclusions by other means, but those restrictions (2&3) don't really exist anywhere in print.


----------



## Samir (Aug 26, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> That's because you omitted the paragraph in between.
> 
> Precision: Some class features and powers allow you to score a critical hit when you roll numbers other than 20 (only a natural 20 is an automatic hit).
> 
> So, how is it clear to you that this paragraph doesn't apply?




Because that paragraph applies to the test that Holy Ardor neatly skips. "Score a critical hit" does not mean you are still checking to see if your roll beats their defense, it means that you have succeeded and are dealing maximum damage. Holy Ardor outright states that given a double roll, you score a critical hit. Not "can" score. You score it.

Let's take an analogy. Say you have an attack power that says "if you roll a 1, you hit." If that power said "if you roll a 1, you can hit" then you'd still have to check to see if you manage to hit their defense, because the only rule it's contradicting is the "always miss on a 1" rule. But since it says "if you roll a 1, you hit," you don't need to check that at all. You skip that part. If you roll a 1, you hit.

Similarly, if you roll doubles, you score a critical hit. You skip the test because you've already succeeded it.


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 26, 2009)

Samir said:


> Similarly, if you roll doubles, you score a critical hit. You skip the test because you've already succeeded it.




the 2 Counter arguments:

1)

If you have a condition that says you are not allowed to move, and you are hit with a power that says you shift 5 spaces, you do not move an inch.

You do not conveniently get to ignore things that deny you benefits simply because the ability itself neglects to include the word 'can.'  There are examples of this above.

2)

Precision is a rule that governs all effects that allow you to score critical hits on non-20 numbers.  Holy Ardor is such an ability.  Therefore Precision -directly- affects it because it is one of the rules for the term 'score a critical hit' and help define what it does, and does not do.


----------



## Samir (Aug 26, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> the 2 Counter arguments:
> 
> 1)
> 
> ...



This is a reasonable argument, but the problem is that it's far from a hard and fast rule. There are simply way too many powers that do not function according to this. For example, Polearm Gamble:



> *Polearm Gamble*
> *Prerequisites:* Str 15, Wis 15
> *Benefit:* When a nonadjacent enemy enters a
> square adjacent to you, you can make an opportunity
> ...




vs.



> *FORCED MOVEMENT*
> ✦ No Opportunity Attacks: Forced movement does
> not provoke opportunity attacks or other opportunity
> actions.




Yet if a nonadjacent enemy is pushed/pulled/slided into a square adjacent to you, it triggers Polearm Gamble and you can make an opportunity attack.



DracoSuave said:


> 2)
> 
> Precision is a rule that governs all effects that allow you to score critical hits on non-20 numbers.  Holy Ardor is such an ability.  Therefore Precision -directly- affects it because it is one of the rules for the term 'score a critical hit' and help define what it does, and does not do.




Not quite. Precision tells you _how_ you can score a critical hit. Holy Ardor says you score a critical hit. Plus, Precision doesn't _define_ "scoring a critical hit," it tells you how you can achieve it. If a feat or power or PP feature causes you (not _allows _you, _causes _you) to score a critical hit, Precision is skipped entirely, just like a feat that grants you an opportunity attack doesn't really care about the other ways to get opportunity attacks.

"Score a critical hit" is defined fairly clearly, but not by Precision. When you score a critical hit, you deal maximum damage. With Holy Ardor, when you roll doubles, you score a critical hit and deal maximum damage.

Let's look at a different feat for a second.



> Surprise Knockdown [Rogue]
> Prerequisites: Str 15, rogue
> Benefit: If you score a critical hit while you have
> combat advantage, you knock the target prone.




So imagine you roll double 2s and you have combat advantage. Holy Ardor says "you score a critical hit." Surprise Knockdown says when you score a critical hit, you knock the target prone.

By your logic, you would knock the target prone but whiff on the attack.


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 26, 2009)

Samir said:


> This is a reasonable argument, but the problem is that it's far from a hard and fast rule. There are simply way too many powers that do not function according to this. For example, Polearm Gamble:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




No it doesn't.  Polearm Gamble is an opportunity action.  Nothing forced movement can do will trigger it.  So this is a terrible example.  Neither does teleportation.  



> Not quite. Precision tells you _how_ you can score a critical hit. Holy Ardor says you score a critical hit. Plus, Precision doesn't _define_ "scoring a critical hit," it tells you how you can achieve it. If a feat or power or PP feature causes you (not _allows _you, _causes _you) to score a critical hit, Precision is skipped entirely, just like a feat that grants you an opportunity attack doesn't really care about the other ways to get opportunity attacks.




A feat that grants you an opportunity attack must follow all the rules for opportunity attacks.  Holy Ardor allows you to score a critical hit.  It permits it.  It says 'You are allowed to do this action.'  Precision -blatantly- applies.  

Are you saying that a feat that grants you an opportunity attack ignores feats that modify opportunity attacks?  Of course not.  



> "Score a critical hit" is defined fairly clearly, but not by Precision. When you score a critical hit, you deal maximum damage. With Holy Ardor, when you roll doubles, you score a critical hit and deal maximum damage.
> 
> Let's look at a different feat for a second.




But you can only hit with a natural 20.  The rules are -very- explicit about that, and Holy Ardor does NOT say you hit.



> So imagine you roll double 2s and you have combat advantage. Holy Ardor says "you score a critical hit." Surprise Knockdown says when you score a critical hit, you knock the target prone.
> 
> By your logic, you would knock the target prone but whiff on the attack.




No, by my logic, Precision kicks in and the hit doesn't happen, and therefore the critical hit is never registered, so the feat can't take effect.

There are other examples of this in the rules.  Dwarves can prevent pushes.  Said pushes do not need to say 'You may push 4 squares' for the Dwarf ability to apply.  The Dwarf bonus simply -applies- to all instances where you are pushed a certain number of squares.

You cannot choose to ignore rules without an explicit exception.  There is no exception to the critical hit rules spelt out in Holy Ardor.  If it implied you automaticly hit, it would say so, using plain language.  It would say, 'you hit, and that hit scores a critical hit' or what have you.  But it does not actually say, nor claim, you -automaticly hit- nor does it imply that a hit is automatic.

It merely states a condition where you can score critical hits, and assumes you follow the rules for critical hits, as does every other ability in the game that does not state an exception.


----------



## Samir (Aug 26, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> No it doesn't.  Polearm Gamble is an opportunity action.  Nothing forced movement can do will trigger it.  So this is a terrible example.  Neither does teleportation.



Correction: forced movement does not *provoke* an opportunity attack. Provoking an opportunity attack is a specific event which involves leaving a threatened square and a few other situations. Polearm Gamble says nothing about provoking or threatening a square. It has a trigger, and it even uses the "enters" term rather than the "moves" term, which means that it functions on forced movement.

This gets even more muddy with Agile Opportunist.



DracoSuave said:


> A feat that grants you an opportunity attack must follow all the rules for opportunity attacks.  Holy Ardor allows you to score a critical hit.  It permits it.  It says 'You are allowed to do this action.'  Precision -blatantly- applies.



No, it does not say "you are allowed to do this action." It says "you do this action."



DracoSuave said:


> Are you saying that a feat that grants you an opportunity attack ignores feats that modify opportunity attacks?  Of course not.



No, but it ignores the other ways to get opportunity attacks, which are irrelevant to that feat.



DracoSuave said:


> But you can only hit with a natural 20.  The rules are -very- explicit about that, and Holy Ardor does NOT say you hit.



It doesn't have to, because it says you score a critical hit, which means you deal maximum damage.



DracoSuave said:


> No, by my logic, Precision kicks in and the hit doesn't happen, and therefore the critical hit is never registered, so the feat can't take effect.



There is no time for the game to do this. Precision can't "kick in" because you have already scored a critical hit. Precision describes how to score a critical hit, and thus happens only before you score it. If Precision "kicked in" after you scored a critical hit, rolling a natural 20 would result in an infinite loop where you score a critical hit, it's validated by Precision, therefore you score it, therefore it's validated by Precision...



DracoSuave said:


> You cannot choose to ignore rules without an explicit exception.  There is no exception to the critical hit rules spelt out in Holy Ardor.  If it implied you automaticly hit, it would say so, using plain language.  It would say, 'you hit, and that hit scores a critical hit' or what have you.  But it does not actually say, nor claim, you -automaticly hit- nor does it imply that a hit is automatic.



If the dev team were perfect, perhaps. As it is, RAW, you score a critical hit. You don't need the words "automatically hit" any more than you need it in my previous example of "if you roll a 1, you hit."



DracoSuave said:


> It merely states a condition where you can score critical hits, and assumes you follow the rules for critical hits, as does every other ability in the game that does not state an exception.



On the contrary, it doesn't state a condition where you can score a critical hit--it sets up a _trigger_ that _causes_ you to score a critical hit. It certainly assumes you follow the rules for critical hits (deal maximum damage and roll any extra damage dice), but at the point that you score the critical hit, how you did it is irrelevant.


----------



## Trebor62 (Aug 26, 2009)

Holy Ardor does include one exception. That is a double 1's fail to score a critical under it. Now if it was neccessary to roll doubles that hit the targets defense under Holy Ardor the 1's exception would be redundent as 1's always miss. Instead Holy Ardor should read you score a critical hit if both dice have the same roll and you hit the targets defense. It does not. It says you score a critical if you roll doubles except for double 1's. As I see it Holy Ardor means that any double but 1's is a critical hit weither it hits the targets defense or not in which case including the double 1's misses does something, or else it is poorly written and you do need to hit the targets defense and the inclusion of the double 1's exception was unneccessary and does nothing for Holy Ardor that having to hit the targets defense would already covers.


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 26, 2009)

Trebor62 said:


> Holy Ardor does include one exception. That is a double 1's fail to score a critical under it. Now if it was neccessary to roll doubles that hit the targets defense under Holy Ardor the 1's exception would be redundent as 1's always miss. Instead Holy Ardor should read you score a critical hit if both dice have the same roll and you hit the targets defense. It does not. It says you score a critical if you roll doubles except for double 1's. As I see it Holy Ardor means that any double but 1's is a critical hit weither it hits the targets defense or not in which case including the double 1's misses does something, or else it is poorly written and you do need to hit the targets defense and the inclusion of the double 1's exception was unneccessary and does nothing for Holy Ardor that having to hit the targets defense would already covers.




Or, it is there to cover the situation where you score a critical hit with a number that would hit (and therefore -successfully- hits, by the critical hit rules) but you also miss because of the double 1s rule.  Neither rule acts as exception to the other, nor had the opportunity to do so before Holy Ardor, so it has to set the exception in plain text for Exception-Based design to work properly.  It has nothing to do with Precision at all.

Outside of that, there's no conflict between two different sets of rules at play, so there doesn't need to be exceptions text to cover it.  Precision doesn't have another rule countermanding it at that point, so you can apply it quite normally.


----------



## N8Ball (Aug 26, 2009)

> By your logic, you would knock the target prone but whiff on the attack.





DracoSuave said:


> No, by my logic, Precision kicks in and the hit doesn't happen, and therefore the critical hit is never registered, so the feat can't take effect.




Wait, so you're saying that when you ""score a critical hit" but miss that you don't get to do things that trigger on "scoring a critical hit"?

Your interpretation here seems rife with contradiction. Either you satisfied the feat by scoring a critical hit, or you didn't because you didn't score a critical hit, in which case precision should have never been referenced.

As far as I can tell, Samir's arguments here are the logical conclusions for your interpretation on the subject.  With this interpretation there are unintended effects of scoring a critical hit, missing but still kicking off feats and abilities.  That doesn't seem right and will require some effort to explain or explain away as you prefer.

But with any attack, you scored the critical hit or you didn't.

There are other unintended consequences with the "crit and miss" concept as well, like magical crit damage kicking in on powers that have miss damage.  The requirements of "Critical" under the magic item section are simply that you score a critical hit and deal damage.  SO, any power with miss damage could add the enhancement bonus on a crit and miss.  The section makes no mention of hitting.



DracoSuave said:


> Precision is a rule that governs all effects that allow you to score critical hits on non-20 numbers.  Holy Ardor is such an ability.




Precision is not a rule in and of itself.  It's a reminder of another rule on the previous page. Yes, precision refers to Holy Ardor, but "Automatic hit" rules don't do anything to deny Holy Ardor from achieving a crit. It doesn't even deny hits at all, it grants them when you roll a 20, *nothing more.*

The rule in question (automatic hit) only provides for HITS on a 20.  Holy Ardor covers completely different situations and provides new requirements (not automatic) to achieve Critical hits.

Samir is correct to point out that Holy Ardor bypasses all other requirements for achieving a crit.  And even if you think precision enforces a check after you crit, (which I think is out of order)  It still doesn't do anything because *the Automatic hit rule doesn't deny hits, it only grants them.*

You say our interpretation allows "automatic hits".  I think it allows critical hits when you satisfy some new requirements.


----------



## Dan'L (Aug 26, 2009)

Samir said:


> It doesn't have to, because it says you score a critical hit, which means you deal maximum damage.



This is an unsupported claim.  Let's walk through what we have from the actual rules.

1) As per the specific rules governing crits, on p. 278 of the PHB, scoring a critical hit, which is allowed might occur through features such as Holy Ardor (Precision), means you calculate the maximum damage.  

2) According to these same rules, you do *not* get to apply the maximum damage to an attack that does not otherwise deal damage (Maximum Damage.)  

3) An attack which satisfies the Miss requirements, as defined on p. 276 as an attack roll* lower than the target's defense, does not (normally) otherwise deal damage.  

4) Principally only an attack which satisfies the Hit requirements on p. 276 deals damage (unless the specific attack contains "miss" or other effect riders that supersede this)

5) The only ways given for an attack to satisfy the Hit requirements are:
     A) by your attack roll* equalling/exceeding the target's defense 
     B) by achieving an automatic hit (defined on p. 276 as rolling a 20, and restated on p. 278 as the only way to achieve an automatic hit.)  

6) Scoring Critical Hits are expressly stated in these specific governing rules as not being sufficient to meeting the Hit requirements (Precision), and expressly stated as not being sufficient to uniquely allow damage to be assigned (Maximum Damage)

7) Since a Critical Hit is in itself insufficient for uniquely allowing damage assignation, and the specific feature Holy Ardor also does not include an overriding rule or clause that allows it, we must pursue the general governing rules: "Hit" and "Miss"

8) Oath of Enmity provides a means for determining a number to use for your attack roll, and the Hit and Miss rules provide a means of interpreting that roll.

9) Therefore it is possible that you satisfy both the requirements for scoring a Critical Hit, as given by Holy Ardor, and the requirements for a Miss, as outlined by the Attack Results section of the PHB.

10) Since the rules governing a Critical Hit specify that you do not get to apply your Critical Hit damage on attacks that don't deal damage, and an attack which is a Miss is typically an attack that doesn't deal damage, *it is possible to score a Critical Hit with Holy Ardor which is also a Miss, and therefore does not deal damage.*

*an attack roll is defined on p. 276 as the total of the d20 roll plus all attendant bonuses.

-Dan'L


----------



## N8Ball (Aug 26, 2009)

> ...it says you score a critical hit, which means you deal maximum damage.





Dan'L said:


> This is an unsupported claim.




Samir's claim is supported by my arguments and examples in previous posts. And crits do deal "Maximum Damage" *as defined by the section of the same name* under crits.  But as you point out, "Maximum damage" can still be 0.

I do appreciate your logical walk through though.  It really helps to see where our thought processes match and diverge.

I was hanging in there with you right up till here:


Dan'L said:


> 6) Scoring Critical Hits are expressly stated in these specific governing rules as not being sufficient to meeting the Hit requirements (Precision), and expressly stated as not being sufficient to uniquely allow damage to be assigned (Maximum Damage)




I need to address the two parts of this out of order.  Simple stuff first.

We agree that sometimes a crit's "maximum damage" is 0, like with Beacon of Hope because it doesn't do any damage in the first place, but that's still "Maximum Damage" as defined by that section, and the only reason to reference that section is* if you got a crit*.  So with beacon, you didn't deal damage (you never do with that power), but you did get a crit.

On a more careful reading of precision, I think you will agree that it's saying that "some class features and powers" (that affect crit requirements) do not change the *"automatic hit"* rules.  Precision doesn't talk about *normal* hit requirements, it talks about a rule that *allows* hits under certain narrow criteria (20s).

But you're right, Precision does draw a line between crit requirements (and their modification) and *automatic hit* rules. And satisfying one does not necessarily satisfy the other.



Dan'L said:


> 7) Since a Critical Hit is in itself insufficient for uniquely allowing damage assignation, ....we must pursue the general governing rules: "Hit" and "Miss"




This doesn't make sense to me either.  
So you're saying here that because come crits don't assign damage (a result that we get to by reading "maximum damage" *after* getting a crit.)  That we should apply the normal hit and miss rules?  
I don't track that logic at all.

There are other things I don't follow or agree with, but I think they are the fruit of the same disagreement-tree, so I'll stop with these two objections, I think they're foundational since they speak to *when* you have achieved a crit and what happens when you do.


----------



## ObsidianCrane (Aug 26, 2009)

The Critical Hit rules specifically only apply damage if the roll is in fact a hit.

The basic Critical Hit rules only apply maximum damage if the hit result is a Natural 20.

You can "score a critical hit" and yet not "score a critical hit" this is covered by the "Natural 20" rule.

With abilities that allow you to "score a critical hit" on a roll other than 20 (ie the various 18-20 result feats, items, powers etc) you still can fail to hit, and thus fail to "score a critical hit" on results other than a 20.

Holy Ardor fits well within the scope of this, roll a double number and "score a critical hit" this may in fact fail to hit and thus "fail to score a critical hit".

Nothing in Holy Ardor creates an exception to the hit and miss rules (the most general rules on attack success or failure). Nothing in Holy Ardor makes an exception to the Automatic Hit rules. As a result nothing in Holy Ardor creates a the wished for "Automatic Crit".

The power clarifies that its exception to the need for a Natural 20 to start checking for a critical hit does not also create an exception to the Natrual 1 rule.

The fact it is an exlicit exception to the Natural 20 rule to start checking for a Critical Hit, is why the Precision rule applies to it (because that is what Precision says it is for).


----------



## Flipguarder (Aug 26, 2009)

This is all very simple. Can anyone explain to me how Holy Ardor changes a critical hit,  which regardless of your opinion is not an automatic hit, into an automatic hit?


----------



## CovertOps (Aug 26, 2009)

Ok...I surrender.  Precision is not a rule it is just a reminder of the normal hit/miss rules.



> *Hit:* If the attack roll is higher than or equal to the defense score, the attack hits and deals damage, has a special effect, or both.
> Automatic Hit: If you roll a natural 20 (the die shows a 20), your attack automatically hits.
> Critical Hit: If you roll a natural 20 (the die shows a 20), your attack might be a critical hit (page 278).
> A critical hit deals maximum damage, and some powers and magic items have an extra effect on a critical hit.




Critical hit here is clearly indented and subservient to Hit.

1. Using OoE roll 2 dice and pick the larger of the 2 results (at this point it does not matter if you roll doubles).
2. Add your bonuses and check the targets defense to determine if you hit the target.
3. IF you indeed hit now go back and check if you rolled doubles (Holy Ardor), or rolled a 20.

I can't believe you all think that Holy Ardor allows you to ignore this.


----------



## keterys (Aug 26, 2009)

You guys aren't going to see eye to eye on this one.

One side goes 'Okay, here's a rule. This Holy Ardor thing doesn't bypass that rule. Too bad.' and the other goes 'Okay, here's Holy Ardor which trumps those other rules, so what's the problem?' 

You're not going to get around that, so you may as well just stop. Eventually it'll get FAQed. That's a good thing that will come of this.


----------



## N8Ball (Aug 26, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> Critical hit here is clearly indented and subservient to Hit.




I missed this fact before, but this is a pretty relevant observation.

We already agree that Hit and Miss are mutually exclusive events.  Nobody is arguing that a hit can be a miss.

And Critical hit is indented under Hit implying that it is a subset of Hit.  The section does not fully describe how to get a crit, only that you might have one.  But "Critical hit" is under Hit as a possible outcome, not under miss.  

**Just like an "automatic hit" (another subset of hits) sometimes also qualifies for the miss rules, we know that they are not misses because it's a subset of hit and cannot also be a miss.  This may seem too elementary, but the logic that applies to one subset also applies to the other.



			
				Cailte;4909899
You can "score a critical hit" and yet not "score a critical hit" this is covered by the "Natural 20" rule.[/QUOTE said:
			
		

> The section does not say anything like this.  The words "score a critical hit" are surrounded by 2 "if" statements, both of which are required before you "score a critical hit".  So you either met both requirements or you didn't. there is no language allowing  X and not X.  The second reference to "score a critical hit" simply references "automatic hit" when one of the previous two stated requirements isn't met (and therefore didn't crit).


----------



## Artoomis (Aug 26, 2009)

There are two ways to look at this, and, until WotC formally weighs in on this (by a FAQ entry or a rules update) both are correct in that they are defensible by RAW:

1.  The more conservative approach is to say that Holy Ardor simply creates a new way to score a potential critical hit, but that the number on the doubles roll still needs to be a hit before it can actually score critical hit. 

2.  Holy Ardor is a new rule that creates a heretofore unprecedented new mechanic for scoring a critical hit with no need to have the doubles roll be a hit before scoring a critical hit.

The second is the way the Holy Ardor text comes across, the first has its basis in the Critical Hit rule.

Until WotC formally clarifies this, *both are correct*, so this goes in the category of *ask your DM, even if playing an RPGA game.*


----------



## Samir (Aug 26, 2009)

Dan'L said:


> <snip>



This is an interesting thought process. I have some issues with this but N8Ball has already covered those, so I'll just add that this would entail a large number of inconsistencies.

If we choose to follow this process, rolling doubles that are too low to hit causes you to score a critical hit that deals maximum damage of zero--but still triggers any kind of on-hit and on-crit ability. Feats that trigger when you "score a critical hit" would still activate, with rather strange results.



Cailte said:


> You can "score a critical hit" and yet not "score a critical hit" this is covered by the "Natural 20" rule.



This appears to be a point of confusion. It is impossible to simultaneously score a critical hit and also not score a critical hit. You can _roll_ a critical hit without scoring one, but Holy Ardor specifically says you "score a critical hit," which means you've succeeded and therefore you deal maximum damage.



Flipguarder said:


> This is all very simple. Can anyone explain to me how Holy Ardor changes a critical hit,  which regardless of your opinion is not an automatic hit, into an automatic hit?



It doesn't. It "scores a critical hit," which by definition means you deal maximum damage. There's no mention of automatic hit because there doesn't need to be.



CovertOps said:


> Critical hit here is clearly indented and subservient to Hit.
> 
> 1. Using OoE roll 2 dice and pick the larger of the 2 results (at this point it does not matter if you roll doubles).
> 2. Add your bonuses and check the targets defense to determine if you hit the target.
> ...



I'll refer to my previous example. If a power said "if you roll a 1, you can hit" would it ignore miss-on-a-1? Yes. If it said "if you roll a 1, you hit" would it ignore both that rule and beat-their-defense? Sure. The first power allows you to hit when you normally couldn't, and the second _causes_ you to hit when you normally wouldn't.

So if a feature says "if you roll doubles, you score a critical hit," what happens when you roll doubles? You score a critical hit.



keterys said:


> You guys aren't going to see eye to eye on this one.
> 
> One side goes 'Okay, here's a rule. This Holy Ardor thing doesn't bypass that rule. Too bad.' and the other goes 'Okay, here's Holy Ardor which trumps those other rules, so what's the problem?'
> 
> You're not going to get around that, so you may as well just stop. Eventually it'll get FAQed. That's a good thing that will come of this.



In a nutshell. At this point I think it's just discussion for the sake of discussion. It's absolutely impossible to prove one way or another because of the way the ability is phrased.


----------



## Nifft (Aug 26, 2009)

Samir said:


> In a nutshell. At this point I think it's just discussion for the sake of discussion. It's absolutely impossible to prove one way or another because of the way the ability is phrased.



 If people see that this needs to be re-written for clarity, my work here is done.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## N8Ball (Aug 26, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> This is all very simple. Can anyone explain to me how Holy Ardor changes a critical hit, which regardless of your opinion is not an automatic hit, into an automatic hit?




Not all critical hits have to be "automatic hits"  That has been true since the first mastery feat.  

And anyway, an "automatic hit" is not defined as "a hit that would otherwise miss if you compared attack scores".  It is sometimes that, but 20s that hit are also technically "automatic hits"

Plus, achieving a similar result as "automatic hit" through different means does not require one to call it an "automatic hit", even if there are some coincident results.  

In other words, not saying "automatic hit" does not deny the possibility of arriving at similar results by other means.




CovertOps said:


> 1. Using OoE roll 2 dice and pick the larger of the 2 results (at this point it does not matter if you roll doubles).
> 2. Add your bonuses and check the targets defense to determine if you hit the target.
> 3. IF you indeed hit now go back and check if you rolled doubles (Holy Ardor), or rolled a 20.




Where does it state *when* you check doubles?  It never says that it must be *after* (or dependent on) a successful hit roll.  I want to check first, what's wrong with that?  

And in reality, that's the more likely case anyway since noticing that 2 numbers are the same is a bit faster than addition to find an attack score.




Cailte said:


> The Critical Hit rules specifically only apply damage if the roll is in fact a hit.




The basic rules say that you only *crit if you hit*.  You *always* apply "maximum damage" *when you crit.
* 


> Nothing in Holy Ardor creates an exception to the hit and miss rules (the most general rules on attack success or failure). Nothing in Holy Ardor makes an exception to the Automatic Hit rules. As a result nothing in Holy Ardor creates a the wished for "Automatic Crit".



There is no such thing as an "automatic crit" at least not as a game term.  Saying that Holy ardor doesn't achieve this undefined thing isn't really meaningful.  Holy Ardor achieves Crits, and you apply them when you get them.



> The power clarifies that its exception to the need for a Natural 20 to start checking for a critical hit does not also create an exception to the Natrual 1 rule.
> 
> The fact it is an exlicit exception to the Natural 20 rule to start checking for a Critical Hit, is why the Precision rule applies to it (because that is what Precision says it is for).



I agree completely.  Holy Ardor fully bypasses the "Natural 20" rule which has *TWO* requirements, one of which is a successful attack roll.

Precision applies, but does not deny anything.  It only states that Holy Ardor doesn't add to the rule that 20 is an "automatic hit".  But we already know that hits and crits are available by other means.


----------



## Flipguarder (Aug 26, 2009)

N8Ball said:


> Not all critical hits have to be "automatic hits"  That has been true since the first mastery feat.



agreed. But to say that rolling two 2's while having holy ardor hits for some other reason than reaching the defense you are targeting, you need some evidence that this is true. Saying that "scoring a critical hit must mean you hit" is nonsense to me. There has to be a mechanic for this "automatic" hit.


N8Ball said:


> In other words, not saying "automatic hit" does not deny the possibility of arriving at similar results by other means.



I'm trying to think of any features, powers, or paths that automatically hit without giving you something like "treat the roll as though you had rolled 20." If you can think of any, please enlighten me. But as my memory stands now, rolling a 20 is the only way to automatically succeed at an attack roll.


----------



## N8Ball (Aug 26, 2009)

Samir, you and I are about 98% on the same page, especially with your points about non-contradiction ("crit and not crit" cannot be true), and your "can hit on 1" hypothetical example.

There is only one nuance I would disagree with and that is this:



Samir said:


> You can _roll_ a critical hit without scoring one.




The section on critical hits says that "When (you meet requirements), you score a critical hit, also know as a crit."

I think you can roll a number that *might* be a crit (I call them "crittable" numbers), and then not score one.

But saying you "rolled a critical hit" before checking all the requirements of a crit confuses the issue a bit.  The die roll is just *one* of the basic requirements.


----------



## N8Ball (Aug 26, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> agreed. But to say that rolling two 2's while having holy ardor hits for some other reason than reaching the defense you are targeting, you need some evidence that this is true. Saying that "scoring a critical hit must mean you hit" is nonsense to me.




Excellent post.  Here is my evidence:
*Critical hit is a subset of hit,*  Supported by the following:
-> Critical Hit is an entry indented under hit.
-> The basic requirements for a crit include hitting *before* you get there, not after.  I.E. crit is the destination, not an intermediate step.

-> The descriptions of critical hit in 3 places
--> High crit, 
--> Valanae example on 276
--> The critical hit entry under hits, first it says that you might crit and then it says what happends if you DO.

Each of these 3 parts talks about achieving a crit and offer no more requirements, they just describe an effect.  The hit is assumed in every instance.



> There has to be a mechanic for this "automatic" hit.
> 
> I'm trying to think of any features, powers, or paths that automatically hit without giving you something like "treat the roll as though you had rolled 20." If you can think of any, please enlighten me. But as my memory stands now, rolling a 20 is the only way to automatically succeed at an attack roll.



I appreciate you putting 'automatic' in quotes.  It makes your statement much clearer.  

It does beg the question what you mean by "automatic" because "automatic" isn't really defined either.  It's just amplifying and provides no explicit requirements or implications.

We agree that rolling a 20 lets you "automatically" succeed on a attack roll.

Following that form and use of the word "automatically",
A lets you "automatically" succeed on an attack roll.

You could just as easily replace A with B and the statement would still be true according to the rules, where B is "have an attack roll high enough to hit".  So A is not the only way to "automatically" hit.  (NOTE: We're not talking about "automatic hit" rules, we're simply using "automatic" as an adjective (or adverb).)

Yes, I know it's a tautology, but the point is that "automatically" doesn't come with any mechanical weight.  

In the case of Holy Ardor, (using the logical terms defined on page 8)
(D and not E) gives you X
since X is a subset of H
(D and not E) logically achieve H

The seams in my argument are if you can show elements of X that fall outside H, but if you acknowledge permissive language in the crit abilities, that becomes a pretty tight seam.


----------



## Flipguarder (Aug 26, 2009)

N8Ball said:


> Excellent post.  Here is my evidence:
> *Critical hit is a subset of hit,*  Supported by the following:
> -> Critical Hit is an entry indented under hit.
> -> The basic requirements for a crit include hitting *before* you get there, not after.  I.E. crit is the destination, not an intermediate step.
> ...




Honestly the use of non-related rules concerning what happens on a hit, and then concluding that a crit assumes you hit, and then using the lack of the word "can" inside the phrasing of Holy Ardor to assume it is a successful critical hit, and therefore "automatically" hits seems like a VERY narrow bridge to me. 

At the very least I'd need clarification before believing that was RAI.


----------



## Samir (Aug 26, 2009)

N8Ball said:


> The section on critical hits says that "When (you meet requirements), you score a critical hit, also know as a crit."
> 
> I think you can roll a number that *might* be a crit (I call them "crittable" numbers), and then not score one.
> 
> But saying you "rolled a critical hit" before checking all the requirements of a crit confuses the issue a bit.  The die roll is just *one* of the basic requirements.



Correct. Perhaps I should have clarified, by "rolling a critical hit" I meant "achieving a roll on a die that allows you to score a critical hit."

Though I wouldn't call it a requirement, I'd call it a trigger, since there are other ways to score critical hits that don't involve that particular event.



Nifft said:


> If people see that this needs to be re-written for clarity, my work here is done.
> 
> Cheers, -- N



I think most agree with at least this much, but as I said, it's discussion for the sake of discussion.


----------



## CovertOps (Aug 26, 2009)

I'm reminded of a scene from a very funny movie "My Cousin Vinnie" near the beginning.  Joe Pecshi is trying to tell the judge that his clients are innocent at the arraignment and the judge (Fred Gwynn) starts talking to him about procedure, saying "It sounds to me like you want to skip the arraignment, go straight to trial, skip that, and go straight to an acquittal. Here in (wherever they were) we have a procedure...".

I finally see what your argument is N8Ball, even though I still completely disagree with it.  You are suggesting that the the wording of Holy Ardor "score a critical hit" grants you a critical hit and BECAUSE critical hit is a subset of hit it is therefore already a hit.  That is called implied meaning.  Implied meaning is NOT good enough in exception based design.  You MUST specifically override any rule that does not apply to the given situation.  If the hit rules don't apply then they need to be called out such as "...and a roll of doubles is a hit even if it does not beat the defense of the target, except in the case of double 1's".  Exception based design does not allow you to imply anything or you break the whole system and start arguing about the phrasing of things like the presence/absence of the word "can".


----------



## N8Ball (Aug 26, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> I finally see what your argument is N8Ball,... critical hit is a subset of hit it is therefore already a hit.  That is called implied meaning.  Implied meaning is NOT good enough in exception based design.  You MUST specifically override any rule that does not apply to the given situation.




I'm glad that my point is getting through, even if we disagree on my underlying assumptions.

I believe the term we're looking for is inclusion, and it applies to all forms of logical determination.  If I have a BMW 323i, then it necessarily follows that I have a car, since all BMW 323i are cars.



> If the hit rules don't apply then they need to be called out such as "...and a roll of doubles is a hit even if it does not beat the defense of the target, except in the case of double 1's". Exception based design does not allow you to imply anything or you break the whole system and start arguing about the phrasing of things like the presence/absence of the word "can".



Part of the issue is that the hit rules do *not* say "you cannot get a hit any other way than this".  They say "this is how you get a hit" and in the absence of any other ways, it becomes the only way. (until another way is created)

Once you have an ability that says, "if you do Q, you hit" (like in one of Samir's examples) you have overridden the basic rule without having to say "even though this is not how you normally do it."  Exceptions do not need to be so verbose.


----------



## CovertOps (Aug 26, 2009)

N8Ball said:


> Exceptions do not need to be so verbose.




In an exception based system yes they do.  We're not talking about a literal math subset as your link implies.  We're talking about game rules and to assume that they have some sort of math subset like capability where if you are part of a subset you are part of it's larger superset is just as much nonsense as the following:

All elephants are grey.  I am grey.  Therefore I am an elephant.

An exception is a case that is allowed to do something different.  The whole point of an exception is that it has to say what it can do differently.  If it doesn't say what it can do then it has to follow the norm.

You asked up thread why I had my steps in the order they were in and who was to say when you could check for doubles.  My answer is if you don't do it in that order then you wind up with your (in my opinion) nonsensical argument about a crit that is a miss and how that can't possibly be.  If we're going to go with your assertion that all crits are hit math subset theory then you have to determine if you hit FIRST.  Then you don't wind up with the nonsense result you abhor of a crit that missed even though other PP features can have that same exact case happen to them by rolling an 18 (crit) and missing.


----------



## N8Ball (Aug 26, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> In an exception based system yes they do.  We're not talking about a literal math subset as your link implies.  We're talking about game rules and to assume that they have some sort of math subset like capability where if you are part of a subset you are part of it's larger superset is just as much nonsense as the following:
> 
> All elephants are grey.  I am grey.  Therefore I am an elephant.




Your example make an error that my example does not.  
All elephants (the subset)
things that are grey (the superset)

just because you fall into the superset does not mean that you fall into the subset.  BUT My example was of the form:

I am an elephant, therefore I am grey, I said GREY,  Not gay!



> My answer is if you don't do it in that order then you wind up with your (in my opinion) nonsensical argument about a crit that is a miss and how that can't possibly be.



-> If you don't do it in that order, you end up with a crit before you see of you hit normally.
-> This is* just like* when you get an automatic hit, you know you hit even before checking the normal hit rules.

In *both* cases you can satisfy the miss rule, but you don't call it a miss because we know that hits and misses are mutually exclusive events. (i.e. they have no intersection in set theory parlance)

But no one thinks the "automitic hit" rules allow "hit and miss" or are nonsensical.



> If we're going to go with your assertion that all crits are hit math subset theory then you have to determine if you hit FIRST.



*Only* the normal method of determining a crit requires that you check for a hit *first*, the holy ardor rules check something else entirely and send you right into the crit circle, without the normal requirements for crit or hit.


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 27, 2009)

N8Ball said:


> *Only* the normal method of determining a crit requires that you check for a hit *first*, the holy ardor rules check something else entirely and send you right into the crit circle, without the normal requirements for crit or hit.




That is the failed assumption, that Holy Ardor permits you to skip the expressly written rules for how to adjudicate when you score a critical hit.  Holy Ardor does not say that, so you -still- have to exercise the rules involved.  If Precision said 'Some abilties say you might score a critical hit' you'd have a point, and I'd look at it differently.

Precision -does not say that.-  It says, verbatim, that it applies to abilities 'that allow you to score a critical hit' and Holy Ardor -is- an ability that allows you to do that.

So, to prove that Holy Ardor is an exception, you have to either

A) Prove Holy Ardor does not allow you to score a critical hit (which would undermine your argument)
B) Prove Holy Ardor has text saying that it has an automatic hit. (which it does not)

The case you are trying, C) is that its terminology implies an automatic hit is overruled by Precision because Precision -explicitly- calls out that -exact- terminology.


----------



## N8Ball (Aug 27, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> That is the failed assumption, that Holy Ardor permits you to skip the expressly written rules for how to adjudicate *when you score a critical hit.*




Wait, so you're saying that rolling doubles *alone* with Holy Ardor DOES NOT allow you *expressly* to "score a critical hit"?  

Because that's a fundamentally different argument than the previous arguments that have been made which are that some critical hits are misses.  It *does skip* the normal rules for adjudicating *when* you score a critical hit, because it says you "score a critical hit".  You can still argue that a crit can be a miss, but that's a different argument.



> B) Prove Holy Ardor has text saying that it has an automatic hit. (which it does not)




Holy Ardor does not provide for an "automatic hit".  It doesn't need to. "Automatic hit" is well defined (and doesn't tell you when you miss) and there are plenty of examples of other crits *and* hits that are not "automatic hits".  (see also post 245)  So not providing for "automatic hit" does not enforce a miss.


----------



## Flipguarder (Aug 27, 2009)

N8Ball said:


> Wait, so you're saying that rolling doubles *alone* with Holy Ardor DOES NOT allow you *expressly* to "score a critical hit"?
> 
> Because that's a fundamentally different argument than the previous arguments that have been made which are that some critical hits are misses.  It *does skip* the normal rules for adjudicating *when* you score a critical hit, because it says you "score a critical hit".  You can still argue that a crit can be a miss, but that's a different argument.




No, what he's saying is "scoring a critical hit" through Holy Ardor does not forgo the rules for adjudicating critical hits. Which includes determining whether or not the attack hits.



N8Ball said:


> Holy Ardor does not provide for an "automatic hit".  It doesn't need to. "Automatic hit" is well defined (and doesn't tell you when you miss) and there are plenty of examples of other crits *and* hits that are not "automatic hits".  (see also post 245)  So not providing for "automatic hit" does not enforce a miss.




Yes, but it must provide SOME sort of mechanic for skipping the whole "attack roll needs to meet the targeted defense" thing. We both admit it does not qualify for the "automatic hit" described in the precision rule (because it doesn't act as though it was rolled 20), and that's all fine and good. As you say, it doesn't need to. But it does need SOME way of hitting without the attack roll hitting the targeted defense. It seems that you think "scoring a critical hit" skips all o' that. We would like to know why, because there doesn't seem to be precedent for this. You would think that if it were the case as you say, and this were an entirely new scenario of a critical hit that does not have precision apply to it.

And you seem to use the omission of the word "can" (Which by the way, as a firm tactic of rule definition, has no precedence as well.)  as your single piece of evidence.

I would say your position is shaky at best.


----------



## Trebor62 (Aug 27, 2009)

Holy Ardor does not provide for an "automatic hit". It doesn't need to. "Automatic hit" is well defined (and doesn't tell you when you miss) and there are plenty of examples of other crits *and* hits that are not "automatic hits". (see also post 245) So not providing for "automatic hit" does not enforce a miss.[/quote]

But it does provide for an automatic miss on double 1's which it would not need to do if it was neccessary for Holy Ardor to hit the targets defense as a 1 is already defined as a miss by the general rules. 

This implies that the general rules do not apply to Holy Ardor. If the general rules do apply to Holy Ardor then it is poorly written and should not have mentioned the more resticted 1's always miss but the equal valid and broader rule that Holy Ardor must hit the targets defense which would include double 1's miss as the the miss rule states a 1 always misses.

If it did mention this instead of double 1's misses I don't think there would be any dispute about when Holy Ardor crits.


----------



## keterys (Aug 27, 2009)

Trebor62 said:


> If it did mention this instead of double 1's misses I don't think there would be any dispute about when Holy Ardor crits.




Yeaaah... I'm pretty sure there still would be, even if there might be less. Nothing else, some people playing or planning to play one will argue hard just to make it more powerful.

The double 1s is why I actually believe the intent (but not written) is for it to work on double 2s and such.


----------



## Artoomis (Aug 27, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> ...Yes, but it must provide SOME sort of mechanic for skipping the whole "attack roll needs to meet the targeted defense" thing...




Ah, but it *does.*

Roll doubles and "score a critical hit."  It's difficult to be more definitive than that, given that "score a critical hit" is a defined game term - defined in the critical hit rules.

We just neatly avoided the whole "attack roll needs to meet the targeted defense" thing.

The lack of the word "can," the new mechanic of rolling doubles and the language about double ones not scoring a critical hit, together  provide the mechanic for skipping the whole "attack roll needs to meet the targeted defense" thing.

They actually were quite clear in the language, but could have been more complete to avoid the confusion we see here (and with CustServ) or re-written it so as to be clear that the whole "attack roll needs to meet the targeted defense" thing still applies in this new mechanic.


----------



## Flipguarder (Aug 27, 2009)

See that's pretty much my WHOLE problem with your argument Artoomis. You assume that the omission of the word "can" makes this an entirely new mechanic. I just don't believe it's that different from other features that create other crit possibilities.


----------



## Artoomis (Aug 27, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> See that's pretty much my WHOLE problem with your argument Artoomis. You assume that the omission of the word "can" makes this an entirely new mechanic. I just don't believe it's that different from other features that create other crit possibilities.




Not just that (though that's pretty big, given that they use the word "can" in *every* other place that modifies the critical hit rules), but also the new mechanic of rolling doubles.   That, and the mention of rolling ones being an exception.

I think its more than a coincidence that the new mechanic (rilling doubles) is accompanied by the language that omits the word "can."

I am perfectly ready to accept that leaving the word "can" out may have been an error, but that's an RAI vs. RAW argument.  As written, it really is astonishingly clear language - roll doubles score a critical hit.


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 27, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> Ah, but it *does.*
> 
> Roll doubles and "score a critical hit."  It's difficult to be more definitive than that, given that "score a critical hit" is a defined game term - defined in the critical hit rules.




Then apply those rules.  Precision is one of them.  If you claim that it is defined in the rules, then you -must- apply the rules you have just admitted apply to this situation.  

You have a situation where you have one rule telling you that only a natural 20 is an automatic hit.  You have another rule telling you -exactly- how to adjudicate what is a hit and a miss.  You have a third rule that says the first rule applies in situations where criticals can occur on other than a natural 20.

And you are countering with 'I believe they implied otherwise' based on what?

The thing is, those who claim Precision works -ARE- applying the rules for 'score a critical hit.'  ALL of them.  Not just ignoring what doesn't please them because, wait... they said you miss on twin 1s?

Did it not occur to you that the rules don't handle what happens when you crit -and- roll a natural 1?  Or that you might have conflicting general rules that don't -exactly- describe what happens?  And that in this, the only case where that occurs, they just spelt it out so there'd be no confusion?

No, instead, you decide it's an implication that the attack must automaticly hit in those instances, forgoing the rules for both scoring a critical hit, and the basic hit mechanics... because you have -faith- that it should be that way based on the designer's intentions.

Well I have -faith- that had they -intended- it to automaticly hit, they'd have said 'You hit, and that hit is a critical hit.'  Or 'You hit, and you score a critical hit.' 

IF they'd intended for you to hit when you roll doubles, they would have -SAID SO.-  Directly.  No faith.  No implication.  They'd have included those two little words.  They did not.  So, they probably did NOT intend for this ability to work differently or be an exception to the rules -that already exist- as a framework to tell you what to do with this.

That's all.  No 'You Hit' = no 'intended it to hit.'

This is beyond the point of rediculous.  Will the next argument present a ouija board now?


----------



## Artoomis (Aug 27, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> Then apply those rules.  Precision is one of them.  If you claim that it is defined in the rules, then you -must- apply the rules you have just admitted apply to this situation.  ...




This is where you get it wrong.

The "normal" critical hit rules tells you what it takes to "score a critical hit."

This feature changes that and gives a new mechanic for how to "score a critical hit."  It creates an exception to the "normal" critical hit rules.

It's really that simple.


----------



## N8Ball (Aug 27, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> No, what he's saying is "scoring a critical hit" through Holy Ardor does not forgo the rules for adjudicating critical hits. Which includes determining whether or not the attack hits.




OK then, I misunderstood what he meant by adjudicate.  That is consistent with earlier arguments.




> Yes, but it must provide SOME sort of mechanic for skipping the whole "attack roll needs to meet the targeted defense" thing. We both admit it does not qualify for the "automatic hit" described in the precision rule (because it doesn't act as though it was rolled 20), and that's all fine and good. As you say, it doesn't need to. But it does need SOME way of hitting without the attack roll hitting the targeted defense.



YES! I agree with this whole statement wholeheartedly.



> It seems that you think "scoring a critical hit" skips all o' that. We would like to know why, because there doesn't seem to be precedent for this. You would think that if it were the case as you say, and this were an entirely new scenario of a critical hit that does not have precision apply to it.



 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.



> And you seem to use the omission of the word "can" (Which by the way, as a firm tactic of rule definition, has no precedence as well.)  as your single piece of evidence.
> 
> I would say your position is shaky at best.



OK then, the differences in the two camps stem from 2 assumptions.  
1) A critical hit is necessarily a hit
2) 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.


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 27, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> Not just that (though that's pretty big, given that they use the word "can" in *every* other place that modifies the critical hit rules), but also the new mechanic of rolling doubles.   That, and the mention of rolling ones being an exception.
> 
> I think its more than a coincidence that the new mechanic (rilling doubles) is accompanied by the language that omits the word "can."
> 
> I am perfectly ready to accept that leaving the word "can" out may have been an error, but that's an RAI vs. RAW argument.  As written, it really is astonishingly clear language - roll doubles score a critical hit.




Except that in every other precident, the word 'can' does not affect whether or not a power breaks the rules.  Because 'can' is not refering to permission of the -power- or the -rules- to do what the ability states, but permission of the -player- to do what the ability states.  IT is not permitting the rules to work, it is permitting -you- to take an exception to those rules.

However, that is not necessary.  If an ability states an expression, you already -have- permission to take that exception.  So abilities have appeared using both terminologies while working -exactly the same-.

So the precident exists as to what the ommission of the word 'can' means.  It means -nothing- with regard to how rules work.

All you have is an attempt to draw an assumption based on an analysis of what you believe the abilities means.  However the strength of this assumption is -not- as strong as a conclusion based on applying the rules as they are.  Which work.  And describe the situation elegantly.  And don't create special exceptions where one requires psychic powers to channel 'the will of the designers.'  You have speculation, but that is not the same as -evidence- which is provided on paper in the PHB.

Occam's Razor.  The simplest explanation that fits the -evidence- is often the best.

And in this case:  Holy Ardor works the same as every other ability that alters crits, simply because that's the simplest way to look at it.


----------



## Flipguarder (Aug 27, 2009)

I agree with dracosuave. I believe the omission of the word "can" while possibly important, is hardly enough to establish a RAW perspective on it. by RAW, precision applies, and by RAW you must roll high enough to hit.


----------



## N8Ball (Aug 27, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> Except that in every other precident, the word 'can' does not affect whether or not a power breaks the rules.  Because 'can' is not refering to permission of the -power- or the -rules- to do what the ability states, but permission of the -player- to do what the ability states.  IT is not permitting the rules to work, it is permitting -you- to take an exception to those rules.




So do we agree that "can" works differently in situations of *player permission* versus *possible outcomes* as adjudicated by the rules?




> Occam's Razor.  The simplest explanation that fits the -evidence- is often the best.




like Critical hit = hit?

There's lots of evidence for it, and it is the simplest understanding of it.

It seems very intuitive and simple, and *if you follow the logic that follows* from that assumption you'll show up on my side of the argument.


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 27, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> This is where you get it wrong.
> 
> The "normal" critical hit rules tells you what it takes to "score a critical hit."




This I do not disagree with.



> This feature changes that and gives a new mechanic for how to "score a critical hit."  It creates an exception to the "normal" critical hit rules.




But it does not create an exception to -all- the critical hit rules.  And that is where you have made a mistake.

See, that 'exception' was already openned up and defined by another rule, Precision.  Precision says that other features exist that break that normal rule, and of those that do, -only- a natural 20 is an automatic hit.

So here's where you have to examine the -full- hierarchy of the ruleset and exceptions that apply.

You need to beat their defense on your attack roll to hit that target, otherwise, you miss that target.
Rolling a Natural 20 will automaticly hit the target.
Rolling a Natural 20 will score a critical hit.
Scoring a critical hit does not occur when your roll does not hit the target.  However, the automatic hit rule for a natural 20 does apply.
There exists features that allow you to roll numbers other than natural 20.  Those numbers never automatic hit.

That's the way it works.  Precision doesn't except how rolling a natural 20 works.  It also does not except how the attack roll mechanics work.

Automatic hit is defined, it is the situation where the number you roll -should miss- but it is resolved as a hit regardless.

Holy Ardor does present an exception to the rule on what can score a critical hit.  However it does -not- present an exception to the rule on what can or cannot hit the target.  Therefore, you resolve it as tho all pertinent rules it does not except apply.  Precision, furthermore, is a rule that tells you how to adjudicate these exceptions.  That rule -itself- tells you what you do in a situation such as this.  Thus, Holy Ardor has to -specificly- be an exception to -that- rule in order to work differently.

An example of this in action is the push mechanic.  Let's say you have an enemy between you and a solid wall, and you have an effect that tells you to push him 2 squares.


```
[W] [ ] [ ]
[W] [E] [Y]
[W] [ ] [ ]
```

You cannot push that enemy a single square, and for no other reason than a rule -within the push mechanic- says you cannot do so.  


```
[ ] [W] [ ] [ ]
[Z] [W] [E] [Y]
[ ] [W] [ ] [ ]
```

If you have a rule that instead says 'you may push the enemy to square Z' does that change anything?  No.  Because the rule for how a push works -still applies.-  Pushing to a location is an exception to how pushing a number of squares work.  But it is NOT an exception to the restrictions on how push works in the first place.

This is intuitive.  This makes sense.

Changing the parameters of how an effect works compared to other effects doesn't necessarily change all the rules on how that effect works--it only changes the rules of that effect with regerd to the explicit exceptions.


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 27, 2009)

N8Ball said:


> So do we agree that "can" works differently in situations of *player permission* versus *possible outcomes* as adjudicated by the rules?




Given that the critical hit rules themselves use the term 'allow' with regard to the player, consistancy says, yes, they are different, and in this case, it is player-permissive. 



> like Critical hit = hit?
> 
> There's lots of evidence for it, and it is the simplest understanding of it.




Absolutely.  However, Occum's Razor does not act as a bulwark against contrary evidence.  It is not a method of evidence selection.

So when you have a evidence that declares you do not hit, Occum's Razor doesn't inform you to ignore it because it is 'simple.' 

Quite the opposite.  It informs you to take that evidence and form the simplest conclusion that -fits- the evidence.



> It seems very intuitive and simple, and *if you follow the logic that follows* from that assumption you'll show up on my side of the argument.




That requires selectively forgetting the evidence that is in play, however, and by doing so, I am ignoring Occum's Razor.  Occum's Razor forges from evidence, and creates assumptions, but does not create assumptions, and then forge evidence.

And that is the difference.


----------



## shadowoflameth (Aug 27, 2009)

Exactly so. I hate burst some munchkin bubbles out there, but "score a critical hit" means as described in the PHB. The PHB says specifically that your roll must be high enough to beat the targets defense in order to hit unless you roll a natural 20. It also specifies that even if you have something that "scores a critical hit" on a roll other than 20, it is not a hit at all unless you beat the targets defense. 

If you are rolling twice as the avenger against your oath target, you have a second chance to maybe roll a 20, and the higher result will be your attack roll, then if with this feature, you can potentially add another number to roll with your second die to "score a critical hit" (menaing follow the rules for a critical hit in the PHB, including the rule that says it is not a hit unless you beat the targets defense unless it is in fact a natural 20). that is together (3) chances to score a critical hit if you roll high enough, compared to the normal, (1) chance. Just as the daggermaster has (3) numbers that can do it. Yes, I know the math is different with two dice and this power instead of one, and aiming for 18-20 compared to aiming for the same result on both dice, but still, it isn't a lackluster power even though it does not alter the specifics of what happens when you "score a critical hit". Those specifics are spelled out in the PHB. If something different were supposed to happen, instead of saying, 'you score a critical hit" the power would say, "your attack hits regardless of the targets defense and is a critical hit".


----------



## N8Ball (Aug 27, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> Given that the critical hit rules themselves use the term 'allow' with regard to the player, consistancy says, yes, they are different, and in this case, it is player-permissive.




Are you saying the the player with mastery has a choice in the matter concerning his die roll of 19?



> Absolutely.  However, Occum's Razor does not act as a bulwark against contrary evidence.  It is not a method of evidence selection.
> 
> So when you have a evidence that declares you do not hit, Occum's Razor doesn't inform you to ignore it because it is 'simple.'




I'm not ignoring the evidence, I looked at it and did not come to that conclusion, *given the assumptions that I started with.*

And my assumptions form the basis for an internally consistent, supported and workable understanding of the crit rules.  I have some thoughts on another comparison of the two theories on this subject, but that will have to wait till tomorrow.


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 27, 2009)

N8Ball said:


> Are you saying the the player with mastery has a choice in the matter concerning his die roll of 19?




No, I'm allowed a critical hit.  That's not the same thing at all.



> I'm not ignoring the evidence, I looked at it and did not come to that conclusion, *given the assumptions that I started with.*




And that's the problem.  You started with assumptions and chose the evidence to support it, rather than see all the evidence, and use Occum's Razor to come to your assumptions.



> And my assumptions form the basis for an internally consistent, supported and workable understanding of the crit rules.  I have some thoughts on another comparison of the two theories on this subject, but that will have to wait till tomorrow.




Internally consistant, except for the ignoring convenient rules to fit base assumptions.


----------



## Nifft (Aug 27, 2009)

shadowoflameth said:


> I hate burst some munchkin bubbles out there



 Sadly -- and it really is sad -- no munchkin would give this paragon path a second look, because even under the liberal "2+2=crit" interpretation, it just isn't competitive.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 27, 2009)

Nifft said:


> Sadly -- and it really is sad -- no munchkin would give this paragon path a second look, because even under the liberal "2+2=crit" interpretation, it just isn't competitive.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




The crit rate under non-liberal rules is approximately 12% at paragon, and 23% at epic.  Daggermaster's crit rate is 26% with Avenger, but it does not include the bonus damage you get from a larger weapon, and it does not include the fact the paragon path -gives you free attacks- for every crit you make.

At epic, an Ardorvenger with Epic Master in Heavy Blades will out DPR a Daggervenger by a long shot.  High Crit+Extra Attacks make the crits hit three times as hard as a Daggervenger, making up for the lesser crit rate at Paragon, and overtaking it at Epic.


----------



## pascalnz (Aug 27, 2009)

ohh, don't go there with the daggermaster being poor. 

avenger don't get weapon masteries without nerfing themselves. they do not want to spend the strength, it's pretty darn usless. so most get a jagged and are done with it.

daggermasters[not even the pure evil which is a half elf one more than 50% crit every round on an at will] can easily wield two weapons for reckless and the other chees. 
look up blood iron as well.
arrgh ran out of time.
in a nutshell you can get better crits with a dagger master gernally. i.e. more damage.


----------



## Calth (Aug 27, 2009)

To respond to some of the arguments about Precision, I was under the impression that it really has nothing to do with what people are saying. For full clarity, ill write out how I see the attack roll resolution process working out.

1.) Make your attack roll.
2.) Compare result to defenses:
Did you match or exceed the defenses? 
Yes: Goto 3
No: Goto 4
3.) Is your roll in your crit range?
Yes: You score a crit
No: You hit.
4.) Did you roll a natural 20?
Yes: You hit
No: You miss

All precision does is say that the critical range in step 3 can be expanded, nothing else, it changes no other rules. *Automatic hits and critical hits are mutually exclusive events*, as they each depend on a different response to step 2, the checking of attack roll versus defense. Therefore, precision does not apply to this arguement at all. The question is if the definitive language of Holy Ardor allows the bypass of step 2, which I belive it does.

Even though many people don't like it, the key word really is can. Can allows the possibility, but does not necessitate. So all the previous feats and features that state "you *can* score a crit" upon certain results fall under precision and expand the possibilites for the positive reponse to step 3. Even the natural 20 remark under the critical hit rules follows this convention, stating that you *can *score a crit if you roll a natural 20 and your roll exceeds the target defense, and seperates the auto hit event from the crit event That is, it sets a base critical range of 20-20.


To simplify: there are 2 required flags in order to score a crit in the normal scenario:
Did your attack roll exceed the defenses?
Did you roll within your crit range?

If you answer yes to both these, then, and *only* then, did you actually score the crit.

Holy ardor bypasses this by creating an alternate path:
Did you roll doubles on your two attack rolls against your oath of emnity target?
Were they not double 1's?

If you answer yes to both these, then again, *you score a crit*, not you can score a crit.


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 27, 2009)

pascalnz said:


> ohh, don't go there with the daggermaster being poor.
> 
> avenger don't get weapon masteries without nerfing themselves. they do not want to spend the strength, it's pretty darn usless. so most get a jagged and are done with it.
> 
> ...




And I have a build which requires only a single point into strength, and because Dex isn't a damage stat for most of an Avenger's stuff, but a support stat, higher doesn't mean as much as, say, a sorcerer which always applies it.

Dex doesn't have to start at 18 for a persuing avenger to be decent.  Elf with an array of 16/16/13/10/10/9 can, by spending but a single point in Strength,  end up with Epic Mastery, dishing out massive critical hits with their Oath.  You'll then have 16 Str, 18 Wis, and 15 Dexterity, which is not at all bad.

And no, your Censure isn't your main damage source so it doesn't have to be maxxed out for you to win the game of DND.  You'll take Armor Proficiency feats to make up for the slightly lesser Dexterity, and you'll make out -just fine.-

Champion of Prophecy (boosting Strength and Wisdom) works well with this, giving you more healing surge spending when you crit, and the whole package works out to be a nice offensive juggernaut.

So, you do more damage when you crit, and you do more damage when you don't crit.


----------



## N8Ball (Aug 27, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> And that's the problem.  You started with assumptions and chose the evidence to support it, rather than see all the evidence, and use Occum's Razor to come to your assumptions.




Wow.  You're making a lot of assumptions about my thought process there.

I assure you, my analysis was much more rigorous that you suggest, and started with *evidence* not assumptions.  But I did arrive at my assumptions before I started this discussion, as did you.

But just to be thorough I did a word search on EVERY instance of the words "critical hit" in the players handbook, *and* the latest errata for the PHB and DMG.

There are actually not that many references outside of feats and powers sections, but here they are.

Pg 217 - High Crit:  "A critical hit deals..."
pg 276 - Critical Hit: "A critical hit deals..."
pg 276 - Example:  "If she scores a critical hit, she deals..."
pg 278 - Critical hits "When... (criteria are met), you score a critical hit, also known as a crit."  (this is mirrored under the Natural 20: section)
pg 278 - Critical hit damage/Maximum damage - (the result of scoring a critical hit) "...determine the maximum damage you can roll..."

SO, given this evidence, when presented with the question: 

"What *is* a critical hit, and what does scoring a critical hit *do*?" (*NOT* "how do you get a crit")  

I come to the following conclusion:  

*A critical hit is a hit that deals maximum damage and extra damage.*

My other assumptions follow from this.

Now if there are any more insinuations that I'm being disingenuous with my arguments I will have to take offense.


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 27, 2009)

However, you've not included the evidence of when a critical hit -does not occur-.

For example, when you roll a 20 and do not roll high enough to hit.

A search of 'critical hit' find that.

A search of 'critical hit' also finds Precision.

The problem is, that all the evidence you've provided that tells you what a critical hit does is great... except that I have evidence provided that tells you when -not- to critical hit.

When dealing with a question of when you do or do not critical hit, that evidence becomes -extremely- weighty, as it pertains -directly- to the case and involves little speculation.

That's the point... is that you've -chosen- to ignore the evidence that relates -directly- to the issue so you can continue your assumptions based on evidence that is less directly related to the issue.

You've taken the evidence that says 'This is how you deal with success' and said its existance means you can ignore the evidence that says 'But this is when it does not work.'

And there is no evidence that belies or counters that evidence.  The evidence that says 'it does not work' has yet to be countermanded directly.  Instead, the return argument has been based upon a fallacy of assuming the success and skipping the failure points.

So here's your argument in a nutshell.

'The ability says you succeed.'
'Therefore, we apply all the rules applying to success.'
'Because we apply all the rules applying to success, the rules applying to possible failure cannot apply.  After all, failure does not apply to success.'
'Because there are no rules applying failure, we succeed.'

This is a circular argument.

This is the opposing argument.

'The ability says you succeed.'
'The rule says that even if an ability says you succeed, it may fail under certain circumstances.'
'Therefore, in those circumstances, the ability fails.'

That is not a circular argument.


----------



## ObsidianCrane (Aug 27, 2009)

What DracoSuave just said.....

Now I'm happy to admit that the word "can" appearing in the power would have completly removed the need to even discuss it, or alternatively clear text that a double was both a hit (regardless of normal result) and a Critical would have done the same. But we have what we have and the simplest way of applying the power is to say it is covered by Precision.


----------



## BobTheNob (Aug 27, 2009)

I cant believe this thread is still going! Guys, your arguments really are not that different to 100 posts ago (277 posts wow!).

Being the guy that started this thread, Im not sure which way to go. I actually find the arguments on both sides equally compelling and that neither really manages to refute the other. What did I get from raising this thread? Stalemate, thats what! So be it, I will await clarification from WOTC.

I think what we all need to do here is open our minds and accept the validity of the opposing arguments, or at minimum agree to disagree.

If nothing else, its been an interesting journey.


----------



## N8Ball (Aug 27, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> So here's your argument in a nutshell.
> 
> 'The ability says you succeed.'
> 'Therefore, we apply all the rules applying to success.'
> ...




Well, that's the *exact* same argument for when you roll a 20 that does not hit the defense.

-> "Automatic hit" says I succeeded (in getting a hit), 
-> 'Therefore, we apply all the rules applying to success (hits).'
 -> 'Because we apply all the rules applying to success, the rules applying to possible failure (miss) 
-> cannot apply. After all, failure does not apply to success.'
 -> 'Because there are no rules applying failure(miss), we succeed.(hit)'

The miss rules do not include any caveats for rolling a 20, but *we resolve that contradiction* with the understanding that "when you hit, you don't miss"

That is the same procedure I'm using with Holy Ardor, I don't see why it should apply to "automatic hit" and not to this situation.



> ...evidence of when a critical hit -does not occur-.
> For example, when you roll a 20 and do not roll high enough to hit.



First, "when" was not part of my initial question. 

Second, this is not a universal rule.  This is an observation of how the existing rules interacted before Holy Ardor existed.  I am not constrained by this statement, only the existing rules that created this situation *as modified* by Holy Ardor.


----------



## N8Ball (Aug 27, 2009)

BobTheNob said:


> I cant believe this thread is still going! Guys, your arguments really are not that different to 100 posts ago (277 posts wow!).
> 
> Being the guy that started this thread, Im not sure which way to go. I actually find the arguments on both sides equally compelling and that neither really manages to refute the other. What did I get from raising this thread? Stalemate, thats what! So be it, I will await clarification from WOTC.
> 
> ...




Respectfully, Bob, I think there is _some_ progress being made.  

The recent discussion with Flipguarder on the subject of "automatic hit" was progress since we came to an understanding that at least those explicit terms were not required.

CovertOps Stated that he "finally" saw where I was comming from but disagreed with the assumptions I had made.

I acknowledged that one of my assumptions did not have much prescedent, but pointed out that this situation may be a new case that hasn't been since "automatic hit".

And even Dracosuave, despite his allegations on my lack of intellectual honesty, brings up a good point about the contradition that is involved with hitting on numbers not good enough to hit.  As far as I can remember, nobody had yet pointed out that "automatic hit" has the exact same contradiction that is resolved by an understanding that isn't explicit, but that we all accept.

Of course there is some rehash of previous arguments, but there is new aspects of the issue being explored as well.


----------



## Eldorian (Aug 27, 2009)

This thread has become ridiculous.  Being verbose does not win your argument.

There have been many semantic arguments trying to state that Precision does not apply.  There has been one argument that it does:  It says it does.

Precision applies.  It says it does in the same language as used by Holy Ardor.  That is all you need to know.


----------



## Turtlejay (Aug 27, 2009)

I stopped reading the arguments like 10 pages ago.  I only check to see if anyone has anything different to bring (actual wotc employee, yet another custserv ruling).  I like that several folks have tried to say that the debate is over.  Usually they are not one of the 3 or 4 people still locked in a struggle to determine the TRUTH!.

Seriously though, I enjoy this, and I like that it has been civil, for the most part.

Jay

For the record, I think I'm leaning towards Precision applying now.  But still bugged that things aren't more clear.


----------



## CovertOps (Aug 27, 2009)

N8Ball said:


> OK then, the differences in the two camps stem from 2 assumptions.
> 1) A critical hit is necessarily a hit
> 2) The permissive or definitive language surrounding critical hit feats features and rules is important.  ("can", "might", "allow", possible etc.)
> 
> ...




(clarification) 
1) "you can score a critical hit" is the same as "you score a critical hit" for feats and powers/features.  Both refer back to the rules on hits/criticals.
2)  There is already precedence for this as you can roll high enough to get a crit and still miss with some features (dagger master, Precision).
You left out:
3)  Holy Ardor does not call out specifically that it hits even if it would normally miss thus giving itself an exemption from the normal hit rules.  It grants itself a "critical hit", but that is not the same thing and cannot be implied as a hit.  This breaks the exception based design of 4e.


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 28, 2009)

N8Ball said:


> Well, that's the *exact* same argument for when you roll a 20 that does not hit the defense.
> 
> -> "Automatic hit" says I succeeded (in getting a hit),
> -> 'Therefore, we apply all the rules applying to success (hits).'
> ...




No, that works this way:

'The feature says I succeed.'
'The rules say I succeed.'
'The rules that pertain to possible failure in this endevor do not attempt to describe this particular case, and indeed, explicitly exempt this case.'
'Therefore, I succeed.'

The difference is that in the former case, assuming a hit, you've used the assumed conclusion that you succeed as a premise to prove that the rules for failure do not apply.  However, if you do not assume success, then the rules for failure would apply, thus contradicting said argument.

-That- is what is circular about it.


----------



## Artoomis (Aug 28, 2009)

There is no circular argument.

I'll demonstrate with an example:

Whenever you make two attack rolls because of your oath of enmity, you score a hit if both dice have the same roll, except if both rolls are 1.:

Same rule as Holy Ardor,, but with "hit" instead of "critical hit."

This would create a new rule where you'd hit with doubles - even though you did not beat or equal the defense score as required by the previously-existing rules. 

ATTACK RESULTS
When you make an attack, compare your attack roll to the appropriate defense score of the target.
✦ Hit: If the attack roll is higher than or equal to the defense score, the attack hits and deals damage, has a special effect, or both.

That's because my example describes a NEW MECHANIC for getting a hit.

In the same way that 

Whenever you make two attack rolls because of your oath of enmity, you score a critical hit if both dice have the same roll, except if both rolls are 1.:

describes a NEW MECHANIC for scoring a critical hit.

Its simple, straightforward language creates a new rule for when you get to "score a critical hit."

With Holy Ardor, you now "score a critical hit" if A:

Your higher die roll is high enough to potentially score a critical hit AND it meats or beats the defender's defense score.

OR

You roll doubles.

There really can be no doubt about that.

However, the doubt comes in on whether "scoring a critical hit" really means  getting to apply critical damage or whether it really means you only have potentially scored a critical hit.

A look at the Critical Hit rules quickly confirms that scoring a critical hit means you do indeed get to apply Critical Hit damage.

It's a NEW RULE.    As such, it is an exception to the other rules and DOES NOT NEED TO FOLLOW THE OLD RULE.

Finally, once again, I understand the opposing argument and see it as (almost ) equally valid.  Why will those on the opposing side not say the same?


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 28, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> There is no circular argument.
> 
> I'll demonstrate with an example:
> 
> ...




Here's the reason we don't, and it is simple.

Holy Ardor refers to abilities that score critical hits.  The very thing you keep claiming puts it out of Precision's bailiwick (the fact it 'scores a critical hit') and the fact it does so with numbers other than a natural 20, are exactly what Precision describes.

Which means that you need a compelling reason to not involve Precision other than 'score a critical hit'.


----------



## Flipguarder (Aug 28, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> Here's the reason we don't, and it is simple.
> 
> Holy Ardor refers to abilities that score critical hits.  The very thing you keep claiming puts it out of Precision's bailiwick (the fact it 'scores a critical hit') and the fact it does so with numbers other than a natural 20, are exactly what Precision describes.
> 
> Which means that you need a compelling reason to not involve Precision other than 'score a critical hit'.





But....BUT.... There's no "CAN"!


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 28, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> But....BUT.... There's no "CAN"!




This is even more funny when I picture Citan saying it for some reason.


----------



## N8Ball (Aug 28, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> No, that works this way:
> 
> 'The feature says I succeed.'
> 'The rules say I succeed.'
> ...




The rules that pertain to failure *explicitly* exempt *what* case?  That you don't miss when you qualify for a hit? That's not explicit anywhere in the Miss: section, it's understood.

And that's why the "automatic hit" rule works, because we know that *once you have a hit, you don't miss*, so you don't reference the miss rules.




> ...you've used the assumed conclusion that you succeed as a premise to prove that the rules for failure do not apply.
> 
> However, if you do not assume success, then the rules for failure would apply, thus contradicting said argument.
> 
> -That- is what is circular about it.




What you just described here is that you get a *different result with different assumptions*.  That's not a circular argument.  That's two arguments with different results.


----------



## Artoomis (Aug 28, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> Here's the reason we don't, and it is simple.
> 
> Holy Ardor refers to abilities that score critical hits.  The very thing you keep claiming puts it out of Precision's bailiwick (the fact it 'scores a critical hit') and the fact it does so with numbers other than a natural 20, are exactly what Precision describes.
> 
> Which means that you need a compelling reason to not involve Precision other than 'score a critical hit'.





Fair enough.

But Precision is *in the context of rolling a number *and  attempting to score  a critical hit.

This is distinguished from Holy Ardor in two ways

1.  Holy Ardor gives an entirely new rule for "score a critical hit."  The omission of "can," which, given the many other uses of the word "can" with the phrase "score a critical hit" appears to be deliberate, is compelling and calling it an oversight or assuming it has no meaning is not reading the plain text but interpreting it to *remove* meaning in an attempt to keep the context of a previous rule.

2.  Holy Ardor is not about rolling a number, but rolling a pair of numbers, an entirely new mechanic.

When the new mechanic and the omission of the word "can" (plus the whole "roll double ones thing) are viewed together, my conclusion is that this is an entirely new situation that is a new way to "score a critical hit" as oppose to a change to the number needed (which is the context of Precision).

So, *once again*, while I do feel my position is the stronger one, I think *we are both right.*

*Can you go so far as to agree we can both be right??*


----------



## abyssaldeath (Aug 28, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> 2.  Holy Ardor is not about rolling a number, but rolling a pair of numbers, an entirely new mechanic.



This is a distinction you are making. Rolling a number or rolling a pair of numbers is still rolling numbers. Precision doesn't say "when you roll *a* number" it says "when you roll number*s*". Roll an identical pair is rolling numbers and there for Holy Ardor has to follow the Precision rules because it does not make a *specific*(as in actually written down) exception. Just because this is the first time that rolling the same number twice give you the ability to crit doesn't mean that it some how creates a new mechanic for rolling crit. All it does is add a random element to getting a crit.


----------



## Artoomis (Aug 28, 2009)

abyssaldeath said:


> This is a distinction you are making. Rolling a number or rolling a pair of numbers is still rolling numbers. Precision doesn't say "when you roll *a* number" it says "when you roll number*s*". Roll an identical pair is rolling numbers and there for Holy Ardor has to follow the Precision rules because it does not make a *specific*(as in actually written down) exception. Just because this is the first time that rolling the same number twice give you the ability to crit doesn't mean that it some how creates a new mechanic for rolling crit. All it does is add a random element to getting a crit.




You could be right.

And so could I.

Precision is in the context of making an attack roll (as is the whole critical hit section).  Therefore its context is making an attack roll.  Using the result of two attacks rolls as a pair (doubles) is an entirely new situation and has its own rule - it "scores a critical hit."  With no ambiguity whatsoever.  

Besides that, once you have actually "scored a critical hit," Precision no longer applies as that rule is applied before you have "scored a critical hit" but while still checking to see if you have indeed "scored a critical hit."

So, therefore, I say we are both right.

I also think my argument is stronger, but that is neither here nor there.  The fact that we both have a legitimate argument that is base upon RAW and neither reading is far-fetched means to me that we need clarification from WotC.


----------



## CovertOps (Aug 28, 2009)

N8Ball said:


> The rules that pertain to failure *explicitly* exempt *what* case?  That you don't miss when you qualify for a hit? That's not explicit anywhere in the Miss: section, it's understood.
> 
> And that's why the "automatic hit" rule works, because we know that *once you have a hit, you don't miss*, so you don't reference the miss rules.




He is describing the same thing I've been saying all along in a different context.

What it comes down to is this one simple difference between our two viewpoints.

Those that say Holy Ardor grants a hit even if you don't beat the targets defense follow this line of logic:

1. I rolled doubles.
2. Holy Ardor states that I got a critical.
3. A critical is a subset of "Hit" therefore I hit.

Note that this step requires you to ASSUME that this assertion is true.  We have incontrovertible proof that there are mechanics already in the system that allow you to have a critical and still miss so this is a very hard sell for us.

Those of us that believe the opposite:

1. I rolled doubles (ok we can agree here)
2. Holy Ardor states that I got a critical. (wow we even agree here)
3. Does Holy Ardor override the hit rules? No  (Note that no assumption is needed to be made here)
4. Did I hit? Yes = critical   No = miss.

@Artoomis:  You can be right as soon as they add text to Holy Ardor that says "You hit even if you would normally miss" or similar phrasing.  And yes I know that as far as you're concerned the "you score a critcal" IS the override, but I'm sorry I can't go with the assumption that is required to make that true.  I'm also pretty sure that our position can be correct as far as you're concerned as soon as it says "you *can* score a critical hit".

Now which of those changes do you think is better.  The addition of a single word or the addition of a specific rule override in an exception based system?



Artoomis said:


> Besides that, once you have actually "scored a critical hit," Precision no longer applies as that rule is applied before you have "scored a critical hit" but while still checking to see if you have indeed "scored a critical hit."




Just so I'm clear.  I'm not arguing Precision any longer.  You get the critical hit.  It quite clearly says that you do.  However, Holy Ardor does nothing to override the basic HIT rules. Your position requires you to ASSUME that because you have a critical that therefore it is already a hit.  Without specific wording within Holy Ardor to override the HIT rules (as I put above) I am not willing to accept that assumption and I'm pretty sure that neither are the rest of us arguing against this.  4e is exception based.  Show me your exception (to the hit rules) without an assumption to get there and I'll support you 100%, but you can't because that's not what it says.


----------



## CovertOps (Aug 28, 2009)

One other thought.  In order to get from Critical Hit = Hit you have to reference (gasp) the Hit rules so now on the one hand you want to say that your "score a critical hit" automatically gives you a hit, but conveniently ignore the rest of the hit rules you are referencing because they don't fit your argument AND because your assertion is that "score a critical hit" overrides the normal "Hit" rules.  If it overrides the normal hit rules then guess what...you can't make your claim that Crit = Hit.


----------



## Artoomis (Aug 28, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> ...Just so I'm clear.  I'm not arguing Precision any longer.  You get the critical hit. ...




You case, the is based upon a logical fallacy.

Why?

Because if you score a critical hit, you are done and you apply the critical hit damage.

I guess what you are really saying is that you get a *potential* critical hit.

By definition, if you "score a critical hit" you get to apply the critical hit damage.

On the other hand, if you "can" score a critical hit you have only potentially scored one, and thus other rules about requirements for a critical hit can apply.

There is no such state as "scored a critical hit but cannot yet apply damage."  You can, though, score high enough on the die to potentially score a critical hit, but you don't until after you check to be sure the attack roll is at least equal to the defense score.

Thus you cannot "score a critical hit" and yet not apply critical hit damage.


----------



## N8Ball (Aug 28, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> Note that this step requires you to ASSUME that this assertion is true.  We have incontrovertible proof that there are mechanics already in the system that allow you to have a critical and still miss so this is a very hard sell for us.




You don't have incontrovertable proof.  You have a conclusion that follows from different *assumptions you've made*.  I backed up my assumptions with several quotes on critical hit from the rulebook.  

You've backed up your assumption that a crit can miss by reading Precision to mean that *there cannot be any way other than* the "automatic hit" rule to create hit without rolling a good attack number, instead of accepting that some ability **might** make a a new way to do that by other means.

What precision says is that only a 20 is an "automatic hit".  That does not necessarily imply that "automatic hit" is the only way to *achieve the same result* as an "automatic hit".



> One other thought. In order to get from Critical Hit = Hit you have to reference (gasp) the Hit rules so now on the one hand you want to say that your "score a critical hit" automatically gives you a hit, but conveniently ignore the rest of the hit rules you are referencing because they don't fit your argument AND because your assertion is that "score a critical hit" overrides the normal "Hit" rules. If it overrides the normal hit rules then guess what...you can't make your claim that Crit = Hit.




The trouble is, that arguments also fits perfectly with "automatic hit" because the hit rules *SEEM* to contradict themselves in that when you get a 20, and automatically hit you can still qualify for the miss rules as written.  The same mechanism that resolves this for ("automatic hit" = hit) resolves it for (crit = hit) in the case of Holy Ardor.

Given my assumptions, it should be noted that this (Holy Ardor) is the first case where a crit has been allowed without explicitly requiring a successful hit roll.  That lack of prescedent (for a new crit mechanism) is part of the trouble here.


----------



## Flipguarder (Aug 28, 2009)

N8Ball said:


> What precision says is that only a 20 is an "automatic hit".  That does not necessarily imply that "automatic hit" is the only way to *achieve the same result* as an "automatic hit"




Wow.... that is just ultimately false. You do understand that this is a complete and utter falsehood.

Different sentence, same wording.

"What physics says is that only a rocket can 'get into space'. That does not necessarily imply that 'getting into space' is the only way to achieve the same result as 'getting into space'"

How can you possibly automatically hit, without automatically hitting? Sure you can just plain hit, but you do HAVE to hit.


----------



## CovertOps (Aug 28, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> You case, the is based upon a logical fallacy.
> 
> Why?
> 
> ...




Without page 276 and 278 in the PHB a critical hit is nothing and means nothing.  How did you know to apply max damage without reading the critical hit rules you so firmly want to ignore?  A critical hit is first defined in the Hit rules on p276 which then sends you to p278 for more detailed info.  For a power to state "you score a critical" and you to take that to mean "do max damage requires you to skip those rules in their totality and if you do that your "critical hit" is now undefined and means nothing.  That is absurd in the extreme.

1. Holy Ardor: "You score a critical hit".  (what is a critical hit? -> see p276 PHB to find out)
2. Oh wait...we have some rules here about our critical hit....let's find out if they apply...oh wait they do apply because the power I'm using doesn't say that they don't. (exception based design)

You seem intent on ignoring everything about the hit and critical hit rules and going straight to the sub-section and dealing damage.  All those rules you are conveniently skipping define what a critical hit IS as well as what is required to have one.  You can't pick what rules to use and which ones to ignore.  They all apply unless specifically stated otherwise (again general vs. specific).  The max damage clause comes with some riders, requirements, and other rules....if you want one you get them all whether you want them or not.  Since Precision is simply a reminder of the normal hit rules you now have to go back and find out if your "crit" even hit the target and presto....a missing crit with no damage.


----------



## Eldorian (Aug 28, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> But Precision is *in the context of rolling a number *and  attempting to score  a critical hit.
> 
> ...




You're not arguing the rules say, you're arguing what you think the rules were meant to say.  And, I still disagree.



Artoomis said:


> 2.  Holy Ardor is not about rolling a number, but rolling a pair of numbers, an entirely new mechanic.
> 
> When the new mechanic and the omission of the word "can" (plus the whole "roll double ones thing) are viewed together, my conclusion is that this is an entirely new situation that is a new way to "score a critical hit" as oppose to a change to the number needed (which is the context of Precision).




No.  You're just making stuff up.  Rolling a pair of numbers is rolling numbers, so precision still applies.  And even if precision was about rolling A number (singular), the way that oath of enmity works, it still is rolling A number that isn't a 20 and scoring a critical hit, so precision STILL applies.  Roll two 2s, pick the higher one, score a critical hit, that 2 is a number other than 20, precision applies.

You are REALLY stretching to even suggest that rolling doubles due to oath of enmity is different than rolling numbers other than 20.




Artoomis said:


> So, *once again*, while I do feel my position is the stronger one, I think *we are both right.*
> 
> *Can you go so far as to agree we can both be right??*




No, I cannot agree.  You are incorrect.

I'm out.  This thread is pointless.


----------



## Artoomis (Aug 28, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> Without page 276 and 278 in the PHB a critical hit is nothing and means nothing.  How did you know to apply max damage without reading the critical hit rules you so firmly want to ignore?  A critical hit is first defined in the Hit rules on p276 which then sends you to p278 for more detailed info.  For a power to state "you score a critical" and you to take that to mean "do max damage requires you to skip those rules in their totality and if you do that your "critical hit" is now undefined and means nothing.  That is absurd in the extreme.
> 
> 1. Holy Ardor: "You score a critical hit".  (what is a critical hit? -> see p276 PHB to find out)
> 2. Oh wait...we have some rules here about our critical hit....let's find out if they apply...oh wait they do apply because the power I'm using doesn't say that they don't. (exception based design)
> ...




Okay, so what is a critical hit?

Page 276:  "If you roll a natural 20, you attack might be a critical hit (page278).  A critical hit deals maximum damage...

So here we learn that if you get a critical hit, you deal maximum damage, and we learn it takes a 20 to possibly get a critical hit.

Page 278:  Natural 20: If you roll a 20 on the die when making an attack roll, you score a critical hit if your total attack roll is high enough to hit your target’s defense. If your attack roll is too low to score a critical hit, you still hit automatically.

Precision: Some class features and powers allow you to score a critical hit when you roll numbers other than 20 (only a natural 20 is an automatic hit).

Damage section left out as not applicable to our conversation.

So here we learn that when you roll a natural 20, you "score a critical hit" if the attack roll is high enough to hit otherwise.  

Precision notes that you might be able to score a critical hit with a number other than a 20, but the rule about having to hit the defense score still applies.

So, what changes with Holy Ardor?

First, Holy Ardor doe NOT change the number needed for a critical, that's still a 20 (or 19-02, or 18-20)

Second, Holy Ardor creates AN ENTIRELY NEW mechanic of rolling doubles to "score a critical hit."

Wow - so what does THAT mean?

The first two paragraphs on page 278 (Critical Hit) do not apply because Holy Ardor REDEFINES what it takes to "score a critical hit" when using Holy Ardor.  The rules from page 276  "A critical hit deals maximum damage..."
 still applies

Holy Ardor simply creates a new exception to the Critical Hit rules because it both creates a new mechanic (roll doubles) and gives a rule for the result of that new mechanic (score a critical hit).

Note that by the rules for Critical Hits *it is not possible to ever score a critical hit and have that not be a hit.*  It *is* possible to score high enough to *possibly* be a critical hit and not get one, but that's not the Holy Ardor situation - Holy Ardor give a new way to "score a critical hit."

There is a LOT of misreading of "Precision."

Read in context, Precision simply tells you (re-phrased):

If you might score a Critical Hit due to some rule giving you that possibility on an 18 or 19, and you fail conifrm that is is indeed  critical hit by failing to beat the defense score, that same 18 or 19 will not give you an automatic hit like a 20.


----------



## Nifft (Aug 28, 2009)

One side: "it doesn't say *automatic* hit, so it's not a hit".

Other side: "it doesn't say *can* hit, so it is a hit".

And that's where we stand. Both sides are (to a degree) correct in their premises, since it says neither "can" nor "automatic". But neither can conclusively say that their chosen omission is decisive.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## N8Ball (Aug 28, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> Wow.... that is just ultimately false. You do understand that this is a complete and utter falsehood.
> 
> Different sentence, same wording.
> 
> ...




Your analogy isn't quite perfect.  "get into space" is the result.  If you want to write it like this then it would be a nice analogy.

"What physics says is that only a rocket can achieve escape velocity. That does not necessarily imply that achieving escape velocity is the only way to get into space.

I'll phrase it generically.  

What (this authority) says is that only (this condition) satisfies (this  mechanism).  That does not necessarily imply that (mechanism) is the only way to achieve the same (result) as (mechanism) achieves.

"automatic hit" is a rule (mechanism) which *when satisfied *achieves a hit (the result).


----------



## N8Ball (Aug 28, 2009)

Nifft said:


> One side: "it doesn't say *automatic* hit, so it's not a hit".
> 
> Other side: "it doesn't say *can* hit, so it is a hit".
> 
> ...




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.


----------



## CovertOps (Aug 28, 2009)

N8Ball said:


> 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.
> ...




If I accept your assertions as true the the following must also be true:

Power A:
Effect: You shift 3 squares.

General shift rules:  You cannot shift while prone.

Power A now allows you to shift while prone because of the absence of the word "can".  Because as we know the general rules don't apply if a power doesn't use the permissive form.


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 28, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> Precision notes that you might be able to score a critical hit with a number other than a 20, but the rule about having to hit the defense score still applies.
> 
> So, what changes with Holy Ardor?
> 
> ...




This is a valid refuttal of Precision if, and -only if-, Holy Ardor does not allow you to score a critical with numbers other than 20.  This is because -that- is the satisfying clause for Precision.

It has already been proven, by rigourous brute force, that in 1 occurance, Holy Ardor explicitly forbids a hit, in 1 occurance, the natural 20 rule kicks in and Holy Ardor's irrelevant, and in 18 occurance, you have a situation where Holy Ardor has enabled you to score a critical hit with a number other than 20.

So, in non-trivial cases, Holy Ardor is, by dint of fact, a feature that allows you to score a critical on numbers other than 20.

Therefore, it satisfies Precision's requirements.


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 28, 2009)

Nifft said:


> One side: "it doesn't say *automatic* hit, so it's not a hit".
> 
> Other side: "it doesn't say *can* hit, so it is a hit".
> 
> ...




But those premises are not in a vacuum.  As well, there is the mechanic that already exists that determines hits.  And, as well, that mechanic exists so that you do not need to be told how to hit or miss in 'non-standard' occurances that don't break those central rules.

So while the power omits the 'you hit' or 'you may not hit' mechanic, may other similiar mechanics also omit that statement, because it is implied that *in the absense of contravening evidence, you go with the default condition.*

And so, the ommision of definitive text declaring you -do- hit, along with contravening evidence in Precision stating that you do not apply the one special rule with crits that -could- apply, means that you should clearly exercise the default state.


----------



## Nifft (Aug 28, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> But those premises are not in a vacuum.  As well, there is the mechanic that already exists that determines hits.  And, as well, that mechanic exists so that you do not need to be told how to hit or miss in 'non-standard' occurances that don't break those central rules.



 Exception-based design, dude. All specific rules are exceptional ("non-standard"). The whole system is designed so that you have simple central rules, and specific exceptions that override those central rules.



DracoSuave said:


> So while the power omits the 'you hit' or 'you may not hit' mechanic, may other similiar mechanics also omit that statement, because it is implied that *in the absense of contravening evidence, you go with the default condition.*



* 1/ Not a power, just a new rule.
2/ It doesn't omit "you hit". It actually says "you hit". Your beef is that it doesn't say "you automatically hit".



DracoSuave said:



			evidence in Precision stating that you do not apply the one special rule with crits that -could- apply, means that you should clearly exercise the default state.
		
Click to expand...


 Exactly, crits that could apply (e.g. when a rule says "you can crit", which this one does not). This one says you do crit.

But, this is too wordy. Just answer this one simple question:

If the rule said "you automatically score a critical hit", would you still object?

Cheers, -- N*


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 29, 2009)

Nifft said:


> Exception-based design, dude. All specific rules are exceptional ("non-standard"). The whole system is designed so that you have simple central rules, and specific exceptions that override those central rules.
> 
> 1/ Not a power, just a new rule.
> 2/ It doesn't omit "you hit". It actually says "you hit". Your beef is that it doesn't say "you *automatically* hit".




It is a feature, and the fact it is a new rule does not negate the fact that all powers and features are rules and they've worked within the framework just fine.  A class feature is not inherently a rule of such newness that it requires abandoning the entire framework.

No, it does *not say 'you hit'.*  It says, 'you score a critical hit' which is specific terminology refered to by the -very- rule that can deny you the ability to hit.  Omitting the game terminology is as honest as me omitting a power that said:

'Targets: All creatures in burst
Attack: Strength vs AC
Hit: 1[W]+Strength damage and you shift 1 square for each target hit'

To the point where it said:

'Targets: All creatures in burst
...
Hit: ... you ... hit...

and using that as an argument to say that you automaticly hit with the power regardless of the hit result.

That's not a valid argument.



> *If the rule said "you automatically score a critical hit", would you still object?*




That would be poor rules templating, but I would have -less- of an objection.  In that case, you'd have a situation where there was an intent upon the designers to make the automatic nature of the hit clear.  You could see a measure of effort to put forth the case that the hit was automatic, and that would be a plausible premise to put forth in an argument.

This situation, however, does not have the benefit of that statement.  The word 'automaticly' does not appear, nor has there been any visible effort to put forth the idea that the attack automaticly hits.  All such efforts have been speculated by non-designers to put forth their argument.

So it's not the same situation at all.


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 29, 2009)

Nifft said:


> Exactly, crits that *could* apply (e.g. when a rule says "you *can* crit", which this one does not). This one says you *do* crit.




This attack on the argument -is- dishonest.  My rebuttal is 'Abilities that say you do something can be countermanded by rules that say you do not.  Therefore, the use of the word 'could' is correct, as it is the subjunctive case, speaking of an event that -may- occur.'

My grammar is correct in this instance, and using -correct- grammar as endorsement of your case when that grammar clearly indicates that it not such an endorsement is a dishonest counter-argument.


----------



## N8Ball (Aug 29, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> My grammar is correct in this instance, and using -correct- grammar as endorsement of your case when that grammar clearly indicates that it not such an endorsement is a dishonest counter-argument.




What? So you're saying that because he agreed with your *clear* articulation which used elements that we've been trying to get at for PAGES, that Nifft is dishonest for pointing that out?

That's not dishonest, that's just good debating.

You've been put in check, sir.  Your move.


----------



## Flipguarder (Aug 29, 2009)

My argument is that since there is no precedence for this kind of rule (in the way you are reading) and precision clearly shows that rules *like* this one need to actually hit without your reading being applied, there needs to be (and would be) clearer defining of what holy ardor meant, if in fact your interpretation is correct. As it stands, and the way it is written, it seems much more plausible that it DOES work like every other "crit-range" power.

Additionally, your reading of this rule puts an amount of stress and importance on the word "can" that also has no precedence (as far as I know). It also seems more likely to me that if the word was intended to have that much importance, there would be either typographical stress (such as a italics, bold or underlining) or additional clarification with parentheses. 

I believe I understand your argument very well. Im just saying that so you wont repeat the same statements we've been going over and over. My statement was a overall summary of my stance in regard to your reading. May it be enlightening or enflaming, meh.


----------



## N8Ball (Aug 29, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> My argument is that since there is no precedence for this kind of rule (in the way you are reading) and precision clearly shows that rules *like* this one need to actually hit without your reading being applied, there needs to be (and would be) clearer defining of what holy ardor meant, if in fact your interpretation is correct. As it stands, and the way it is written, it seems much more plausible that it DOES work like every other "crit-range" power.
> 
> Additionally, your reading of this rule puts an amount of stress and importance on the word "can" that also has no precedence (as far as I know). It also seems more likely to me that if the word was intended to have that much importance, there would be either typographical stress (such as a italics, bold or underlining) or additional clarification with parentheses.
> 
> I believe I understand your argument very well. Im just saying that so you wont repeat the same statements we've been going over and over. My statement was a overall summary of my stance in regard to your reading. May it be enlightening or enflaming, meh.




Not at all enflaming.  Actually a quite reasonable and well articulated summary on your issues with the precedent, and permissive language intrepretations of our position.  

Such a well reasoned and level headed response suggests that you truly do understand our position.  Thus, there is no need to explain our position any further. (at least to you, )   

Your reservations on the subjects are heard and acknowledged, and certainly not without merit.  

I feel that the mechanics of the rules are the purest form of rule adjudication which is why I have focused them so much in this discussion, but your thoughts on logical extensions of my assumptions would be appreciated. (see post 304)


----------



## Flipguarder (Aug 29, 2009)

As painful as it is to do this, I'll try to list some of the bitter pills for my point of view.

1. If my interpretation is correct, then the word "can" in crit-range features such as weapon mastery is completely superfluous.
2. If my interpretation is correct, Holy Ardor becomes weaker (which is counter-intuitive, because it is already fairly weak)
3. If my interpretation is correct, then the last sentence of Precision becomes the defining sentence of the entire section. Worse even, it is in parentheses.

ARGH... that's all I can do. Arguing against oneself is fairly painful if they are honest.


----------



## N8Ball (Aug 29, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> If I accept your assertions as true the the following must also be true:
> 
> Power A:
> Effect: You shift 3 squares.
> ...




Well I didn't want to rehash old arguments too much but perhaps this point needs some better explanation.  The difference here is in what rules are excepted by the power and what rules remain in force.  (that excepted, with an "e", not an "a")

I mentioned before that movement generally has player choices involved crit adjudication does not, but that is not at issue in the case you presented.

Second, movement is resolved with some significant differences to resolving hits and crits.  As written, all movement is adjudicated one square at a time, with multiple conditions being checked constantly.  Movement can be interrupted mid-move or stopped completely.  Resolving an attack roll is not a continuous process like moving.

Lastly and most importantly, the power you suggest creates an exception to the normal shift rules that say you only move 1 square (Pg 292) since it talks about shifting, but not to all the other rules in the other sections that apply to movement, like prone and immobilized. 

Note - My crit = hit assumption is the basis for the normal hit rules being excepted in the case of Holy Ardor.  Other rules that apply to crits still apply.

To draw an analogy to the Holy Ardor situation, if a Cleric ally had used the power Good Omens (Divine Oracle 12) which denys the possibility of a critical hit, then the Avenger would definitely not get a crit, much like the shift would not be allowed.  Rules that are not excepted by the power still apply.


----------



## N8Ball (Aug 29, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> As painful as it is to do this, I'll try to list some of the bitter pills for my point of view.
> 
> 1. If my interpretation is correct, then the word "can" in crit-range features such as weapon mastery is completely superfluous.
> 2. If my interpretation is correct, Holy Ardor becomes weaker (which is counter-intuitive, because it is already fairly weak)
> ...




Hah!  True enough.  
I appreciate the honesty with your own arguments, but I was asking if you could shoot some holes in *my* argument rather than your own. (we'll get you your argument after mine has been shot up ) Something in the vein of Covert Ops question to me.  

Or even better if my assumptions create some really ridiculous situation that I hadn't realized with some other powers or feats.  I would like the opportunity to explain or acknowledge any wonky power-feat-combo results that stem from my assumptions.


----------



## Flipguarder (Aug 29, 2009)

It's not really my favorite form of argument. For yours it basically just establishes a bunch of precedences. And (in my view) completely negates the precision rule.


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 29, 2009)

N8Ball said:


> Note - My crit = hit assumption is the basis for the normal hit rules being excepted in the case of Holy Ardor.  Other rules that apply to crits still apply.




This is the problem with your argument in the nutshell tho.  You've assumed that 'score a critical hit' is a hit, and you've used that as the basis of your argument that scoring a critical hit is a hit.

That's a blatantly circular argument.

Anyways... on to a different argument.

Daggervenger vs Ardorvenger.

Both are using Bloodiron weapons, a Execution Axe in the case of the Ardorvenger. Both will seek CA, and the Daggervenger will only use his Sneak Attack damage on his critical to maximise his effectiveness.  Both will start with 18 Wisdom.

At level 11:  18 Wisdom becomes 21 Wisdom, with Expertise, and +3 weapon, and Combat advantage, =5+5+2+3+2 = +17 base to hit, +20 with a dagger, +19 with Execution Axe.

Iron Gorgon is a level 11 monster with 25 AC.  Dagger needs 5 or better to hit, Exec needs 6.

So, out of 400 outcomes, Daggervenger will critical on 111 of them, and will otherwise hit with 273 of them.

On a hit, this Daggervenger will deal 1d4+10 damage (12.5 average), and on a crit, will deal 32+2X(3d10)+1d10 (32+7d10 | 70.5) damage.  Not bad.

The Ardorvenger will crit with 53, and otherwise hit with 322 outcomes.

On a hit, the Ardorvenger will deal (1d10+2)+10 damage (brutal 2)[17,5], and will deal on a crit: 22+2X(3d10)+1d10+1d10+2) (24+8d10 | 68) damage.

Now, let's do a comparison.

Ardorvenger is worse for these attacks if:

[68(53)+322(17.5)]/400 < [70.5(111)+12.5(273)]/400

Which turns out to 9239 < 11238.  So, yes, Ardorvenger does less damage per round at level 11.

-However-

This changes at level 16.

Bearing in mind that the bonuses to hit are constant between the roles, and the bonuses to damage from sources are constant, the big difference is in the size of the crits.

See, at that point, every time you crit you get a free attack.  Had this been applied above, you'd have 9239*453/400 instead of 9239 in there.  That would have made it 10139.8, instead of as close as it is now.

So while Ardor is less damaging over time, it is -certainly- not a bad damaging PP for an avenger at paragon level.  You're certainly not 'sucking' at those levels.  Then, when you get to epic, you take Eternal Defender.  This changes the math -considerably- on the side of the Ardorvenger.  While Daggermaster could theoreticly be dealing 2d6 with his weapon at-wills, the Eternal Ardorvenger is dealing... well instead of a 1d12 weapon with brutal 2, it's now a 2d6 weapon with brutal 2... so you're now looking at replacing 1d10+2 with 4d4+8.  

Once you get to Epic, Ardorvenger is a -clear- winner over a Daggervenger.

Of course, this is only with at-wills.  Once your [W] gets higher than 1, things change -dramaticly- as well.


This also doesn't take into account the possibility of a Rending Weapon, which gives you -more- attacks with criticals, but is only on an Axe.  In this case, you'd be reducing the amount per critical for the Ardorvenger by 3d10+6, or 21.5/outcome, or 1182.5 total, for a total value of 9239, or 8056.5, or 20.14125 DPA.

However... you end up with higher effective DPR because every crit gives you a free attack.  So, in 55/400 cases, you re-add in the DPR.  And every time -that- crits, you again add in the DPR.

So...

d = 20.14125 + 55d/400
400d = 8056.5 + 55d
345d = 8056.5
d = 23.3521...
400d= 9340.

So a Rending Axe is better DPR for an Ardorvenger, and with the capacity to make -two- free attacks at level 16, and at epic being a 2d4+4 (effective) weapon...

This could actually get to be quite sick.

Oh yeah, Irresistable Ardor and Battle Rapture are not terrible powers as well.  Unlike a Daggermaster's powers which are... not exactly great for you.


----------



## Flipguarder (Aug 29, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> This is the problem with your argument in the nutshell tho.  You've assumed that 'score a critical hit' is a hit, and you've used that as the basis of your argument that scoring a critical hit is a hit.
> 
> That's a blatantly circular argument.




No actually a circular argument is much different. At it's worst, this is a false assumption.

A circular argument looks like this.

Milk is good because it is white.
Anything that is white is good, because milk is white.

EDIT: on second thought that _might_ be a circular argument... lemme ponder that for a sec...

Naw it's not see. He's not using both statements as premises for one another, which is a circular argument. I think from your point of view, his failure is simply from a false premise. That being "A critical hit is _always_ a hit.


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 29, 2009)

N8Ball said:


> Hah!  True enough.
> I appreciate the honesty with your own arguments, but I was asking if you could shoot some holes in *my* argument rather than your own. (we'll get you your argument after mine has been shot up ) Something in the vein of Covert Ops question to me.
> 
> Or even better if my assumptions create some really ridiculous situation that I hadn't realized with some other powers or feats.  I would like the opportunity to explain or acknowledge any wonky power-feat-combo results that stem from my assumptions.




Here's the big logical hole, the -big- problem if your assumption is correct.

It means that the designers are endevoring to create rules that require semantic examination of multiple source materials in order to divine their hidden meaning so that one can properly adjudicate the effect and understand -what the hell is going on here- rather than simply assuming that unless told otherwise, things work normally.

In otherwords, that the 4e designers have abandoned the attempts to clear and concise rule design in favor of arcane unreachable designs that their core audience cannot possibly learn to intuit.

That's a pretty big hole there.


----------



## Flipguarder (Aug 29, 2009)

In my view, any specific ruling is equally problematic in those terms Draco. Think of it as though you were playing and had no idea what we have already talked about.

Player "I rolled two 2s on my attack rolls, sweet I crit."
DM "Ha, you hit on a two?"
Player "I don't need to."

DM "nope, see here in precision, all the crit-range rules don't give you automatic hits"
OR
Player "Look, see here under "Holy Ardor" You SCORE a critical hit, that means that you don't even need to go through precision, it hits because the feature says it hits."

After typing that... I think I see your point lol


----------



## Nifft (Aug 29, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> That's not a valid argument.



 Yes, it is, and all your straw men won't make it otherwise.



DracoSuave said:


> That would be poor rules templating, but I would have -less- of an objection.  In that case, you'd have a situation where there was an intent upon the designers to make the automatic nature of the hit clear.  You could see a measure of effort to put forth the case that the hit was automatic, and that would be a plausible premise to put forth in an argument.



 The longest and least committal way to agree so far.



DracoSuave said:


> This situation, however, does not have the benefit of that statement.  The word 'automaticly' does not appear



 Well spotted! In fact, that's rather my point.

Neither does the word "can".

If either did, this thread would be short.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## CovertOps (Aug 29, 2009)

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:


> if you roll doubles..._and you hit even if you don't roll high enough to beat the targets defense_ and that hit is a critical hit "




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.


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 29, 2009)

Nifft said:


> Yes, it is, and all your straw men won't make it otherwise.




Actually, it's a fallacy by misrepresentation, where you twist the meaning of a word from its correct context into an incorrect context.

An example of -exactly- what you're trying to do:

'You -could- have that sandwich if you had the money.'
'AHA you said I could have that sandwich!  Gimme!'
'You don't have the money.'
'But you said I -could-!'

As should be obvious, it's not a valid nor even cogent argument to put forth, as it's based on incorrect premises, i.e., that the word 'could' was intended to indicate permissivity rather than subjunctivity, when the subjunctive intent should be obvious from context. 

And an argument without correct premises is not a valid argument.


----------



## N8Ball (Aug 30, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> 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.




I wasn't planning on getting back into it, but how can I refuse such a well articulated request for explanation?  You present a well stated question that deserves a least a good effort at a worthy response.

(Note- my explanation relies on the "permissive" assumption defended elsewhere.  I will attempt to answer your "bypass the hit rules" question)

You stated that the rules on crits have never been used before to declare a hit.  This is absolutely true.  In every instance prior to this, hitting was always a prerequisite.  i.e the only paths to crit went through the hit rules.

Holy Ardor comes along and says you crit.  It is unlike other similar powers like RRoT and Prophecy of Doom (Divine Oracle 11) that explicitly require you to hit before you can get a crit.  Holy Ardor just says you crit.

So what part of it's requirements are outside the normal hit rules?  Well the mechanic they provide in the rule is rolling doubles.  There's nothing like that in the normal hit rules.

Because every crit ability to date either only changed the crittable numbers (but still used the other crit requirements) or explicitly required you to hit first, the hit rules were *always* used first, *before* a crit was declared.  Holy Ardor doesn't follow this precedent, suggesting that it is a bit different than those precursor crit abilities.

The *mechanic* of satisfying Holy Ardor is entirely outside the normal hit rules.  Natural 20 (auto hit) is the only other case I can think of that doesn't add something to the roll or compare the number to the defense to determine a hit.  With Holy Ardor you're just seeing if the numbers are the same.  That's pretty distinct and certainly doesn't modify anything in the normal hit rules, *but satisfying that mechanic isn't dependent on the hit rules either.*  (unlike the RROT and PoD mechanics of achieving crits)

So the conclusion is that it's a new mechanic that isn't subordinate to the hit rules, but acts in tandem with them providing an alternate way to get a crit.



> 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.




Well, the intentions of the designers are kind of what we're debating here isn't it?  But if there *were* a way to *definitively* determine that this was not what they intended then I could possibly agree with that part.  As it is, I think the designers were trying to do something new as well as relying (too much?) on the common conception that a crit is a hit.  I agree that such a new mechanic should have more explanation around it, regardless of who's right about it.

Because of the new mechanic, I don't think Holy Ardor changes any of the normal hit rules.  In fact, I don't think it relies on them much at all except to tell us that crits are hits.  After all, critical hit is a subheading of hit.


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 30, 2009)

N8Ball said:


> I think the designers were trying to do something new as well as relying (too much?) on the common conception that a crit is a hit.




The problem with this 'common conception' is that it is counter-intuitive in the face of a rule that flat out says that you wouldn't.  Which means that they chose to rely on a 'common conception' rather than a rule in the game.

That is not a good precedent to make, and it is somewhat antithetical to the directions of Wizards of the Coast game design in general.



> But if there *were* a way to definitively determine that this was not what they intended then I could possibly agree with that part.




The fallacy in this line of thinking is that it makes the insinuation that a rule requires permission in order to work within its bailiwick.  That's like saying that Basic Melee Attack needs a complete list of weapons in order for any of those weapons to be used with it.  (But it doesn't -say- you can use a battleaxe!)  Or that pushes can be towards you unless it says away from you.  (But it doesn't -say- it has to follow the normal push rules!)  Or that fire resistance doesn't work with fire damage.  (But it doesn't -say- that fire resistance can work on it!)

When there -is- a rule written for a case, and that case follows the text of that rule, you do not need the case to tell you to apply that rule.  The rule -existing- is case enough.   



> Because of the new mechanic, I don't think Holy Ardor changes any of the normal hit rules. In fact, I don't think it relies on them much at all except to tell us that crits are hits. After all, critical hit is a subheading of hit.




And so the part in the crit rules that remind you that what would be a crit cannot be a crit if it would not hit is -not- a reminder of the opposite? 

 I'm just curious as to why you skip out the only part of the crit rules that goes against what you say and claim it does not apply.  I'm -trying- to establish what -exact- language that exists in Holy Ardor but is not directly referenced in Precision says 'This hits regardless of the roll.'

I know this seems repetative, but it's the one thing -you have not done-.  And it's the -only- thing you need to do to prove your case.  Not appealing to authority (with dubious speculation).  Not inferring based on an irrelevant clause.  Not with a circular argument.  With a single piece of language that says that Holy Ardor hits, and is -not- referenced by Precision.

So, here's Holy Ardor again, and I've highlighted in green the parts not -directly- referenced by Precision, and -redded- out the parts referenced by Precision.

Whenever you make two attack rolls because of your _oath of emnity_, you score a critical hit if both dice have the same roll , except if both rolls are 1.

'Score a critical hit' is directly referenced by precision, so that which scores a critical hit satisfies one of Precision's conditions.  The other is proven to produce rolls other than 20, so it satisfies the other one of Precision's twoconditions.  That leaves you to find a hit within what is left, or a rule that says that Precision does not apply.

Good luck.



> After all, critical hit is a subheading of hit.




And Critical Hit goes on to tell you that even if otherwise allowed, there are cases where they may not occur, and tells you what those cases are.  Prove that Holy Ardor is not one of those cases.  You've proven it scores a critical hit.  No one is doubting that.  Now prove that the rules for when critical hits -do not apply- when they otherwise would do not themselves apply.

That is where the burden of proof lies.  The very crit rules themselves tell you that a crit doesn't equal a hit, automaticly.  So prove then that Holy Ardor gets to ignore this.


----------



## CovertOps (Aug 30, 2009)

N8Ball said:


> Holy Ardor comes along and says you crit.  It is unlike other similar powers like RRoT and Prophecy of Doom (Divine Oracle 11) that explicitly require you to hit before you can get a crit.  Holy Ardor just says you crit.
> 
> So what part of it's requirements are outside the normal hit rules?  Well the mechanic they provide in the rule is rolling doubles.  There's nothing like that in the normal hit rules.
> 
> ...




All of this misses the mark completely.  I'm going to do two cases below to show the options the way I see it.

1.  Holy Ardor provides a critical hit.
2.  This overrides the normal hit rules.
3.  Since this is the case we can *no longer look at any of the hit rules to prove what Holy Ardor does or does not do*.  We must now rely only on the rules text within the power granting us an exception in order to determine the outcome.
4.  Our result is now undefined because we no longer have a definition of critical hit or hit and there is no such definition in the text of Holy Ardor.


1.  Holy Ardor provides a critical hit.
2.  This does not override the normal hit rules.
3.  Consult the normal hit rules to determine what a critical hit is.
4.  A critical hit requires that we have hit the target so let's check if this is true.
5.  If we hit, now apply the rules for crit that we were granted (max damage etc).

You are suggesting a modified form of the first case where you somehow get to both use the normal hit rules to prove that "critical" = "hit" and simultaneously ignore the requirements of a hit.  You can't use the rules in such a fashion.  Either you use the WHOLE rule or none of it (OR the power granting the exception tells you specifically what sections you get to ignore and how - but it should be noted that Holy Ardor does NOT do this).  For this reason I asked you to prove what text (within the body of Holy Ardor) grants you a hit without needing to hit the defense of the target because if there were such text I could agree with your assertion as you have now given an alternate version of the hit rules and can now truly ignore the hit rules in their entirety.


----------



## Flipguarder (Aug 30, 2009)

As a complete sidenote, I would like to say that this has been one of the healthiest, infotainmentiest, and most reasonable forum discussions I've ever had the pleasure of being a part of.


----------



## Eldorian (Aug 30, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> So, here's Holy Ardor again, and I've highlighted in green the parts not -directly- referenced by Precision, and -redded- out the parts referenced by Precision.
> 
> Whenever you make two attack rolls because of your _oath of emnity_, you score a critical hit if both dice have the same roll , except if both rolls are 1.
> 
> ...




You just said in a novel what I said in an abstract.  If they won't read the abstract, maybe they'll read the novel?  I just can't get through.


----------



## Kraydak (Aug 30, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> I have finally put my finger on what I think bothers me most about this.
> 
> Assertion: "Score a critical hit" = "hit"




Given that the mechanics of critical hits don't care whether you are running the "hit" line or the "miss" line, there is no reason to believe that "Score a critical hit" = "hit".  While it is true that, pre Ardent Champion, all critical hit triggers were also hits, there is no rule stating that that must be the case.

The "minimal contradiction"+"specific beats general" reading is: if you score doubles and hit, run a critical hit (maxed non-critical dependent damage dice, and trigger everything that triggers off crits) using any relevant "effect" lines and any relevant "hit" lines.  If you score doubles (not 1s) and miss, run a critical hit using any relevant "effect" lines and any relevant "miss" lines.  If you score double 1s, run any  relevant "effect" lines and any relevant "miss" lines (but not as criticals).


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 30, 2009)

Eldorian said:


> You just said in a novel what I said in an abstract.  If they won't read the abstract, maybe they'll read the novel?  I just can't get through.




Colors dude!  Colors!


----------



## N8Ball (Aug 31, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> 1.  Holy Ardor provides a critical hit.
> 2.  This overrides the normal hit rules.
> 3.  Since this is the case we can *no longer look at any of the hit rules to prove what Holy Ardor does or does not do*.  We must now rely only on the rules text within the power granting us an exception in order to determine the outcome.
> 4.  Our result is now undefined because we no longer have a definition of critical hit or hit and there is no such definition in the text of Holy Ardor.
> ...




I see what you're saying, but I disagree that the Hit (or crit) section must be taken as a whole unit.  The definitions of those terms (hit/crit) still apply.  I don't think it's an all or nothing proposition as you suggest.

Also, Prophecy of Doom does not SPECIFICALLY spell out that a hitting ally does not need a 20 to crit (a normal requirement the power ignores), it just says they may "choose to make the attack a critial hit."  

Both sections (hit and crit) do 2 things:  One thing they do is tell you how you get a hit/crit NORMALLY.  The other thing they do is tell you what a hit/crit IS.  The latter part (definition) has never been skipped over by a rule, nor should it be in this case.

Like you pointed out, there are other feats that only change part of the requirements, and there are also abilities that let you crit if you meet the requirements of the ability  (RRot and PoD).  Once case modified the normal requirements (Mastery), one provided a new avenue for getting a crit altogether, thus bypassing the normal rules for getting a crit. (the new avenues happened to also explicitly require a hitting roll).

So even when abilities grant ways to bypass the normal requirements for things, the definitions of those things still apply.


----------



## CovertOps (Aug 31, 2009)

N8Ball said:


> I see what you're saying, but I disagree that the Hit (or crit) section must be taken as a whole unit.  The definitions of those terms (hit/crit) still apply.  I don't think it's an all or nothing proposition as you suggest.




If you are going to apply the rule (ie use it to prove your assertion of crit = hit noting that is has never been used in this fashion) then I have to stick with yes you are stuck with all parts of the rule and it's requirements.  If you were only using it's definition then I'd agree, but you're not.  Or alternatively show me some specific text in Holy Ardor that overrides the requirements of "hit".


----------



## CovertOps (Aug 31, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> As a complete sidenote, I would like to say that this has been one of the healthiest, infotainmentiest, and most reasonable forum discussions I've ever had the pleasure of being a part of.




Seconded.


----------



## N8Ball (Sep 1, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> If you are going to apply the rule (ie use it to prove your assertion of crit = hit noting that is has never been used in this fashion) then I have to stick with yes you are stuck with all parts of the rule and it's requirements.  If you were only using it's definition then I'd agree, but you're not.  Or alternatively show me some specific text in Holy Ardor that overrides the requirements of "hit".




I'm not sure I fully understand your objection.  There are plenty of examples where the normal requirements for something are overridden (like new ways to get opportunity attacks), but just because you skip the normal requirements, doesn't mean you need to also dispose of the rules on what that thing IS.  You still need to know how to apply the thing the ability granted you, be it a critical hit or an opportunity attack.  This is the same.


Could you elaborate on this part, I'm not sure what you mean here.


> If you were only using it's definition then I'd agree, but you're not.


----------



## CovertOps (Sep 1, 2009)

N8Ball said:


> I'm not sure I fully understand your objection.  There are plenty of examples where the normal requirements for something are overridden (like new ways to get opportunity attacks), but just because you skip the normal requirements, doesn't mean you need to also dispose of the rules on what that thing IS.  You still need to know how to apply the thing the ability granted you, be it a critical hit or an opportunity attack.  This is the same.
> 
> 
> Could you elaborate on this part, I'm not sure what you mean here.




To use your car analogy from earlier:

I have a steering wheel, therefore I have a car.

The steering wheel represents your critical and the car represents a "hit".  The steering wheel is a subset of "car", but just because you have one it does not necessarily follow that you have a car.  The "definition" of a steering wheel may be that it is part of the car, but having one does not prove that you have the car.

My point (as it has been all along) is that you are using the general rules to prove something they were never intended to prove.  For exception based design to work you have to follow one basic principle.  The general rule ALWAYS applies unless specifically overridden by some other rule.  Following this edict, (as it has been since this debate started) nothing in Holy Ardor says that you hit, therefore the hit rules (read this as requirements) still apply.

You on the other hand are taking the rules you were given "score a critical hit" and attempting to then use the general rules on hit to both prove that you hit AND that the requirements for hit don't apply even without a specific exemption.  In essence you are attempting to use the general rules on hit to prove that the general rules on hit don't apply which is by it's very nature a circular argument.

Quite frankly you are wrong.  All that is left is for you to accept it.  Any other reading where you create a "brand new mechanic" would require even MORE override text detailing how the power works exactly and what rules it gets to ignore and how it gets to ignore them.  If said power does not include such text, but you attempt to read it that way then you have broken the only principle I listed above for exception based design.  If indeed WotC intended for Holy Ardor to grant you a hit even if you didn't beat the defense of the target then it needs errata to that effect.  If rolling doubles is a "brand new mechanic" then it needs rules text detailing this "new mechanic" and exactly how it works.  Your entire premise is that this "brand new mechanic" is somehow detailed in the general rules on hit which simply can't be true.  The hit rules don't have any more or less meaning than they had a year ago when they came out.


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 1, 2009)

> In essence you are attempting to use the general rules on hit to prove that the general rules on hit don't apply which is by it's very nature a circular argument.




Actually it's a contradiction of the form:

'The hit rules work, and therefore, by logical conclusion, the hit rules do not work'

which symbolicly is:

q <=> ~p <- p

q cannot be true for any value of p.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 1, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> All of this misses the mark completely.  I'm going to do two cases below to show the options the way I see it.
> 
> 1.  Holy Ardor provides a critical hit.
> 2.  This overrides the normal hit rules.
> ...




Here's what I believe is a more accurate view:

1.  Holy Ardor provides a new way to *score a critical hit.*
2.  Since this is the case we can *skip straight to applying critical damage*.

1.  Holy Ardor provides a *potential* critical hit (forcing the actual "score a critical hit" language to really mean "score a possible critical hit").
2.  This does not override the normal hit rules.
3.  Consult the normal hit rules to determine what a critical hit is.
4.  A critical hit requires that we have hit the target so let's check if this is true.
5.  If we hit, now apply the rules for crit that we were granted (max damage etc).

Which is truly the simpler interpretation?

It seems to me it is much simpler to use the first two steps above, and this is legitimate because "score a critical hit" means, well, "score a critical hit," not, "possibly score a critical hit."

*Anyway, I am at a loss as why the folks here cannot simply agree that both arguments have solid foundations in the rules as written and therefore both sides can be correct.*

I can understand arguing that one side or the other has the stronger argument, but that in no way means the other side is "wrong."


----------



## N8Ball (Sep 1, 2009)

Draco, if you would like to put MY argument in logical form, then you must assume the things I assume (that the requirements and definition of a thing are distinct parts of the rules).  What you described is not what I'm saying, so proving it wrong doesn't really say anything.



CovertOps said:


> To use your car analogy from earlier:
> 
> I have a steering wheel, therefore I have a car.
> 
> The steering wheel represents your critical and the car represents a "hit".  The steering wheel is a subset of "car", but just because you have one it does not necessarily follow that you have a car.  The "definition" of a steering wheel may be that it is part of the car, but having one does not prove that you have the car.




Your analogy doesn't really describe the relationship I'm suggesting.  A Critical hit is not a PART of a hit, nor is it something normally included IN a hit, like your steering wheel.   I'm saying that it's a special TYPE of hit, so my analogy of a BMW 323i as a TYPE of car is much closer to what I'm suggesting.  You are free to suggest that a critical hit is just a BMW and not necessarily a car (they make motorcycles as well).

Also, my argument for a crit being a hit referenced several places and examples, the hit section being just one of those places where crits are described.  I also used the High Crit section, an example in the text and section on critical hits, but if that were not enough, here's another example that provides some context as to what the authors intended.



			
				Skewer the Weak (Sword Marshal 16th level): said:
			
		

> When you score a critical hit using a heavy blade, you and all your allies gain combat advantage *against the enemy you struck* until the end of your next turn.




The idea that a crit = hit is founded in several places, and building an argument that uses this idea to prove someing else is not circular.  A circular argument is when you use an asusmption to prove that very thing you're assuming.

My assumption is based in examples from the PHB and is used to intrepret a power in Divine power.  There's no circle there, just a constructed argument with multiple parts.




> My point (as it has been all along) is that you are using the general rules to prove something they were never intended to prove.  For exception based design to work you have to follow one basic principle.  The general rule ALWAYS applies unless specifically overridden by some other rule.  Following this edict, (as it has been since this debate started) nothing in Holy Ardor says that you hit, therefore the hit rules (read this as requirements) still apply.



This standard is not applied like you suggest in interpreting other powers.  Take this for example:


			
				Exhalted Retribution (Paladin 25) said:
			
		

> Effect: Until the end of the encounter, the target provokes an opportunity attack from you when it attacks (save ends). You gain a +2 bonus to the opportunity attack roll
> and deal an extra 1[W] damage.




Now, it doesn't say that the attack that provokes must be a ranged attack, so do we assume that since the general rules were not specifically overridden?  No, we just do what the power allows in generic form.  When the target attacks (in any way) we get an opportunity attack, and what's more, even though we're ignoring normal requirements of the opportunity attack, we must still reference what the definition of an opportunity attack IS (a basic melee attack).




> Quite frankly you are wrong.  All that is left is for you to accept it.



Now don't get all "Dracosuave" on me here.  Most of the exchanges so far have been civil enough to leave out statements like these, as much as we both might feel like saying them.


----------



## Flipguarder (Sep 1, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> Which is truly the simpler interpretation?




Wow that's an awful way to argue. Why in any way would the simpler interpretation be more reasonable, correct, or better in any way.



N8Ball said:


> Now don't get all "Dracosuave" on me here.



Yeah, and using someone's name as an adjective is totally civil...


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 1, 2009)

> Your analogy doesn't really describe the relationship I'm suggesting. A Critical hit is not a PART of a hit, nor is it something normally included IN a hit, like your steering wheel. I'm saying that it's a special TYPE of hit, so my analogy of a BMW 323i as a TYPE of car is much closer to what I'm suggesting. You are free to suggest that a critical hit is just a BMW and not necessarily a car (they make motorcycles as well).




So... um... his logic still applies ya?

But regardless:



> The idea that a crit = hit is founded in several places, and building an argument that uses this idea to prove someing else is not circular. A circular argument is when you use an asusmption to prove that very thing you're assuming.




This would be a convincing argument except for one single flaw.  The idea that a crit does not always hit is founded in the very rules that describe crits in the first place.  So you have rules -outside- critical hit that tell you what to do when you critically hit successfully, and that's all fine and good, but you have to successfully do so first--and the critical hit rules themselves tell you that this is not always the case.  So, you have 'suggestions' it might not get cancelled, but your opposing camp has a -rule- that says it *does* get cancelled.



> Now, it doesn't say that the attack that provokes must be a ranged attack, so do we assume that since the general rules were not specifically overridden? No, we just do what the power allows in generic form. When the target attacks (in any way) we get an opportunity attack, and what's more, even though we're ignoring normal requirements of the opportunity attack, we must still reference what the definition of an opportunity attack IS (a basic melee attack).




It adds on an additional method to provoke an attack of opportunity.  It says '____ provokes an opportunity attack'.  Plain language.  Flat out -says- it.  What is different is Holy Ardor does not flat out say that you hit, and you have language that says you do not hit in the rules themselves.

As well, opportunity attacks do not tell you that you cannot OA from melee or close attacks, or suggest that you can't.  What it tells you is a list of times when you do so.  And then it adds this on.  Critical hits, on the other hand, gives you a short list of times when a critical can be an automatic hit (on a natural-20, and even then automatic hit <> critical) and then -flat out tells you- that non-20s do not qualify.


The two examples seem similiar but there are quite jarring differences between them, logically.



> Now don't get all "Dracosuave" on me here. Most of the exchanges so far have been civil enough to leave out statements like these, as much as we both might feel like saying them.




Heh.

Also, to prestall a rebuttal, 'automatic hit' within the critical hit rules clearly refers to the instance where you ignore the normal hit resolution rules and not to cases where you ignore what the dice say or do.  You -know- this because you actually have to roll the dice and check what you roll before the automatic hit from a 20 can even be applied.

So, if your dice are rolling on the table, and you're skipping the hit roll, then that's what is refered to by 'automatic hit'.  So yes, it -is- applicable in the case of Precision and Holy Ardor.



> 1. Holy Ardor provides a new way to score a critical hit.
> 2. Since this is the case we can skip straight to applying critical damage.




In the first case, yes, it -is- a new way of scoring a critical hit.  But that means we must apply the critical hit rules, and one of them says you have to check to see if it is a natural 20, because if not, you do not have an automatic hit, and therefore -must- check the normal hit rules in order to continue.

If you have a critical hit, you apply the critical hit rules.  You do not -skip- the critical hit rules unless you are told to do so.

So, again, I challenge you:

Find me the automatic hit.  If it exists it is in the green parts:

Whenever you make two attack rolls because of your oath of emnity, you score a critical hit if both dice have the same roll , except if both rolls are 1.

The red parts are directly refered to by Precision, and Precision has every reason to modify it.  Show me language in there that either claims Precision does not, or that the ability circumvents Precision.

That is all you need to do to prove your case, is -prove- the rule does not apply.  When a rule has language that states it applies, it applies in the absense of an exception.  Show the -exception.-  

That is the -one- thing you have yet to do.


----------



## ricardo440 (Sep 1, 2009)

Wow 18 pages. Can't profess to reading them all.

When I first read the power I thought any double (hit or miss normally) would cause a critical hit.
The mention of the "doesn't work on double 1s" I thought implied that was the only miss it wouldn't work on (or why mention it).
And I assumed it was a niffty way of increasing the critical chance by a reasonable amount in an interesting way.
I thought the idea was doubles were cooler than criticalling on a 19-20 (which would give a very different extra crit percentage, much better in fact), So it increased your chances of criticalling a bit (about 5%).

I can see the arguments of the people saying you still need to hit. But I just think it would have been worded differently, and its intention is kinda missed.
I think the idea is as you play, you roll and a double comes up and "YES!" you critical, you don't need to work out anything else. See the double and you win the prize.


BTW I have no real rules arguments to back this up, nor do I want to. I think others have done enough of that already. This is just how I thought having read the power.


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 1, 2009)

ricardo440 said:


> I think the idea is as you play, you roll and a double comes up and "YES!" you critical, you don't need to work out anything else. See the double and you win the prize.




Putting the rules lawyer and math analysis part of me aside for a moment.

This is a perfectly legitimate reason for a DM to rule.

See the doubles.  Win the prize.

Nicely put.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 1, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> Wow that's an awful way to argue. Why in any way would the simpler interpretation be more reasonable, correct, or better in any way...




Consdier it a rebuttable to the ealrtier Occam's Razor argument.


----------



## keterys (Sep 1, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> Putting the rules lawyer and math analysis part of me aside for a moment.
> 
> This is a perfectly legitimate reason for a DM to rule.
> 
> ...




It's why I very much suspect the intent is for it to work that way, even if I think the written is clearly otherwise.

For most games, just go with whatever you (where you is, I suppose, the DM) think will be better for the game. For something like LFR, you're slightly more shackled depending on the group.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 1, 2009)

keterys said:


> It's why I very much suspect the intent is for it to work that way, even if I think the written is clearly otherwise.
> 
> For most games, just go with whatever you (where you is, I suppose, the DM) think will be better for the game. For something like LFR, you're slightly more shackled depending on the group.




Right now, for LFR, you've got a really good argument for playing it either way, as shown by this discussion, so it will be a DM's call until WotC puts out some form of clarification.

I could see DM's calling it either way and standing behind that call - and they'd be correct (as in LFR correct) no matter which whey they ruled.


----------



## N8Ball (Sep 1, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> Also, to prestall a rebuttal, 'automatic hit' within the critical hit rules clearly refers to the instance where you ignore the normal hit resolution rules and not to cases where you ignore what the dice say or do.  You -know- this because you actually have to roll the dice and check what you roll before the automatic hit from a 20 can even be applied.
> 
> So, if your dice are rolling on the table, and you're skipping the hit roll, then that's what is refered to by 'automatic hit'.  So yes, it -is- applicable in the case of Precision and Holy Ardor.




"Automatic hit" refers to ONE way to skip the normal to hit rules.  The text under automatic hit does not say "whenever you skip the hit-resolution it's an automatic hit" or anything of the sort.  Until Holy Ardor, it was the only way, but not because it explicitly said it governed all similar cases where you skip the math part of hitting, it was because it was the only rule so far that *described* skipping those rules.

So, when I skip the hit roll by using Holy Ardor, I am NOT using the automatic hit rule, nor am I changing the Automatic hit rule (so Precision is satisfied).  I'm doing something independent of it and achieving similar results.  That's why you can't find "Automatic Hit" anywhere, because Holy Ardor doesn't use it or modify it.

Also, sorry for using your name as an adjective, that was out of bounds on my part.


----------



## CovertOps (Sep 1, 2009)

Darn work...I just can't reply quick enough to keep up.

I'm curious about something among those of us saying Critical Hit <> Hit (Flipguarder, Keyters, myself, Draco, and any others I may have left out).  Do any of you believe that RAI is the same as the position we are defending?

I'll start.  I'm not really sure anymore what the intent was.  In general I think the feature is underpowered and should be granted the slight increase in crit range and be given the hit even on double 2's, but would want this clearly stated in the body of the power so it becomes an exception like any other power with exceptions.


Hit rules (p276 PHB)
...

Critical Hit rules (p278 PHB)
...

To me "score a critical hit" means you met the requirements listed on p278 for getting a critical.  It does not mean you met the requirements of "Hit" on p276.  It does not say that in any way in the body of the power nor does it give you an exception from the "Hit" rules only an exception to the "Critical Hit" rules.  "Critical Hit" is indented under the "Hit" rules and clearly subordinate.  The "Hit" rules have a higher priority in cases where the "Critical Hit" rules might say otherwise.

1. The "Hit" rules tell you that if you hit you might have a critical.  See the rules on Criticals.
2. Holy Ardor grants you a "Critical Hit".
3. If you have "Hit" then Holy Ardor overrides the requirements of criticals on p278 and you can now go straight to max damage.


Their position is that "Hit" is a requirement of "Critical Hit" and therefore granting one gives the other.

1. I am granted a "Critical Hit" by Holy Ardor.
2. By definition a "Critical Hit" must be a "Hit"
3. So now a subordinate rule ("Critical Hit") just told the "Hit" rules that they don't apply to the "Critical Hit" rules.  This is deeply flawed.

It means that while you need to "Hit" in order to get a "Critical Hit" all you need to do is be granted a "Critical Hit" and suddenly the "Hit" rules become subordinate to the "Critical Hit" rules.  So this means that "Critical Hit" rules can override the "Hit" rules?  This is circular logic.


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 1, 2009)

N8Ball said:


> "Automatic hit" refers to ONE way to skip the normal to hit rules.  The text under automatic hit does not say "whenever you skip the hit-resolution it's an automatic hit" or anything of the sort.  Until Holy Ardor, it was the only way, but not because it explicitly said it governed all similar cases where you skip the math part of hitting, it was because it was the only rule so far that *described* skipping those rules.
> 
> So, when I skip the hit roll by using Holy Ardor, I am NOT using the automatic hit rule, nor am I changing the Automatic hit rule (so Precision is satisfied).  I'm doing something independent of it and achieving similar results.  That's why you can't find "Automatic Hit" anywhere, because Holy Ardor doesn't use it or modify it.




You missed the point here.

Precision uses automatic hit to refer to cases where the results of the dice allow you to skip normal hit-resolution.  You are telling us that Holy Ardor gives a situation that allows you to skip normal hit-resolution based on the results of the dice.

The implication here is that they are, in fact, refering to the same thing.

Regardless, the point stands: without text saying that you -do- hit, you must apply all normal rules.  In the absense of 'You hit' you apply the rules of Critical hit, which include 'Only a 20 is an automatic hit'.

Both instances of 'automatic hit' or 'hit automaticly' are for the case of natural 20, where it says: 'If your attack roll is too low to score a critical hit, you still hit automatically.'

So thusly, the -only- precident one has for a case where one rolls and does not exceed defense but still hits -actually includes explicit text to that point.-

It even goes beyond 'when you roll a natural 20 you hit automaticly' but even goes on to say -what that means, exactly.-

Are you -honestly- trying to tell me that Holy Ardor does the same thing but without the actual text saying so?  That if it meant -that- that they would neglect to say -that-, when they -do- say so, and redundantly, for the -other- case in the rules?

Seriously?



> Also, sorry for using your name as an adjective, that was out of bounds on my part.




Pffft.  Doesn't bother me.

EDIT:



> I'm curious about something among those of us saying Critical Hit <> Hit (Flipguarder, Keyters, myself, Draco, and any others I may have left out). Do any of you believe that RAI is the same as the position we are defending?




I believe that if they'd intended for the hit to be automatic, they'd said so, or otherwise indicated this.  They'd not leave the intent up to the absense of a word 'can' especially given general rules templating -is- slowly phasing out that word in many cases.

If they'd intended the hit to be automatic, they'd include '...you automaticly hit, and...' within the text. 

It's not like there isn't room for it in that whitespace sitting there.


----------



## keterys (Sep 1, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> Right now, for LFR, you've got a really good argument for playing it either way




While you do believe that, I do not. Hence, as an LFR DM I would have to rule one way if I were being strict, and as an LFR player I would not try to play it your way - I wouldn't even ask. I flat out do not believe that is the rules as written, and I would find it dishonest to present it as such. Especially given the response from CS.

I do, however, strongly suspect that it is the rules as intended, so if a player in my home game wanted to play the class, I'd tell them to go with it that way unless overruled by WotC.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 2, 2009)

keterys said:


> While you do believe that, I do not. Hence, as an LFR DM I would have to rule one way if I were being strict, and as an LFR player I would not try to play it your way - I wouldn't even ask. I flat out do not believe that is the rules as written, and I would find it dishonest to present it as such. Especially given the response from CS.
> 
> I do, however, strongly suspect that it is the rules as intended, so if a player in my home game wanted to play the class, I'd tell them to go with it that way unless overruled by WotC.




Ah, but my point is that I firmly believe that the rules, as written, support my view even better than yours.

Since you believe the opposite, either way would be allowed under LFR rules.  It would be a DM decision.  

What is not really clear to me is RAI.  Did they really intend to create an exception here or not?  They did, as I read the rules, but I am not sure that was the intent.

CustServ has weighed in on both sides of this, apparently, but that only supports my contention that ruling either way is indeed RAW.

I am big enough to admit my way is not the only way to read the rules.  I seem to be the only one.


----------



## Nifft (Sep 2, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> You missed the point here.



 Stuff like this begets Hectoring.



DracoSuave said:


> I believe that if they'd intended for the hit to be automatic, they'd said so, or otherwise indicated this.  They'd not leave the intent up to the absense of a word 'can' especially given general rules templating -is- slowly phasing out that word in many cases.
> 
> If they'd intended the hit to be automatic, they'd include '...you automaticly hit, and...' within the text.
> 
> It's not like there isn't room for it in that whitespace sitting there.



 So, the absence of the word "can" is not important, but the absence of the word "automatic" is vital.

I rest my case.



Artoomis said:


> I am big enough to admit my way is not the only way to read the rules.  I seem to be the only one.



 Nope, you are not alone. But reasonable folks get bored of rebuffing the same stuff over and over and over.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 2, 2009)

Nifft said:


> ....
> So, the absence of the word "can" is not important, but the absence of the word "automatic" is vital...
> 
> Cheers, -- N




Actually, the lack of the word "can" is pretty vital.

Critical Hit:  "If you roll a 20 on the die when making an attack roll, you score a critical hit if your total attack roll is high enough to hit your target’s defense..."  Precision has no effect on that whatsoever.

Holy Ardor:  "Whenever you make two attack rolls because of your oath of enmity, you score a critical hit if both dice have the same roll, except if both rolls are 1."

Looking at that, what do we see?

We see that Holy Ardor replaces "you score a critical hit if your total attack roll is high enough to hit your target’s defense"  with "you score a critical hit if both dice have the same roll."

Case closed.  It really is as easy as that.  I think that there is a lot of over-thinking going on here.

(This does not change my position that you could rule either way at an LFR game as a DM and be correct.)


----------



## keterys (Sep 2, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> Ah, but my point is that I firmly believe that the rules, as written, support my view even better than yours.




I'd hope so, or you wouldn't be discussing this so many pages 



> Since you believe the opposite, either way would be allowed under LFR rules.  It would be a DM decision.




Right, and if I were your LFR DM, I'd say that Precision applies. If I were an LFR player with that paragon path, I _wouldn't even ask_ the DM, because I'd feel dishonest doing so.



> What is not really clear to me is RAI.  Did they really intend to create an exception here or not?




Yeah... based on how they wrote it, I suspect they wanted to make an exception and didn't. Hence, looking forward to a later FAQ.



> CustServ has weighed in on both sides of this, apparently




Someone else mentioned that, but I didn't see any post supporting the 'auto hit, bypasses Precision' ruling. Maybe I missed it.



> ruling either way is indeed RAW.




Occasionally that is true. It's pretty uncommon, but it happens.



> I am big enough to admit my way is not the only way to read the rules.  I seem to be the only one.




Heh. I almost wish I could agree that you could be right, but as written... no, just no.  I do think your position is the intended one, though.

Out of curiosity, if a paragon path had this ability:

Critical Accuracy 
Utility - Daily
Trigger: Your attack result exceeds a target's defense by 5 or more without scoring a critical hit.
Effect: Your attack becomes a critical hit.

Would you allow a (very buffed) attack that rolled a natural 1 (and still beats the defense by 5) to critical hit, or would it trigger the automatic miss rule?


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 2, 2009)

keterys said:


> ...Out of curiosity, if a paragon path had this ability:
> 
> Critical Accuracy
> Utility - Daily
> ...




As written, I suppose so, but it would likely never happen.  I would hope they'd write something up exactly like that.


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 2, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> Actually, the lack of the word "can" is pretty vital.
> 
> Critical Hit:  "If you roll a 20 on the die when making an attack roll, you score a critical hit if your total attack roll is high enough to hit your target’s defense..."  Precision has no effect on that whatsoever.




Of course it wouldn't.  It is about situations other than rolling natural 20, and says only a natural 20 is an automatic hit.  So, no it wouldn't have an effect on this, and it -explicitly tells you why.-  

*What does the word 'can' have to do with that?*  The word 'can' doesn't appear in Precision -either-.  In fact, that's the point, Precision refers to 'score a critical hit' not 'can score a critical hit.'  So, the fact you suggest 'score a critical hit' is so definate is somewhat suspicious, as that's the -very phrase that evokes Precision- to begin with.



> Holy Ardor:  "Whenever you make two attack rolls because of your oath of enmity, you score a critical hit if both dice have the same roll, except if both rolls are 1."




This, on the other hand, is -not- a natural 20.  So the reason Precision doesn't apply to the former isn't applicable here.



> Looking at that, what do we see?
> 
> We see that Holy Ardor replaces "you score a critical hit if your total attack roll is high enough to hit your target’s defense"  with "you score a critical hit if both dice have the same roll."




Which Precision still applies to, because the -reason- Precision doesn't apply to a natural 20 is explicit in Precision itself.  Holy Ardor does not benefit from that exclusion.  Are you trying to suggest that Holy Ardor is Natural 20?  I don't think so.  *So could you please explain this point better?  Please explain how Precision's explicit exclusion of Natural 20s has to do with Holy Ardor?  *There's something not communicated here.



> Case closed.  It really is as easy as that.  I think that there is a lot of over-thinking going on here.




Yes, it really -is- as easy as that.  Precision has no reason not to apply to Holy Ardor.  The reason it doesn't apply to Natural 20 is because it blatantly says it doesn't apply to natural 20, and at the same time, says it -does- apply to not rolling natural 20.  So show me text that blatantly says that it doesn't apply to Holy Ardor, and you have a point.



> (This does not change my position that you could rule either way at an LFR game as a DM and be correct.)




Your position would be a lot easier to understand if you had a rule supporting it, as opposed to a rule telling you no.

That's the problem, it isn't that you don't have suggestions that it's yes, but you *have an unexcepted rule that says No.*

No exception exists that we can see, and everything you've done to try to point it out -doesn't work-.

See above.  You're using Precision's explicit exclusion and saying that it applies to Holy Ardor because Holy Ardor uses similiar language to Natural 20.  An example of how that doesn't work:

Hit: You slide the creature 2 spaces.

Other ability:

Hit: You push the creature 2 spaces.

Clearing the two abilities must be exactly the same because they use similiar templating?  Oh the rules about what the difference between push and slide are?  Irrelevent, because abilities that are written almost the same must be adjudicated the same way, regardless of what rules say. 

See?  Nonsensicle argument form.

So, you need to establish a few more premises in order to establish that argument.  Please fill in the blanks there.


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 2, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> As written, I suppose so, but it would likely never happen.  I would hope they'd write something up exactly like that.




Very good question.

They could use this ability, but it would have to include text for the automatic miss on a 1, either to except it or not, because successful critical hits are not a specific rule to trump automatic miss, and neither is automatic miss a rule to trump successful critical hit.

That's why the text exists on Holy Ardor, as it is possible with a high enough bonus to roll a 1 and a 1, be high enough to hit their defenses, and thusly simultaneously score a critical hit, beat their defenses, and automaticly miss.  As none of these rules are trumping each other, text -must- exist to act as an 'exception' if only to declare what has precedence.

Two rules of equal 'specificity' that contradict each other cannot be resolved by 'specific beats general' because there's no indication which is the specific rule and which is the general rule.


----------



## ObsidianCrane (Sep 2, 2009)

I brought this up at my regular game and one of my players made an astute observation; as nothing in the power says you get to change the rules for how to determine a hit you still miss, and thus you "score a crit" but no target takes the damage. Congratulations.

To prove the power makes the roll a hit you must show specific text that makes it an exception to the basic hit, miss, automatic hit, automatic miss rules, along with the Precision rule.



ricardo440 said:


> I thought the idea was doubles were cooler than criticalling on a 19-20 (which would give a very different extra crit percentage, much better in fact), So it increased your chances of criticalling a bit (about 5%).




Hmm this harks back to some things that were bothering me at the start of the thread.

A single d20 roll improves by 5% by every value you can crit on (20 = 5%, 19-20 10% etc), but the Avenger is very different to that.

An Avenger who crits on a 20 does so  9.75% of the time.
An Avenger who crits on a 19-20 does so 19% of the time.
An Avenger who crits on an 18-20 does so a huge 27.75% of the time. This is why the Dagger Master PP is so appealing for Avenger builds.

When you Crit on Doubles the values look different however.
A crit on any non-(1,1) double or a 20 gets you a 14.25% chance of a crit.
A crit on say a 11 or better hit that is a double or 20 gets you only a 12% chance of a crit.
If you get a way to crit on 19-20 or any non-(1,1) double your chance of a crit jumps to 23.25%!
If you get a way to crit on a 19-20 or any non-(1,1) and still need an 11 or better to hit to get your rolled a double crit it comes in at 21%

So the more conservative reading gets you a better a crit chance than simply having a 19-20 for a non-Avenger, but worse than if you are an avenger with a 19-20. But if you grab a jagged weapon or take Heavy Blade Mastery at Epic the Ardent Avenger is only eclipsed in Cirt % by the Dagger Master avenger, and the reality is the difference in damage output on those crits is where the two builds balance.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 2, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> ...Which Precision still applies to, because the -reason- Precision doesn't apply to a natural 20 is explicit in Precision itself.  Holy Ardor does not benefit from that exclusion.  Are you trying to suggest that Holy Ardor is Natural 20?  I don't think so.  *So could you please explain this point better?  Please explain how Precision's explicit exclusion of Natural 20s has to do with Holy Ardor?  *There's something not communicated here...




Okay, I'll re-state my last argument, but with specific Precision arguments:.



> Actually, the lack of the word "can" is pretty vital.
> 
> Critical Hit: "If you roll a 20 on the die when making an attack roll, you score a critical hit if your total attack roll is high enough to hit your target’s defense..." Precision has no effect on that whatsoever.




Precision merely notes you might critical on values other than 20, and reminds you that only a 20 is an automatic hit.  That does not change the basic rule (re-formulated to include Precision) of "If you roll a number high enough for a potential critical hit on the die when making an attack roll, you score a critical hit if your total attack roll is high enough to hit your target’s defense..."



> Holy Ardor: "Whenever you make two attack rolls because of your oath of enmity, you score a critical hit if both dice have the same roll, except if both rolls are 1."
> 
> Looking at that, what do we see?
> 
> ...




Better?  I've addressed how Precision makes no difference because Holy Ardor creates an exception to the basic Critical Hit rule where you now score a critical hit from rolling doubles rather than scoring a critical hit from rolling a specific high enough number (possibly 18, 19 or 20) and checking to see if that roll is high enough to hit your target’s defense.  The key is, I think, that holy Ardor creates a new definition of when you score a critical hit. not when you potentially might score a critical hit."

Prop to holy Ardor, all Critical Hit modification rules either:

(1)  Change the number rolled to get a potential Critical Hit

or 

(2)  Give you a specific rule that allows a hit to be changes into a Critical Hit.

Holy Ardor is a game changer that gives an entirely new way to score a critical hit.

Essentially, prior to Holy Ardor, to score a critical hit you must first score a potential critical hit and then confirm that by checking to see if that roll is high enough to hit your target’s defense. With Holy Ardor, there is a new way to score a critical hit that does not score a potential critical hit, but actually score a critical hit.

*Further, "automatic hit" has nothing to do with scoring a critical hit.  That only tells you if you hit when you do roll high enough to potentially get a critical hit but not high enough to hit your target’s defense.*

An important distinction between Holy Ardor and Precision plus those powers that change the number rolled for a critical is the lack of the use of "allow" (in Precision) or "can" (in the various powers) - in addition to the fact that you are rolling doubles rather than looking at the result of an attack die.  The Holy Ardor language is crisp and clear and leaves no wiggle room - it defines when you "score a critical hit" - not when you *can* do so, not when you *might*, not when you might be *allowed* to, but when you *do*.


----------



## Nifft (Sep 2, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> Actually, the lack of the word "can" is pretty vital.
> [...]
> (This does not change my position that you could rule either way at an LFR game as a DM and be correct.)



 Right, I was making a reference to my own argument, back on page 16:


Nifft said:


> One side: "it doesn't say *automatic* hit, so it's not a hit".
> 
> Other side: "it doesn't say *can* hit, so it is a hit".
> 
> And that's where we stand. Both sides are (to a degree) correct in their premises, since it says neither "can" nor "automatic". But neither can conclusively say that their chosen omission is decisive.




Cheers, -- N


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 2, 2009)

So, you're saying that Holy Ardor is -not- an ability that allows you to roll critical hits on numbers other than 20? 

Because, I'm -very- sure it does allow you to do this.

And if -that- is the version of allowance that you refer to with can, isn't that admitting that the ability would be giving the -player- the ability to crit, and not other rules the ability to countermand it?

So, is the word 'can' refering you -you being allowed to hit- or to the ability itself possibily failing?

If it's the former, then the absense or presense is unimportant because it's not a matter of permissivity of other abilities to apply.

If it's the latter, then Precision doesn't care because Precision refers to abilities that allow -you- to do something, not to abilities that are indefinate in resolution.


----------



## Obryn (Sep 2, 2009)

This is insane.  I read page 1, then gave up a few days ago.

Today, I just hopped from page to page to page thinking that there had to be some kind of major topic-change or flame-war, but much to my surprise.... page 18 looks exactly like page 15, which looks exactly like page 10, which looks a lot like page 5, and so on all the way back to page 1.

I'm impressed that this has stayed on-topic for so long, but I don't know that I'm impressed in a _good_ way. 

-o


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 2, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> So, you're saying that Holy Ardor is -not- an ability that allows you to roll critical hits on numbers other than 20?
> 
> Because, I'm -very- sure it does allow you to do this.




Correct - it allows you to score a critical hit on a doubles - not on numbers other than a 20 in the context of a single attack roll (the context of Precision).  Not to mention that Precision is referring to the rule just above it which gets replaced (not modified) by Holy Ardor.



DracoSuave said:


> And if -that- is the version of allowance that you refer to with can, isn't that admitting that the ability would be giving the -player- the ability to crit, and not other rules the ability to countermand it?
> 
> So, is the word 'can' referring you -you being allowed to hit- or to the ability itself possibly failing?
> 
> ...




I am not sure I followed all that, but it does not matter, I think, because the rule which precision is modifying (well, acknowledging the modification from other powers, I suppose) is superseded by Holy Ardor completely, not just modified by changing the number required to be rolled (from 20 to 19 or perhaps 18).

I do see where you are coming from, and because your argument does have some validity (not as much as mine, of course ), I'd say either ruling would be correct for RPGA/LFR.

(P.S.  I hope you don't mind my fixing a few typos in your quoted post - I was spell-checking and it caught a few - though not as many as mine!)


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 2, 2009)

Obryn said:


> This is insane.  I read page 1, then gave up a few days ago.
> 
> Today, I just hopped from page to page to page thinking that there had to be some kind of major topic-change or flame-war, but much to my surprise.... page 18 looks exactly like page 15, which looks exactly like page 10, which looks a lot like page 5, and so on all the way back to page 1.
> 
> ...




The degree of Lawyerliness to it is spooky isnt it...


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 2, 2009)

Obryn said:


> This is insane.  I read page 1, then gave up a few days ago.
> 
> Today, I just hopped from page to page to page thinking that there had to be some kind of major topic-change or flame-war, but much to my surprise.... page 18 looks exactly like page 15, which looks exactly like page 10, which looks a lot like page 5, and so on all the way back to page 1.
> 
> ...






Yes well, I admit it is, in some ways, pretty pointless.  It's more of an intellectual exercise than anything else, and in that sense is valuable, even if only for the participants and not the reader.


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 2, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> Correct - it allows you to score a critical hit on a doubles - not on numbers other than a 20 in the context of a single attack roll (the context of Precision).  Not to mention that Precision is referring to the rule just above it which gets replaced (not modified) by Holy Ardor.




Does Precision mention critical ranges? (no) Or is it simply refering to the ability to critical with rolls other than a 20?  And if the latter is the case, how -exactly- does Holy Ardor not qualify as a roll other than 20, seeing as that 19 out of 20 cases of Holy Ardor being applied are not a natural 20.

The context of Precision is when you -aren't- rolling a natural 20.  That's all it states.  Holy Ardor is -not- a natural 20 (most of the time, when it -is- the effect is trivial and already a critical)



> I am not sure I followed all that, but it does not matter, I think, because the rule which precision is modifying (well, acknowledging the modification from other powers, I suppose) is superseded by Holy Ardor completely, not just modified by changing the number required to be rolled (from 20 to 19 or perhaps 18).




But Precision doesn't mention ranges at all.  -All- it requires is an ability that allows criticals on non-20 rolls.  Brute force proves that Holy Ardor allows criticals on non-20 rolls.  

My argument is that your side is saying 'can' simultaneously refers to the ability having a 'possible' critical (which is irrelevant to the application of rules that countermand such events) or that it's giving you permission to critical (which makes it by all definition Precision country) depending on which part of the argument it is convenient for at the time.

Both, however, cannot apply at the same time, and either one leads to a conclusion that Precision would apply.  



> I do see where you are coming from, and because your argument does have some validity (not as much as mine, of course ), I'd say either ruling would be correct for RPGA/LFR.




Well, RPGA rules-enforcement is 'What the DM feels is right' anyways.



> (P.S.  I hope you don't mind my fixing a few typos in your quoted post - I was spell-checking and it caught a few - though not as many as mine!)




Heh.



> I'm impressed that this has stayed on-topic for so long, but I don't know that I'm impressed in a good way.
> 
> -o




At this point all sides are agreeing to disagree, but are also agreeing to a game of intellectual debate.

I must confess, I'm finding it enjoyable on that level.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 2, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> Does Precision mention critical ranges? (no) Or is it simply referring to the ability to critical with rolls other than a 20?  And if the latter is the case, how -exactly- does Holy Ardor not qualify as a roll other than 20, seeing as that 19 out of 20 cases of Holy Ardor being applied are not a natural 20.
> 
> The context of Precision is when you -aren't- rolling a natural 20.  That's all it states.  Holy Ardor is -not- a natural 20 (most of the time, when it -is- the effect is trivial and already a critical)...




Not quite.

The context of Precision is either:

1. Rolling a potential critical hit (that is , modifying the "Critical Hit" rule just above it), in which case it does not apply because Holy Ardor is about scoring a critical hit, not *potentially* getting one.

or

2.  Rolling a single die to hit - that is, the rule on page 276, "compare you attack roll ...If you roll a natural 20..." and the rule on page 278, "When you roll a natural 20..."

Or both, of course.

All the basic rules on hitting are in the context of an attack roll.  Holy Ardor is very, very different as it creates an entirely new context - rolling doubles.  It's not an attack roll at all.  It's something new.

Yes, Precision uses the term "roll numbers," but, in context, that's clearly referring to number other than 20 on an attack roll, not the special case of rolling doubles.

The lack of the word "can" and the reference to double ones not being a critical hit merely buttress my argument, but the key is that rolling doubles is not the same as making an attack roll, which is the normal context of the determining id a possible Critical Hit actually scores a Critical Hit.


----------



## Flipguarder (Sep 2, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> The context of Precision is either:
> 2.  Rolling a single die to hit - that is, the rule on page 276, "compare you attack roll ...If you roll a natural 20..." and the rule on page 278, "When you roll a natural 20..."



The decision to rule that precision doesn't apply because there are two attack rolls, if taken to it's logical conclusion would mean avengers can crit on whatever they want.


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 2, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> Not quite.
> 
> The context of Precision is either:
> 
> 1. Rolling a potential critical hit (that is , modifying the "Critical Hit" rule just above it), in which case it does not apply because Holy Ardor is about scoring a critical hit, not *potentially* getting one.




And which part of Precision suggests, exactly, that it must be a 'potential' critical hit, and that scoring a critical hit excepts it?  Cause Precision seems to be quite explicit that it's about 'score a critical hit' and not 'can score a critical hit.'

And exactly how does a rule that modifies the critical hit rule not affect a rule -you claim must follow the critical hit rule-?



> 2.  Rolling a single die to hit - that is, the rule on page 276, "compare you attack roll ...If you roll a natural 20..." and the rule on page 278, "When you roll a natural 20..."




Rolling a single-die is not a requirement for rolling a natural 20.  Any Avenger who has made an attack roll in their life can tell you that much for certain.



> All the basic rules on hitting are in the context of an attack roll.  Holy Ardor is very, very different as it creates an entirely new context - rolling doubles.  It's not an attack roll at all.  It's something new.




So... you're -not- rolling attack rolls with oath of emnity?  That means I've been playing that ability wrong the entire time.  Here I thought Oath of Emnity was about using two dice to resolve a single attack, using two rolls, so to speak.

Fortunately I'm glad you corrected me.

So, if Oath of Emnity isn't an attack roll, and Holy Ardor isn't an attack roll, what does 'When you make two attack rolls with oath of emnity' actually -mean-?

Cause... last I heard, you're rolling an attack roll here.



> Yes, Precision uses the term "roll numbers," but, in context, that's clearly referring to number other than 20 on an attack roll, not the special case of rolling doubles.




Absolutely, I agree.  And if you're rolling doubles, you're rolling a number other than 20, 19 out of 20 times.

Prove that you are not.



> The lack of the word "can" and the reference to double ones not being a critical hit merely buttress my argument, but the key is that rolling doubles is not the same as making an attack roll, which is the normal context of the determining id a possible Critical Hit actually scores a Critical Hit.




So, rolling doubles when you make an attack roll isn't the same as making an attack roll?



			
				Holy Ardor said:
			
		

> Whenever you *make two attack rolls* because of your oath of enmity,




Seems to me you're making attack rolls here.  That this, in fact, is -entirely related- to making an attack roll.

Please tell me when you can use Oath of Emnity without an attack roll.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 2, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> The decision to rule that precision doesn't apply because there are two attack rolls, if taken to it's logical conclusion would mean avengers can crit on whatever they want.




No. because normally you are looking at the highest of two rolls, which uses all the normal rules.

"Doubles" is an entirely new paradigm that applies *only* to Holy Ardor.


----------



## abyssaldeath (Sep 2, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> "Doubles" is an entirely new paradigm that applies *only* to Holy Ardor.




My question, is so what? Just because you crit on doubles doesn't mean it creates an entirely new rule that bypasses Precision.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 2, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> And which part of Precision suggests, exactly, that it must be a 'potential' critical hit, and that scoring a critical hit excepts it?  Cause Precision seems to be quite explicit that it's about 'score a critical hit' and not 'can score a critical hit.'




Precision talks about powers that "allow" you to score a critical hit on numbers other than 20.  Those powers (except Holy Ardor) all "allow" that critical hit only if the attack roll also is at least equal to the defense score.



DracoSuave said:


> And exactly how does a rule that modifies the critical hit rule not affect a rule -you claim must follow the critical hit rule-?




Sorry, I do not understand the question.




DracoSuave said:


> Rolling a single-die is not a requirement for rolling a natural 20.  Any Avenger who has made an attack roll in their life can tell you that much for certain.




Rolling two dice and picking the highest is the same as rolling a die, for you only use one result as your attack roll - the other roll is just to see which one "counts" as you attack roll.




DracoSuave said:


> So... you're -not- rolling attack rolls with oath of enmity?  That means I've been playing that ability wrong the entire time.  Here I thought Oath of Enmity was about using two dice to resolve a single attack, using two rolls, so to speak.
> 
> Fortunately I'm glad you corrected me.




Me, too.    "Doubles" is not the same as using the highest of two rolls - it's an entirely new rule.  



DracoSuave said:


> So, if Oath of Enmity isn't an attack roll, and Holy Ardor isn't an attack roll, what does 'When you make two attack rolls with oath of enmity' actually -mean-?
> 
> Cause... last I heard, you're rolling an attack roll here.




True, but the "doubles" is *not* an attack roll.   It's something new based upon the two attack roll made with Oath of Enmity, but it's not an attack roll.



DracoSuave said:


> Absolutely, I agree.  And if you're rolling doubles, you're rolling a number other than 20, 19 out of 20 times.
> 
> Prove that you are not.




I just did.  Doubles is not an attack roll, it's something new and special.  Normally you make two rolls and choose the best one to be your attack roll.  Holy Ardor uses the result of both rolls when they match (doubles) - which has nothing to do with whether the result is a hit or not, only if they are doubles.  Again, this is something entirely new and unique to this power - that is, an exception to the previous rules.



DracoSuave said:


> So, rolling doubles when you make an attack roll isn't the same as making an attack roll?
> 
> Seems to me you're making attack rolls here.  That this, in fact, is -entirely related- to making an attack roll.
> 
> Please tell me when you can use Oath of Enmity without an attack roll.




You never use Oath of Enmity without making an attack roll, but the "doubles" you get is not an attack roll - while based upon making two attack rolls, using the result of BOTH rolls (doubles) creates something entirely new.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 2, 2009)

abyssaldeath said:


> My question, is so what? Just because you crit on doubles doesn't mean it creates an entirely new rule that bypasses Precision.




That's *exactly* what it means.

It's a new rule that tells you when you score a critical, as opposed to the powers that change the number needed to poentially score a critcal hit.


----------



## Nifft (Sep 2, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> You never use Oath of Enmity without making an attack roll, but the "doubles" you get is not an attack roll - while based upon making two attack rolls, using the result of BOTH rolls (doubles) creates something entirely new.



 Ooo, clever.

So the order of evaluation is:
1: Roll two dice (these are NOT two attack rolls, so powers that trigger on attacks, like a Bard's Vigorous Cadence power, would not trigger twice)
2: Take the higher result.
3: Use this higher result as though you had rolled it (this is treated as your attack roll).

Holy Ardor would occur at 1.5 in this ordering. I'd argue you should still trigger powers like Vigorous Cadence at this stage, but that's just me.

Is anyone still keeping score? I say this one's worth three points.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## CovertOps (Sep 2, 2009)

I have to say there are two really gaping holes in their position.

First is that because you are using OoE (an ability that has nothing to do with Holy Ardor) and rolling two dice to "attack" that if you have this other ability and you roll doubles it is no longer an attack.  Did you roll dice in an attempt to hit something?  It's an attack.  Does it have rules that tell you how to resolve those multiple dice rolls into a single outcome? Yes.  Are those rules overridden by anything? No.

The other gaping hole is the assumption that somehow "Critical Hit" grants you a "Hit" when the rules on "Critical Hit" are subservient to the "Hit" rules because "Hit" is a requirement of "Critical Hit".



			
				D&DI Compendium "Hit" said:
			
		

> If the attack roll is higher than or equal to the defense score, the attack hits and deals damage, has a special effect, or both.
> 
> Automatic Hit: If you roll a natural 20 (the die shows a 20), your attack automatically hits.
> 
> Critical Hit: If you roll a natural 20 (the die shows a 20), your attack might be a critical hit. A critical hit deals maximum damage, and some powers and magic items have an extra effect on a critical hit.





			
				D&DI Compendium "Miss" said:
			
		

> If your attack roll is lower than the defense score, the attack misses. Usually, there’s no effect. Some powers have an effect on a miss, such as dealing half damage.
> 
> Automatic Miss: If you roll a natural 1 (the die shows a 1), your attack automatically misses.





			
				D&DI Compendium "Critical Hit" said:
			
		

> Natural 20: If you roll a 20 on the die when making an attack roll, you score a critical hit if your total attack roll is high enough to hit your target’s defense. If your attack roll is too low to score a critical hit, you still hit automatically.
> 
> Precision: Some class features and powers allow you to score a critical hit when you roll numbers other than 20 (only a natural 20 is an automatic hit).
> 
> ...




Hit clearly says that you have to beat the defense score in order to "...deal damage...".

Critical Hit says you get to deal maximum damage, but says nothing about "Hit".

This to me says you are eligible to deal maximum damage, except that you missed (and therefore deal NO damage) in a situation such as double 2's.

If you really want to prove your side is right then show me where in the rules on "Critical Hit" that you either "Hit" (allowed to '...deal damage...') or "Miss" ('...usually no effect...').

And just as a side note (IMO): Precision doesn't matter.  They need to prove how they got from "Critical Hit" to "Hit" using the rules on criticals.  Because I'm sure that we can all agree that there are no powers out there with results like this:

Power X
Critical Hit: Do 50 damage.
Hit: Do 25 damage.
Miss: Do nothing.  (usually just left off)

"Critical Hit" only modifies the damage applied to the "Hit" entry of a power so I want them to show what specific rule says they got a "Hit".

EDIT:
Or as I have stated all along show where in Holy Ardor you are granted a "Hit" such that it overrides the rules on "Hit".


----------



## N8Ball (Sep 2, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> And just as a side note (IMO): Precision doesn't matter.  They need to prove how they got from "Critical Hit" to "Hit" using the rules on criticals.  Because I'm sure that we can all agree that there are no powers out there with results like this:
> 
> Power X
> Critical Hit: Do 50 damage.
> ...




Actually I would agree with this completely, and for the very same reasons.  Crit = hit is the crux of my argument, (along with the permissive language caveat).  

I would say that though there are no powers that are written like that, there are numerous abilities that trigger on "scoring a critical hit" but make no mention whatsoever about hitting or missing.  

Samir brought this up in a question about the feat Suprise Knockdown (PHB 201).  If things really do work as you say, I haven't really heard a good reason yet why this wouldn't trigger if you can score a critical hit and miss.



			
				Surprise Knockdown said:
			
		

> Prerequisites: Str 15, rogue
> Benefit: If you score a critical hit while you have
> combat advantage, you knock the target prone.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 2, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> ...The other gaping hole is the assumption that somehow "Critical Hit" grants you a "Hit" when the rules on "Critical Hit" are subservient to the "Hit" rules because "Hit" is a requirement of "Critical Hit".
> 
> Hit clearly says that you have to beat the defense score in order to "...deal damage...".
> 
> ...




Fair enough.

Holy Ardor grants you a "Critical Hit" if you roll doubles.

You normally can't have a "Critical Hit" unless you also "Hit."   Holy Ardor, however, bypasses this requirement.

So, either you hit (implied by the fact that scored a critical hit) or you scored a critical hit but missed, which seems like a contradiction in terms and must not be true.

Therefore, when you "score a critical hit" you must have also "hit."

Yes, its a bit weird and could have be written better, as no matter what way you read this power you have to make some assumptions, and we should not have to do that.


----------



## CovertOps (Sep 2, 2009)

N8Ball said:


> Actually I would agree with this completely, and for the very same reasons.  Crit = hit is the crux of my argument, (along with the permissive language caveat).
> 
> I would say that though there are no powers that are written like that, there are numerous abilities that trigger on "scoring a critical hit" but make no mention whatsoever about hitting or missing.
> 
> Samir brought this up in a question about the feat Suprise Knockdown (PHB 201).  If things really do work as you say, I haven't really heard a good reason yet why this wouldn't trigger if you can score a critical hit and miss.




I actually think I can answer this.  One version is the declarative "you score a critical hit" and the other is conditional "*IF* you score a critical hit".  The declarative is granting max damage to a given attack (which can be nullified by my above arguments about "Hit" and "Miss") and the other is the case where the outcome has already been determined meaning you either got the critical ("Hit") or you didn't ("Miss").


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 2, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> Yes, its a bit weird and could have be written better, as no matter what way you read this power you have to make some assumptions, and we should not have to do that.




The assumption I need to make is that you apply rules without counter-text saying otherwise.

Given this assumption is necessary for the game to work, I feel it's a safe one to make.


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 2, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> Holy Ardor grants you a "Critical Hit" if you roll doubles.
> 
> You normally can't have a "Critical Hit" unless you also "Hit."   Holy Ardor, however, bypasses this requirement.




Precision then tells you, no wait, you can't bypass that requirement.

That's a -very- important statement there.  That's the -point- behind Precision.  It doesn't do anything else.



> So, either you hit (implied by the fact that scored a critical hit) or you scored a critical hit but missed, which seems like a contradiction in terms and must not be true.
> 
> Therefore, when you "score a critical hit" you must have also "hit."




Except that there exist situations that tell you to do something you cannot do because of other situations.  So the precident exists where you're told to do something, but as it turns out, you're not allowed to do it.

The easiest example is a power telling you to shift while you are immobilized.  But there are a myriad others where you are denied something you are told you get, because of limitations set on the abilities that tell you to get something.

So, the premises are true, the logic itself is proven faulty by the way rules work in the game.


----------



## CovertOps (Sep 2, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> Holy Ardor grants you a "Critical Hit" if you roll doubles.
> 
> ...




But it remains that I make no assumptions in my reading.  Stick to what the rules say and not what you want to read into them.



> So, either you hit (implied by the fact that scored a critical hit) or you scored a critical hit but missed, *which seems like a contradiction in terms and must not be true.*




The bold part is what matters.  You have assumed that because it seems like a contradiction in terms that "it must not be true".

To me it is quite clear that the rules on "Hit" and the rules on "Critical Hit" are two separate rules that sometimes interact with each other.  All this really proves is that Holy Ardor is no better than any other crit range power such as the Dagger Master feature because they can "score a critical" on an 18 and "Miss" as well.  Ok...it also proves that the permissive language of "*can* score a critical hit" doesn't matter which I (and several others) have argued all along.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 2, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> But it remains that I make no assumptions in my reading.  Stick to what the rules say and not what you want to read into them.




You assume that "score a critical hit" does not mean "score a critical hit" but means "potentially score a critical hit."

That's an assumption, and a rather key one at that.

I choose to assume they meant what they wrote and "score a critical hit" really means "score a critical hit," but that, in turn, requires that we assume that when you "score a critical hit" you also "hit."  Normally, of course, you can only "score a critical hit" if you have already hit (but not because of a natural 20), but Holy Ardor creates a new condition where you "score a critical hit." 

All this follows the "normal" rules where a power can change how the basic rules work.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 2, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> Precision then tells you, no wait, you can't bypass that requirement.
> 
> That's a -very- important statement there.  That's the -point- behind Precision.  It doesn't do anything else...




Actually, I don't think Precision really does *anything.*

It lets you know that, when some rule changes which number gives you a potential critical, the lower number (lower than 20) does not give you an automatic hit.  This is not new, just a restatement of the obvious.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 2, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> ...All this really proves is that Holy Ardor is no better than any other crit range power such as the Dagger Master feature because they can "score a critical" on an 18 and "Miss" as well.  Ok...it also proves that the permissive language of "*can* score a critical hit" doesn't matter which I (and several others) have argued all along.




No, it does not prove that "can' doesn't matter.

The phrasing of "*can* score a critical hit" re-emphasizes that this change to the number required only gives a possibility of scoring a critical hit, as opposed to Holy Ardor which creates a new mechanic (doubles) and states a new rule (scores a critical hit) for the new mechanic.


----------



## Flipguarder (Sep 2, 2009)

I'm curious why the new mechanic of doubles is even of worthwhile mention to you Artoomis. You've referenced it several times as if it meant something, proved something, or served as supporting evidence for your argument. Why should the mechanic of rolling doubles be treated as any different than allowing you to crit on a 19?


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 2, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> I'm curious why the new mechanic of doubles is even of worthwhile mention to you Artoomis. You've referenced it several times as if it meant something, proved something, or served as supporting evidence for your argument. Why should the mechanic of rolling doubles be treated as any different than allowing you to crit on a 19?




Excellent and key question.

Rolling doubles is something entirely new.  Because of that, one needs to ask, "What is the rule for what happens when you roll doubles?"

The answer is you "score a critical hit."  It is defined right there is the power that tells you to use doubles for something.

It does not say you *might* score a critical hit or use any other language that could leave room for doubt.

So one also needs to look at it and and say is this really just "rolling numbers other than 20?"  And that answer to that is "no" because looking to doubles is breaking the paradigm of rolling a die and using the result (or using the best result of mutiple rolls, which amounts to the same thing).


----------



## Donderafosti (Sep 2, 2009)

Fun debate, FWIW, here's my take: 

If you roll doubles with Holy Ardor, you WILL 'score a critical hit'. If you do not match the targets defense, you will do MAX DAMAGE to the air, or possibly the target's armor, but you WILL NOT reduce the target's HP. 

If you have a feat/ability that triggers on a critical hit it should apply even if you fail to damage the target. 
[I don't know all the feats and spells that have triggers like this, but it doesn't seem entirely unreasonable.] 
The aforementioned 'surprise knockdown' would be a perfect example, where you would hit the dude, his armor would absorb the blow but he would still be knocked prone] ('cus you followed up with a leg sweep or something cool like that.)

Any extra damage that would be applied from a crit in this situation would, of course, only damage whatever you ended up hitting (air, armor, etc.) and not directly affect the target's HP.


----------



## keterys (Sep 2, 2009)

If you did this with a daily that did half damage on miss, would you figure out the crit damage (say 80 damage instead of the 30 of a normal hit) and do half of that (40)?

Ie:

Critical Hit: 80
Hit: 30
Miss: 15
Holy Ardored Miss: 40


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 2, 2009)

Donderafosti said:


> Fun debate, FWIW, here's my take:
> 
> If you roll doubles with Holy Ardor, you WILL 'score a critical hit'. If you do not match the targets defense, you will do MAX DAMAGE to the air, or possibly the target's armor, but you WILL NOT reduce the target's HP. ...




That's been mentioned a couple of times, but I find the concept of scoriing a critical hit that is really a miss to be ludicrous.

The Critical Hit rules tell you how to score a critical hit.  First hit the target, but not relying upon a natural 20, and then have the number be high enough for a critical hit.

Holy Ardor gives an entirely new way to score a critical hit - get doubles.

If you score a critical hit, you get to damage the target.


----------



## Donderafosti (Sep 2, 2009)

Artooris, I can't say for sure, but I am quite confident that if WotC wanted to redefine the concept of 'rolling doubles' providing a crit as something that wasn't "rolling numbers other than 20" as stated in the precision rule (be honest, you are rolling numbers other than 20, they just happen to be the same) they would have clearly specified that 'this ain't your daddy's crits, normal rules need not apply'

EDIT: just saw your last post, it's right there in the crit rules...CovertOps quoted them, go back and read it...even if you roll a nat 20, there's no guarantee you'll do max damage. "you score a critical hit if your total attack roll is high enough to hit your target’s defense." p278

If you find it ludicrous, don't play that way, the rules are guidelines after all, but don't go saying that I don't know how to read =P (BIG JOKE, NO MALICE)


----------



## CovertOps (Sep 2, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> You assume that "score a critical hit" does not mean "score a critical hit" but means "potentially score a critical hit."
> 
> That's an assumption, and a rather key one at that.
> 
> ...




To be clear I did not assume anything.  

1.  Holy Ardor grants a "Critical Hit".
2.  "Critical Hit" says "Maximum Damage: Rather than roll damage, determine the maximum damage you can roll with your attack. This is your critical damage."
3.  How much damage to I do?
4.  I look at the power I'm using which says:


			
				Power X said:
			
		

> Hit: some damage.



5. What does this "Hit:" thing in front of the damage mean?
6.  The rules on "Hit" tell me that if my roll was high enough to beat or equal the targets defense then "...the attack hits and deals damage, has a special effect, or both."

Now...if you want to overrule any of these mechanics in any way you need explicit text (within Holy Ardor) saying what rule it overrides and how OR go back one page where I quoted the compendium text on "Critical Hit" and find the text in there that says you "Hit" (by the way there is no such text).


A better question for you is what is the difference between "score a critical hit" and "potentially score a critical hit"?  Both do max damage if you "Hit" and no damage if you "Miss" so I'm not sure I understand the difference since this is the assumption that you claim I have made.  Neither one grants a "Hit" or a "Miss" which is what you need to evaluate the effect of any power you use.



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> Actually, I don't think Precision really does anything.
> 
> It lets you know that, when some rule changes which number gives you a potential critical, the lower number (lower than 20) does not give you an automatic hit. This is not new, just a restatement of the obvious.




This.  We finally agree on something.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 2, 2009)

Donderafosti said:


> Artooris, I can't say for sure, but I am quite confident that if WotC wanted to redefine the concept of 'rolling doubles' providing a crit as something that wasn't "rolling numbers other than 20" as stated in the precision rule (be honest, you are rolling numbers other than 20, they just happen to be the same) they would have clearly specified that 'this ain't your daddy's crits, normal rules need not apply'





That would be nice, but, alas, the track record for WotC rule writing says otherwise.

When they've published clarifications in the past, sometimes they come out exactly as I expected, and sometimes exactly as those arguing against me expected. 

I think they should have done a better job writing this up, though.  I think we *all* agree on *that*.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 2, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> ...go back one page where I quoted the compendium text on "Critical Hit" and find the text in there that says you "Hit" (by the way there is no such text).
> 
> 
> A better question for you is what is the difference between "score a critical hit" and "potentially score a critical hit"?  Both do max damage if you "Hit" and no damage if you "Miss" so I'm not sure I understand the difference since this is the assumption that you claim I have made.  Neither one grants a "Hit" or a "Miss" which is what you need to evaluate the effect of any power you use.




By definition, "score a criitcal hit" means you hit.  See rules for Critical Hit.

Holy Ardor changes the prerequisites for scoring a critical hit.  Since a Critical Hit, by defintion, also is a hit (as a subset of a hit, if you like), it is not possible to "score a critical hit" and yet not hit the target.


----------



## CovertOps (Sep 2, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> That's been mentioned a couple of times, but I find the concept of scoriing a critical hit that is really a miss to be ludicrous.




The problem is that your opinion doesn't matter.  What matters is the rules text.


----------



## abyssaldeath (Sep 2, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> By definition, "score a criitcal hit" means you hit.  See rules for Critical Hit.
> 
> Holy Ardor changes the prerequisites for scoring a critical hit.  Since a Critical Hit, by defintion, also is a hit (as a subset of a hit, if you like), it is not possible to "score a critical hit" and yet not hit the target.



Where does it say that "score a critical hit" is a hit? I doesn't say that at all.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 2, 2009)

abyssaldeath said:


> Where does it say that "score a critical hit" is a hit? I doesn't say that at all.




1.  Critical Hit is a specific kind of a hit (or subset, or any term you like).  Page 276.

2.  The normal rules require a hit before it can be a critical, but note that once it is a critical hit it is indeed a hit also.  Page 276 and 278.

3.  A"Miss" is when the attack roll is too low, but looking at doubles is different.  One half of those doubles is a miss, true, but the two die rolls together makes up a new thing, "doubles," which "score a ciritcal hit" and therefore you hit and get to do damage.

That's the way it is written.  It is both ludicrous and not possible by the rules to "score a critical hit" and yet miss the target.


----------



## CovertOps (Sep 2, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> By definition, "score a criitcal hit" means you hit.  See rules for Critical Hit.




Actually...no it doesn't.  And if it does somewhere I want that in black and white with a page number to reference because I wasn't able to find any such thing.  Again I refer to my post on the previous page where I quoted the entire "Critical Hit" rules.  Nowhere in said rules does it say that you "Hit".  What it DOES say is that you (paraphrasing) get to deal maximum damage.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 2, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> The problem is that your opinion doesn't matter.  What matters is the rules text.





Right - see my post just above this one.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 2, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> Actually...no it doesn't.  And if it does somewhere I want that in black and white with a page number to reference because I wasn't able to find any such thing.  Again I refer to my post on the previous page where I quoted the entire "Critical Hit" rules.  Nowhere in said rules does it say that you "Hit".  What it DOES say is that you (paraphrasing) get to deal maximum damage.





Page 276.  "Hit:  ...If you roll a natural 20 ... your attack might be a critical hit.  A critical hit deals maximum damage."

edit:  reworded to be clearer:  Critical Hit is defined as a "Hit" for it is defined under the header, "Hit" on page 276.  "Critical Hit" is one of three types of Hits.    The first type is just a hit (with no sub-heading), the second type is an automatic hit, the third type is a critical hit.  In addition, if you actually get a critical hit (that is, you actually "score a critical hit"), you deal maximum damage.  You can only deal damage if you hit, ergo, a critical hit is a hit.

Mind you, rolling high enough to potentially get a critical hit is not a hit, only actually scoring a critical hit.  Holy Ardor says "you score a critical hit."


----------



## CovertOps (Sep 2, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> Page 276.  "Hit:  ...If you roll a natural 20 ... your attack might be a critical hit.  A critical hit deals maximum damage."
> 
> There you have it.  If you actually get a critical hit (that is, you actually "score a critical hit"), you deal maximum damage.  You can only deal damage if you hit, ergo, a critical hit is a hit.  Also. it is defined as a "Hit" for it is defined under the header, "Hit" on page 276.
> 
> Mind you, rolling high enough to potentially get a critical hit is not a hit, only actually scoring a critical hit.  Holy Ardor says "you score a critical hit."




There is no basis in the rules for this assumption.  Nothing in the Critical Hit rules says you "score a hit and deal damage".  That is completely under the control of the "Hit" rules.  As soon as you hit the word "ergo" you are now assuming and have lost your argument.

I'm not going to let you make that assumption and I'm going to keep holding your feet to the fire to PROVE that a granted "Critical Hit" is indeed a "Hit".  The rules do not support this argument.  You think it is silly therefore it can't be true, but that doesn't get you anywhere.  Also on p276 you are quoting the "Hit" rules and not the "Critical Hit" rules.  Holy Ardor says you "score a critical hit" so please reference the rules on p278 for critical hits and tell me where in THOSE rules that it says you "Hit".  If you don't have books near you try going back a page and re-reading JUST the "Critical Hit" block I posted from D&DI.  Nowhere in there does it grant you a "Hit".  The definition of "Critical Hit" is maximum damage, but you don't get to deal damage (normally) unless you meet the "Hit" requirement listed in a given power so that you can know HOW MUCH damage you get to do.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 2, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> ...Nothing in the Critical Hit rules says you "score a hit and deal damage"...




Maybe not in those exact words, but I reiterate something I wrote that was after you quoted me:

Critical Hit is defined as a "Hit" for it is defined under the header, "Hit" on page 276. "Critical Hit" is one of three types of Hits. The first type is just a hit (with no sub-heading), the second type is an automatic hit, the third type is a critical hit. 

Since Critical Hit is defined under the heading of "Hit," it is a "Hit."

Under Attack Results there are only two possible choices, Hit or Miss.  Critical Hit is defined under Hit, not Miss.  Therefore a Critical Hit is a Hit.

Good enough for you, yet?


----------



## abyssaldeath (Sep 2, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> Good enough for you, yet?



Nope it is not. 276 say that a critical hit is a roll of a natural 20 then it directs you to the critical hit rules. So unless we are talking about natural 20's page 276 has nothing to do with our argument. Determining whether or not Holy Ardor hits is entirely dependent on the critical hit rules on page 278.


----------



## Donderafosti (Sep 2, 2009)

A critical hit does deal max damage, but if the attack roll result doesn't match the defense, you're gonna do max critical damage to something other than what you were aiming for, 'cus it missed...I'm just not sure why this is such a special case.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 2, 2009)

Donderafosti said:


> A critical hit does deal max damage, but if the attack roll result doesn't match the defense, you're gonna do max critical damage to something other than what you were aiming for, 'cus it missed...




That's just flat wrong.  Holy Ardor aside, a potential critical hit where attack roll result doesn't match the defense *is not a ciritical hit at all.*


----------



## N8Ball (Sep 3, 2009)

N8Ball said:
			
		

> ...there are numerous abilities that trigger on "scoring a critical hit" but make no mention whatsoever about hitting or missing.
> 
> Samir brought this up in a question about the feat Suprise Knockdown (PHB 201). If things really do work as you say, I haven't really heard a good reason yet why this wouldn't trigger if you can score a critical hit and miss.





CovertOps said:


> I actually think I can answer this.  One version is the declarative "you score a critical hit" and the other is conditional "*IF* you score a critical hit".  The declarative is granting max damage to a given attack (which can be nullified by my above arguments about "Hit" and "Miss") and the other is the case where the outcome has already been determined meaning you either got the critical ("Hit") or you didn't ("Miss").




I'm not sure I follow you here.  (keep in mind I'm trying to understand your position and it's implications)

If I got a critical hit using mastery or some other crit-range enhancing ability, why would I not trigger surprise knockdown regardless of a hit or miss?  

If I've scored the crit, and that's the trigger explicitly stated by the feat, doesn't it go off independent of hitting?


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 3, 2009)

abyssaldeath said:


> Nope it is not. 276 say that a critical hit is a roll of a natural 20 then it directs you to the critical hit rules. So unless we are talking about natural 20's page 276 has nothing to do with our argument. Determining whether or not Holy Ardor hits is entirely dependent on the critical hit rules on page 278.




Page 276 *defines* what a critical hit really is.  It's *clearly* a special hit where you deal maximum damage.  That's from page 276.  Note that Page 276 says that when you roll a natural 20 you might get a critical hit, but that does not exclude other ways to get a critical hit.  

In fact, page 278 tells you you might get a critical hit on rolls other than 20, as defined in some powers,  and tells you how to determine if a potential critical hit (defined on page 276) turns out to actually be one or not. 

Since Critical Hit is defined as a Hit vs. a Miss, well then, it must be a Hit, right? How can it not be a hit when all attack results are defined as hits or misses and a critical hit is defined under "hit" and not "miss??"  Can you explain that?


----------



## abyssaldeath (Sep 3, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> Page 276 *defines* what a critical hit really is.  It's *clearly* a special hit where you deal maximum damage.  That's from page 276.  Note that Page 276 says that when you roll a natural 20 you might get a critical hit, but that does not exclude other ways to get a critical hit.
> 
> In fact, page 278 tells you you might get a critical hit on rolls other than 20, as defined in some powers,  and tells you how to determine if a potential critical hit (defined on page 276) turns out to actually be one or not.
> 
> Since Critical Hit is defined as a Hit vs. a Miss, well then, it must be a Hit, right? How can it not be a hit when all attack results are defined as hits or misses and a critical hit is defined under "hit" and not "miss??"  Can you explain that?



Yes, but since critical hit is indented after the hit rules you clearly have to roll equal to or higher then the targets defenses to get that crit. In no way does 276 tell you that you can hit because you crit'd. In fact it tells you that you can crit because you hit. You have to hit first before you ever get to crit. If you do not hit first it doesn't matter what you roll.


----------



## Donderafosti (Sep 3, 2009)

So, uh, pitcher chucks a fastball at you and you REALLY get behind it, you crit the  out of it, in fact, you hit the ball so hard it blows up....did you score a home run?

I'd like to hear your take on this Arty =)


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 3, 2009)

abyssaldeath said:


> Yes, but since critical hit is indented after the hit rules you clearly have to roll equal to or higher then the targets defenses to get that crit. In no way does 276 tell you that you can hit because you crit'd. In fact it tells you that you can crit because you hit. You have to hit first before you ever get to crit. If you do not hit first it doesn't matter what you roll.





True enough.  I am not arguing with that at all.  That's the normal case.

However, if one is able to "score a critical hit" without also scoring the minimum number for a regular hit, then, because of the way critical hit is defined as a "hit" (rather than a "miss," the only other choice) you have indeed hit and do maximum damage to your target. 

I maintain that since Holy Ardor lets you "score a critical hit" on doubles, you get maximum damage to your target (and whatever else happens from your critical hit).

I can accept an argument that Precision applies - I don't agree with as I don't think Precision is even a rule but just a re-statement of some rules, but can accept it.  This argument essentially says that "score a critical hit" really means "potentially score a critical hit."

I cannot accept an argument that say you can score a critical hit and yet not hit.  That's counter to the definition of critical hit.  It is simply not possible, per the definition of critical hit, to score a critical hit and yet not hit your target and damage it.


----------



## abyssaldeath (Sep 3, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> True enough.  I am not arguing with that at all.  That's the normal case.
> 
> However, if one is able to "score a critical hit" without also scoring the minimum number for a regular hit, then, because of the way critical hit is defined as a "hit" (rather than a "miss," the only other choice) you have indeed hit and do maximum damage to your target.
> 
> ...



So what you are really saying is that you are ok with completely bypassing the hit rules because you don't like the terminology involved.


----------



## Donderafosti (Sep 3, 2009)

If you go by what's on p276, you could only crit if you nat20'd, which is why..."Precision: Some class features and powers allow you to score a critical hit when you roll numbers other than 20 (only a natural 20 is an automatic hit)." on pg278, where it explicitly states that only a natural 20 has the property 'automatic hit' (this argument was already covered by several people) so I still don't follow why you wouldn't be allowed to have a super-awesome critical mega swing that doesn't do any damage to the target (hp-wise, a creative DM might give them psychological trauma)

Like I said before tho, you've gotta play the way you want to play, the books are only there as guidelines, but...the guidelines clearly state... =P


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 3, 2009)

Donderafosti said:


> So, uh, pitcher chucks a fastball at you and you REALLY get behind it, you crit the [heck] out of it, in fact, you hit the ball so hard it blows up....did you score a home run?
> 
> I'd like to hear your take on this Arty =)




How is this even close to being an applicable analogy??

However, here is a baseball analogy that works.

If you catch the ball, you might get an "out."  See "OUT" below.

OUT:

When the ball is hit by the batter and you catch the ball while it is still in the air, you have scored an out.  If you score an "out" that player is retired off the field.

Now along comes a new rule.

If you get three strikes you score an out.

Whoops - this says nothing about needing to catch it after you hit, or a specifically stated exception to that rule, but, as we all know, you still get an "out" and the player is still retired from the field.

You can't "score an out" and yet the player stays on the field because you did not catch the ball, which, previous to this new rule, was a requirement for an out.  That's because an "Out" is defined as removing the player from the field, and that still applies regardless of how you got the out.

Holy Ardor works in much the same way - it creates a new way to score a critical hit.

But... let's not beat this analogy to death - all analogies tend to be flawed and problematical.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 3, 2009)

abyssaldeath said:


> So what you are really saying is that you are ok with completely bypassing the hit rules because you don't like the terminology involved.





No, I am okay with it because that's the way Holy Ardor is written.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 3, 2009)

Donderafosti said:


> If you go by what's on p276, you could only crit if you nat20'd, ... =P




Not true.

Page 276 says if you roll a natural 20 you might get a critical hit.  It in no way says this is the *only* way to get a critical hit.  Indeed, the rules on page 278 make it clear that sometimes you can roll other than 20 to perhaps get a critical hit.  But, even still, this does not preclude some power from coming up with a totally new mechanism for scoring a critical hit.

That's what holy Arbor does - creates an entirely new mechanism for scoring a critical hit.  That's what "the guidelines clearly state."


----------



## CovertOps (Sep 3, 2009)

N8Ball said:


> I'm not sure I follow you here.  (keep in mind I'm trying to understand your position and it's implications)
> 
> If I got a critical hit using mastery or some other crit-range enhancing ability, why would I not trigger surprise knockdown regardless of a hit or miss?
> 
> If I've scored the crit, and that's the trigger explicitly stated by the feat, doesn't it go off independent of hitting?




Let me start with some of the base assumptions (and I know you're trying to understand my position so I won't try to defend each point):

1. Every attack has 2 components to the result.
1a. Did I hit? ("Hit" "Miss") p276
1b. Did I critical? p278

This gives you a matrix outcome of (sorry I can't make this into a 2x2 grid or 3x3 to include headers):

1a. Hit
1b. Crit    
1c. maximum damage

2a. Hit
2b. no-crit
2c. normal damage

3a. Miss
3b. Crit
3c. no damage

4a. Miss
4b. no-crit
4c. no damage

As in my previous post the "declarative" version of "you score a critical hit" (read this as you do max damage as long as you hit) is *granting* you 1b and 3b.  You still have to qualify 1a or 3a since you can qualify for a "Critical Hit" and not beat the targets defenses (this works with dagger master as well as Holy Ardor).

The "conditional" version "if you score a critical hit" is depending on 1c (the outcome) in that you did max damage to the target.

This is just a rough idea of where I stand and I'll really have to think about it some more before I decide if this is really supported by the rules.  I think what this comes down to (starting with Holy Ardor first) is that you've chosen to skip the step where you determine if the power hit or not FIRST so we do wind up with the outrageous situation of having a critical that misses, but I don't really see that as any different from getting an 18 on the die with Dagger Master and still missing.


----------



## CovertOps (Sep 3, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> Page 276 *defines* what a critical hit really is.  It's *clearly* a special hit where you deal maximum damage.  That's from page 276.  Note that Page 276 says that when you roll a natural 20 you might get a critical hit, but that does not exclude other ways to get a critical hit.
> 
> In fact, page 278 tells you you might get a critical hit on rolls other than 20, as defined in some powers,  and tells you how to determine if a potential critical hit (defined on page 276) turns out to actually be one or not.
> 
> Since Critical Hit is defined as a Hit vs. a Miss, well then, it must be a Hit, right? How can it not be a hit when all attack results are defined as hits or misses and a critical hit is defined under "hit" and not "miss??"  Can you explain that?




I need to clarify that this information is incorrect.  Critical hit is NOT defined on page 276.  It IS defined on p278.  References on p276 only talk about when you might score a critical and restate the max damage clause from p278.  Critical Hit is defined as max damage and a few other things (enhancement bonus dice, high crit, etc).  

Note that the "Natural 20" rule on p278 basically refers back to the Hit rules on p276 but doesn't actually tell you what is or is not a hit.  It only tells you the default case (20 on the die) to get a critical and you don't crit if you didn't hit (automatic hit clause).

Precision (which doesn't really do anything) is just more reminder of the "Hit" rules on p276 reminding you that if some other powers let you crit on more than just 20 you still might not crit because you in fact missed (didn't hit?).....Hmmm...a Crit that misses???? Wonder where we've heard that before.

The rest is just the text of how to calculate the damage you do (this is the actual definition).


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 3, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> Let me start with some of the base assumptions (and I know you're trying to understand my position so I won't try to defend each point):
> 
> 1. Every attack has 2 components to the result.
> 1a. Did I hit? ("Hit" "Miss") p276
> 1b. Did I critical? p278...




I see it differently.  You could miss, hit and not critical or hit and critical. 

You cannot miss and critical - those states are mutually exclusive.  You can, of course, *potentially * get a critical hit and still miss, but that's different.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 3, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> I need to clarify that this information is incorrect.  Critical hit is NOT defined on page 276.  It IS defined on p278. ...




Strongly disagree.

Page 276 defines a Critical Hit as a special subcategory of a Hit that does Maximum Damage.  edit:  It defines Critical Hit in terms of hit or miss (it's a hit) and getting maximum damage.

Page 278 tells you when a potential Critical Hit gets confirmed as an actual critical hit.  edit: It tells you how a Critical Hit works.

edit:  Page 276 is the definition, page 278 is the instructions.

To put it another way, page 276 defines what happens when you attack ("Attack Results") - the possible results are Hit or Miss.  Within Hit, there are two special scenarios - Automatic Hit and Critical Hit.  Both of those are Hits (by definition).  Within Miss there is one special scenario - Automatic Miss.

If you successfully score a critical hit, you have had an "Attack Result" of Hit.  There is no other way to categorize a successful Critical Hit, even if some special power let you skip the normal requirement of rolling high enough to at least tie the target's defense score.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 3, 2009)

Rules Compenduim:



> Hit
> 
> If the attack roll is higher than or equal to the defense score, the attack hits and deals damage, has a special effect, or both.
> 
> ...




Analysis:  Critical Hit is only defined in terms of the three types of a Hit.  Note the core definition:  A critical *hit* deals maximum damage, and some powers and magic items have an extra effect on a critical hit.  The first sentence about rolling a 20 describes one situation where you might score a critical hit.

Conclusion:  A Critical Hit is a type of hit that deals maximum damage (and maybe other effects).



> Crtiical Hit
> 
> Natural 20: If you roll a 20 on the die when making an attack roll, you score a critical hit if your total attack roll is high enough to hit your target’s defense. If your attack roll is too low to score a critical hit, you still hit automatically.
> 
> ...




Anaylsis:  This does not even actually say you roll critical damage when you score a critical hit - you need the "Hit" definitions for that.

Since with Holy Ardor "doubles" you score a critical hit, then you refer to the definition:, "A critical hit deals maximum damage, and some powers and magic items have an extra effect on a critical hit."  I don't even need to dispute whole tortured logic of whether it is  not a "hit" - the defintion says, in essence, "score a critical hit, do the damage," so that's all you need.

That's true if you attempt the argument of a Critical Hit is not Hit.  That is a fallacy and contrary to the definition, rules placement and even the words themselves of Critical Hit.


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 3, 2009)

> I don't agree with as I don't think Precision is even a rule but just a re-statement of some rules, but can accept it. This argument essentially says that "score a critical hit" really means "potentially score a critical hit."




See, there's the problem.  You are flat out choosing to disregard Precision because it is inconvenient to your argument.  It is rules text.  It is contained within rules text.  It might seem redundant, but so seems the OA rules regarding Ranged attacks and Ranged powers... yet as it turns out, the answer is -both- and that actually -means- something non-trivial... it -isn't- redundant.

In this case Precision -seems- redundant, but seeing as it has a direct effect on this case, it is, in fact, -not- redundant.

You are admitting to ignoring a rule to make your case.

Explain to us how you didn't just lose the argument.



> I cannot accept an argument that say you can score a critical hit and yet not hit.




Your entire argument hinges on how other abilities 'can score a critical hit' and yet not hit, and how you believe Holy Ardor is different from that.

However, to prove this wrong:

'I cannot accept an argument that says you can X and yet not X.'

Effect: An ally shifts 5 squares.

You are immobilized when this affects you.

You have an ability that says you can X.  But yet, you cannot X.

So, -yes- it is possible, so you might not be able to accept the argument, but that is from stubbornness and not from facts and evidence presented.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 3, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> See, there's the problem.  You are flat out choosing to disregard Precision because it is inconvenient to your argument.  It is rules text...




No, actually, even though I don't think it adds anything, I have argued against it, showing how it does not apply.



DracoSuave said:


> Your entire argument hinges on how other abilities 'can score a critical hit' and yet not hit, and how you believe Holy Ardor is different from that...




"Can score a critical hit" is not the same as "score a critical hit" nor the same as "allow" you to score a critical hit.

The words "Can" and "Allow" are permissive rules that would allow other rules to apply that describe how to to move from a possible critical hit to actually scoring a critical hit.

With Holy Ardor, WotC chose to drop all language that could indicate the "doubles" only created a possible critical hit situation and simply stated "you score a citical hit."

That, plus the argument about how "doubles" is not the same as rolling numbers other than 20 due to context, goes to show that "Precision" does not apply (even if I agreed it was an important rule).


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 3, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> No, actually, even though I don't think it adds anything, I have argued against it showing how it does not apply.




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 20
4) Proving that Precision is not a rule
5) 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.



> "Can score a critical hit" is not the same as "score a critical hit" not the same as "allow" you to score a critical hit.
> 
> The words "Can" and "Allow" are permissive rules that would allow other rules to apply that describe how to to move from a possible critical hit to actually scoring a critical hit.




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.



> With Holy Ardor, WotC chose to drop all language that could indicate the "doubles" only created a possible critical hit situation and simply stated "you score a citical hit."




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.



> That, plus the argument about how "doubles" is not the same as rolling number other than 20, goes to show that "Precision" does not apply (even if I agreed it was an important rule).




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?


----------



## Flipguarder (Sep 3, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> With Holy Ardor, WotC chose to drop all language that could indicate the "doubles" only created a possible critical hit situation and simply stated "you score a citical hit.




I don't really want to harp at you about everything, but "They could have worded it differently." is not the best argument in the world.


----------



## Flipguarder (Sep 3, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> Where is the flaw in this?




Well, one is that he needs to prove anything. He's said that he thinks both rulings are reasonable. He just thinks his is more probable.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 3, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> I don't really want to harp at you about everything, but "They could have worded it differently." is not the best argument in the world.




  Actually, the words they chose to use are critically important (if you'll pardon the pun).  They chose words that removed all wiggle room.

"You score a critical hit," means, well, "you score a critical hit."  Not you "might" or you "can", or you are "allowed", just you "do."


----------



## Flipguarder (Sep 3, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> Actually, the words they chose to use are critically important (if you'll pardon the pun).  They chose words that removed all wiggle room.
> 
> "You score a critical hit," means, well, "you score a critical hit."  Not you "might" or you "can", or you are "allowed", just you "do."




No removing the wiggle room would be if they added the phrase: "and this attack automatically hits." The fact that it doesn't say that results in quite a bit of wiggle room, as the last 21 pages of this thread would show.


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 3, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> Actually, the words they chose to use are critically important (if you'll pardon the pun).  They chose words that removed all wiggle room.
> 
> "You score a critical hit," means, well, "you score a critical hit."  Not you "might" or you "can", or you are "allowed", just you "do."




It has been proven, already, that an ability does not need to give permission for the rules that govern that ability to work on it.  

Again.  Fireball does not give permission to fire immunity to work.  

I get that you -think- this is important, but it is not merely -suggested- that it is unimportant, it is -proven- that it is unimportant.

In fact, if said permission -were- important, the game -would not work- because the game would be bogged down with language permitting every rule to work in every iteration of every ability in the game.  Every time you had a power, you'd have to include language saying you 'could' hit and that you 'might' miss, and that 'opportunity attacks may happen here'. 

How Basic Melee Attacks using 'can-is-required-for-stuff-to-work' templating:

*At-Will * Weapon* (sometimes an Implement is also a Weapon)
*Standard Action* sometimes * *Melee* weapon (except with a thrown weapon, which uses only reach, but not range)
*Target:* One creature, mostly.  (An object is sometimes fine too, ask the DM tho)
*Attack:* Strength and some other stuff vs AC.  
*Hit:* You might deal 1[W]+Strength damage.  Sometimes more.  Sometimes less.  Depends.  [W] has to be the weapon you use tho.  Don't try switching weapons on us.  Seriously, we mean it.  Except when we don't.  You might also knock something prone, or gain a bonus to hit later.  You might mark a guy.  You might add in bonus damage (which may be from a class feature or other power or feature).
*Miss:* You probably don't deal damage.
*At 21st level or higher, you might deal 1[W]+Strength damage.  Sometimes more.  Sometimes less.  Depends.  [W] has to be the weapon you use tho.  Don't try switching weapons on us.  Seriously, we mean it.  Except when we don't.  You might also knock something prone, or gain a bonus to hit later.  You might mark a guy.  You might add in bonus damage (which may be from a class feature or other power or feature).
SpecialSometimes something else will say it can be used instead of this.  We're telling you that it's okay.

It'd be a damn retarded mess. (also, every feat would have to be carefully added, because lest you should introduce a new way for a power or feature to give you a benefit, you'd have to errata the -entire product line-!  EDIT: As an example, I had to errata it when I remembered Scimitar Dance, and the 21st weapon extra damage kicking in, and Druid Beast Form At-wills.)

Thankfully, common sense kicks in and we know to apply applicable rules unless an exception exists to countermand it.

The game works.  That is proof that the rules do not require 'can' to work.

And Precision is a rule.*


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 3, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> ...
> 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.
> ...




Doubles 9s (for example) is not rolling numbers other than 20.  It is rolling double 9s, something entirely new in the game.  It's a new creation for Holy Ardor.

All the other rules around hitting (and critical hitting) are around rolling one die (or the best of two, or something like that), not looking for doubles - that's a new creation, and it comes with a new rule for it:  "you score a critical hit" - unless you roll double ones.

Precision does not apply because Holy Ardor is a game changing rule (an exception) that modifes the basic critcal hit rules dramatically by removing the requirement to score a certain number and for that number to be equal (or better) to the target's defense, instead, you roll doubles and score a critical hit.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 3, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> It has been proven, already, that an ability does not need to give permission for the rules that govern that ability to work on it.
> 
> Again.  Fireball does not give permission to fire immunity to work.
> 
> ...




It's also been proven that words are important, especially when creating a new exception.  If every clearly stated exception (like, "you score a critical hit") were to be picked apart like this one, then a whole host of powers would not work as designed and the game would break down.

Wow - see how easily that argument works both ways.  

My argument here is basically simple.

Normally, to score a critical hit you must first score a certain number on the die, and that number must also at least tie the target's defense.

With Holy Ardor, instead you roll doubles - and that's it, because the power says that at that point you have scored a critical hit.  Because it clearly states "you score a critical hit," you need go no further - you're done.  You've got the crit.

The rules about needing to first tie the defender's score have been superseded.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 3, 2009)

The real reason that the lack of the word "can" (or any other word modifying "score a critical hit") is so important comes from the language in the Critical Hit rule itself:

"...you score a critical hit if your total attack roll is high enough to hit your target’s defense."

It's hard for me to see how, in the light of the above language, how "roll doubles and score a critical hit" can mean anything other than what it says.  It creates a new condition for when you "score a critical hit."  And not, there is a HUGE difference between "scoring a critical hit" and language like "you might score a critical hit" like is used in the "Hit" section of the rules.

They KNOW how to present this correctly to preserve the aspect of critical hits where you roll a potential critical hit and confirm it, and we have to assume either they presented it this way to create a new rule of no confirmation required or they are incompetent (at least in this instance).  I chose to believe the former.


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 3, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> It's also been proven that words are important, especially when creating a new exception.  If every clearly stated exception (like, "you score a critical hit") were to be picked apart like this one, then a whole host of powers would not work as designed and the game would break down.
> 
> Wow - see how easily that argument works both ways.




I agree words can be important.  But we're not talking about 'words'.  We're talking about -a- specific word in -a- specific sense and -a- specific meaning.  And it is proven that specific meaning is not important, that specific sense is not important, and that specific word is not important.

The fallacy in your argument is this:

'Some dogs are black'
'Therefore, this chihuahua must be black, even tho you claim it appears white.'

Basic Logic Fail.



> My argument here is basically simple.
> 
> Normally, to score a critical hit you must first score a certain number on the die, and that number must also at least tie the target's defense.




That certain number is natural 20.  It is not anything else -but- natural 20.  You are using the existance of other abilities to insinuate that the natural 20 rule includes them as part of its meaning, when it makes no such claim, and, in fact, -denies- such a claim in the very text of the governing rules.

...cause then Precision tells you other abilities exist that do not require a natural 20, but that they are not automatic hits.

So, that means that exceptions to natural 20 are specifically called out by Precision.



> With Holy Ardor, instead you roll doubles - and that's it, because the power says that at that point you have scored a critical hit.  Because it clearly states "you score a critical hit," you need go no further - you're done.  You've got the crit.




At which point you apply the critical hit rules.  One of which says that there are exceptions to the natural 20, and that they do not automaticly hit.

So the rules for critical hits do, in fact, apply to this.



> The rules about needing to first tie the defender's score have been superseded.




By what, exactly?  The rules for critical hits, -invoked- by the 'scoring of a critical hit' tell you *not* to supercede those same rules.


----------



## N8Ball (Sep 3, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> This is just a rough idea of where I stand and I'll really have to think about it some more before I decide if this is really supported by the rules.  I think what this comes down to (starting with Holy Ardor first) is that you've chosen to skip the step where you determine if the power hit or not FIRST so we do wind up with the outrageous situation of having a critical that misses, but I don't really see that as any different from getting an 18 on the die with Dagger Master and still missing.




I would agree that the Holy Ardor double-2-miss should be treated as the same as a Daggermasters 18-miss or for that matter any rogue that used a 17-20 crit power (there are 2 in the PHB) but failed to achieve a hitting attack score.  Under this intrepretation they would both seem to be crits that didn't hit.



> The "conditional" version "if you score a critical hit" is depending on 1c (the outcome) in that you did max damage to the target.




I see where you are going here, and that would make sense, but I can't find anywhere in the rules to support that difference.    

I think any player with the conditional "if you score..." ability would rightfully look to his other abilities that say "you score a crit on a 18-20" as justification for kicking off those powers when he rolled an 18-20.


----------



## N8Ball (Sep 3, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> ...  The game works....




Yes, it does.  But if it works the way you suggest, what are the consequences?  

Won't my rogue kick off all kinds of "When you score a critical hit..." abilities while *missing* within his crit range of 18-20?  (see my last 2 posts to CovertOps)


----------



## CovertOps (Sep 3, 2009)

Since we don't like the hit rules let's go back even further.

I know already what you're going to say....Holy Ardor says you "score a critical hit" so go straight to apply maximum damage so consider it said already and don't trot it out again.

Page 269 Making an attack

This is an ordered list and therefore MUST be performed in the order given.

1.  Choose the attack you'll use.  Each attack has an *attack type*.
2.  Choose *targets* for the attack (page 273).  Each target must be within *range* (page 273).  Check whether you can *see* and *target* your enemies (page 273).
3.  Make an *attack roll* (page 273)


> Commentary:  At this step OoE kicks in and allows you to roll 2 dice and pick the higher result.



4.  Compare your attack roll to the target's *defense* (page 274) to determine whether you *hit* or *miss*.
5.  Deal *damage* and apply other effects (page 276).


> Commentary:  At this step Holy Ardor kicks in if you rolled doubles.  If you got a crit you can now use powers that proc based on a crit.





N8Ball:  Does this resolve our problem of the powers that proc when you crit?

Artoomis:  Does this resolve your problem of crits that miss since that is not possible *if you actually follow the rules in the order presented?*

Oh and by the way Artoomis don't even bother saying that Holy Ardor overrides this rule other than in the way I have outlined above because it doesn't.

Also note that I didn't realize this was in the rules, but 


CovertOps said:


> 1. Using OoE roll 2 dice and pick the larger of the 2 results (at this point it does not matter if you roll doubles).
> 2. Add your bonuses and check the targets defense to determine if you hit the target.
> 3. IF you indeed hit now go back and check if you rolled doubles (Holy Ardor), or rolled a 20.
> 
> I can't believe you all think that Holy Ardor allows you to ignore this.






N8Ball said:


> Where does it state *when* you check doubles?  It never says that it must be *after* (or dependent on) a successful hit roll.  I want to check first, what's wrong with that?
> 
> And in reality, that's the more likely case anyway since noticing that 2 numbers are the same is a bit faster than addition to find an attack score.




I am now satisfied.  We do not need any errata for this at all *unless* WotC wants to have Holy Ardor grant a "Hit" on doubles that would normally miss.


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 3, 2009)

N8Ball said:


> Yes, it does.  But if it works the way you suggest, what are the consequences?
> 
> Won't my rogue kick off all kinds of "When you score a critical hit..." abilities while *missing* within his crit range of 18-20?  (see my last 2 posts to CovertOps)




If it doesn't work as I describe, 'When you score a critical hit' abilities can't work -at all-.

See, in that case, critical hits don't allow you to do extra effects from feats and such, because critical hit maximum damage does not -tell- you to apply extra feat effects.  And the ability allowing the critical hit doesn't tell you to apply extra feat effects.

Which means that those feat effects can't happen, because of the lack of the permissive form.

Which means, as well, you can't have maximum damage on critical hits, because even tho you score a critical hit, the power -itself- doesn't say you -can- deal so and so damage, but says you -do- deal so and so damage, thusly you can deal no more, and no less, than is stated in the power.

Oh wait.  The consequences of my standpoint?

Well cause the rule tells you to cancel out the critical hit because you don't actually hit, then you don't get the feat bonuses, of course.  Same as how feats that trigger on a push don't trigger if you don't actually push the enemy.

Figured that was obvious tho.

That's your consequence.


----------



## N8Ball (Sep 3, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> Page 269 Making an attack
> 
> This is an ordered list and therefore MUST be performed in the order given.
> 
> ...




Good stuff Covert, very crunchy.  

Though I'm not sure how you decided to put checking for doubles at the end.  What is that based on?  Why can't (or why wouldn't) you check for doubles as soon as the dice are rolled?

Presumably that's when you'd check for a 20 (before step 4) in order to check if you have an automatic hit (eliminating the need to check for a miss in step 4).  This is also where you'd check for your crit range to see if you have a critical hit.  Why not check for doubles there with all the other numbers too?

Also, I'm not sure what you're saying about crit-miss effects either.  Please elaborate.


----------



## CovertOps (Sep 3, 2009)

N8Ball said:


> Good stuff Covert, very crunchy.
> 
> Though I'm not sure how you decided to put checking for doubles at the end.  What is that based on?  Why can't (or why wouldn't) you check for doubles as soon as the dice are rolled?
> 
> ...




You were asking about powers that trigger if you "score a critical hit" and how would that work under my reading of the rules where you could "crit" and "miss" at the same time.

EDIT: Oh and because if you miss (step 4) you won't deal max damage (step 5).  I suppose you could put it after step 4 (or technically before step 5), but I put it where if fit logically.  A critical is about dealing max damage.  Where else in that ordered list does it say anything about damage?

More EDIT:  My commentary is actually supposed to be PART of the step it is listed under not before or after.


----------



## CovertOps (Sep 3, 2009)

Ok...now you have me wondering.  Are you talking about the actual act of you the player looking at the dice and seeing...gee I got 5 and 5 "DOUBLES" or the step in the procedure where it matters if you got doubles or not?


----------



## CovertOps (Sep 3, 2009)

One last comment then off to bed.  I now realize N8Ball that you may have been asking about the 2 quotes at the bottom of my post.  My comment above them may lead you to believe they are rules text, but they are not.  I was pointing out that I got very close to the actual rules text back on page 12 (post 236) of this thread, but didn't follow up on it by checking the PHB for something similar.  I was also pointing out that you dismissed that comment out of hand saying that order didn't matter.

All I can say is DOH!!!!


----------



## N8Ball (Sep 3, 2009)

There's some other stuff in that post that I really wanted to respond to, but it would have been a distraction from the point I'm trying to get at.



DracoSuave said:


> Well cause the rule tells you to cancel out the critical hit because you don't actually hit, ...




Hold it right there.  Would you care to back that statement up with some text or something?  Where in all the rulebooks does it tell you to *cancel out* crits because you didn't hit?


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 3, 2009)

N8Ball said:


> There's some other stuff in that post that I really wanted to respond to, but it would have been a distraction from the point I'm trying to get at.
> 
> 
> 
> Hold it right there.  Would you care to back that statement up with some text or something?  Where in all the rulebooks does it tell you to *cancel out* crits because you didn't hit?




Actually that's an interesting statement.  Nothing says 'if you don't hit, you don't crit.'  I mean, except for how natural 20 works.  And that rule is called 'automatic hit'.  And it says that if you roll a 20 but don't hit, you don't actually crit, but just normally hit.

And then Precision goes and tells you that only 20s benefit from automatic hits -at all-.

I mean no, it doesn't say it -verbatim-.  But it does imply this -heavily.-


But regardless of that.... the precident exists where you are told by a power or feature to do something and another rule tells you that it is not possible.  Immobilized tells you non-forced movement is not possible.  Dazed tells you immediate actions are not possible.  Charge tells you that further actions are not possible--barring one exception.

It's not difficult to see that 'Even if X says it happens, X might not happen' is definately a logically sound statement in fourth edition.

Which means the counter argument 'It says you crit, so you can't not crit' is utter horse hockey.  Clearly, it is quite possible.

What happens if you 'definately crit' and Armor of Bahamut kicks in?

Well, it -says- you score a crit, so obviously, you -must- crit.  Outside rules can't say you can't?  B.S.  You don't crit in this instance, Armor of Bahamut says you do not.

And, as you said, if you accept the logic 'If you critical hit, you must hit' then you -must- accept the logic 'If you do not hit, you do not critical hit.'

It's a basic law of logic:  p -> q <=> ~q -> ~p.

So it cuts both ways.  If you do not hit, you cannot crit.  

'Oh, but see, it works in reverse too, ya?  If you crit, you hit!  Aha!  We got you!'

But as I already said, an ability -saying- you crit is not the same thing as actually critting, for the same reason that -This power says it deals 4 damage- is not the same thing as -The spirit companion takes 4 damage-. 

Look at that for a moment.  You have a situation where the power says it does something 'deal 4 damage' but you have the spirit companion specificly say it can be targeted by that power, but then says 'But it only deals damage if it's above 5+half your level.'

Sound familiar?  You have an instance (X), and a rule that explicitly says that instance X can work, but then limits what X -can- in fact do.

*So you can have something -say- something but have that something -not happen.-  Saying something happens is -not- an exception to rules that say -how- that something may not happen.*  To do so, you need further rules, that tell you that this is a different case, how it is a different case, and what to do because it is a different case.

Therefore 'The ability says it scores a crit' is not a guarantee of a critical hit.  *You must apply -all- applicable rules normally in the absense of an exception.*  You cannot assume it is a critical hit before you do so, for the -exact reason- you cannot assume the above power deals damage to a spirit companion... there -might- be a reason why it does not.



So, to sum up.

Yes, the ability says you crit.
Saying event X happens is not enough to guarantee X happens when contravening rules apply.
If you succesfully crit, you must successfully hit, and so:
*If you do not hit, you cannot crit.*
Precision removes any sense of automatic hit from Holy Ardor, and without any language indicating Holy Ardor is -truly- differing from this, the regular rules apply.
The regular rules say you do not hit.
Therefore, you do not crit.


So... does Call Spirit Companion work as I say above?  Or does the absense of 'can' in damage text negate how CSC deals with damage to a Spirit Companion.

The problem with your logic, is that when applied -exactly as you describe- to other instances, you break the rules apart.

That's a sign the logic is -wrong-.  In debates, it's called a 'Disproof by Counterexample.'  It renders your argument form meaningless.  It is a -proof- things do not work as you believe.


----------



## Kraydak (Sep 3, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> So, to sum up.
> 
> Yes, the ability says you crit.



Check


> Saying event X happens is not enough to guarantee X happens when contravening rules apply.



Check.  Rule contradictions of this form are handled by the specific trumps general rule in DnD.


> If you succesfully crit, you must successfully hit, and so:
> *If you do not hit, you cannot crit.*



Utterly unsupported by the rules.


> Precision removes any sense of automatic hit from Holy Ardor, and without any language indicating Holy Ardor is -truly- differing from this, the regular rules apply.
> The regular rules say you do not hit.



Check


> Therefore, you do not crit.



Unsupported by the rules.


----------



## ObsidianCrane (Sep 3, 2009)

If Holy Ardor said: "When you use Oath of Enmity, you score a Crit, unless you roll double 1." I would be satisfied it does not call on the Precision rule. However the "if you roll a double" text is what leads me to believe Precision applies.

1 Did you roll an attack?
2 Did you roll a number?
3 Is that number the same on both dice rolled due to Oath of Enmity?
3a Is that number a 20? 
 - If not a 20; If it is a Hit it is a Crit (Precision); Else it is Not a Hit, it is not a Crit, it is a Miss.
 - If it is a 20; If it is a Hit it is a Crit. Else it is Not a Hit (Precision) it is not a Crit, it is a Miss.
4 Is one of the Dice a 20?
 - If yes and it is a hit; it is a crit; else it is a hit.
 - If no is it a hit?
 - -If it is a hit; else it is a miss.
5 If Hit; (if a Crit do Maximum Damage; else Do Damage); else do Miss


You cannot get to 3 without 1 and 2, you cannot have a double without a number in the case of an attack roll. (You might have other funky dice that can generate oter double results afterall.) You must therefor have rolled a number other than 20 and therefor invoke the Precision rule.


----------



## ObsidianCrane (Sep 3, 2009)

Kraydak said:


> > If you succesfully crit, you must successfully hit, and so:
> > If you do not hit, you cannot crit.
> 
> 
> ...




Actually it is, the Crit rules specifically allow you to roll a result that would be a Crit if it Hit, but not hit and thus not be a Crit.

Critical Hit Rules work like this;

Attack{
Hit= a d20 roll + modifiers = > targeted defence of target.
Nat20 = the d20 shows a 20
Precision = the d20 shows a number other than 20 that you can score a Crit with
CritChance = a Nat20 or Precision
Miss = a d20 roll + modifiers < targeted defence of target.
Crit = Maximum damage and other effects requiring a Critical Hit
Damage = Normal damage of the Attack.

If (Hit AND CritChance) Then Crit; Else (If (Nat20) then Do(Damage); Else Miss);}

The argument of Artoomis is fundamentally that because Holy Ardor uses "rolled a double" that it creates this situation:

Attack{
Hit= a d20 roll + modifiers = > targeted defence of target.
Nat20 = the d20 shows a 20
Precision = the d20 shows a number other than 20 that you can score a Crit with
HolyArdor = you roll doubles other than double 1 using Oath of Enmity on d20 as part of an Attack
CritChance = a Nat20 or Precision
Miss = a d20 roll + modifiers < targeted defence of target.
Crit = Maximum damage and other effects requiring a Critical Hit
Damage = Normal damage of the Attack.

If ((Hit AND CritChance) OR HolyArdor) Then Crit; Else (If (Nat20) then Do(Damage); Else Miss);}

The problem is that this requires that Holy Ardor not roll a number on a d20 as part of an attack roll to not invoke Precision. But Holy Ardor does roll a number on a d20 on an attack roll, leaving that as false. You cannot ignore the underlying rules unless explicitly told to do so in exception based design.


----------



## Kraydak (Sep 3, 2009)

Cailte said:


> Actually it is, the Crit rules specifically allow you to roll a result that would be a Crit if it Hit, but not hit and thus not be a Crit.




But that only refers to critting on a natural 20.  It is not inherent in critting *in general*.  Note that the algorithm for applying criticals does not (or at least I noticed it didn't the last time I looked at it, but I could have missed it, AFB) reference running the "hit" line.

Now, IF you had crits as a subset of hits, THEN Holy Ardor WOULD say doubles (not 1s) gives you a Crit (and a hit), because then criticals include hits.  And Holy Ardor, as a more specific rule than the general PHB hit/miss rules, would take precedence.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 3, 2009)

Since my fundamental argument is around a new mechanic (doubles) plus a rule telling you how that works (score a critical hit), and the counter primarily says the other rules on critical hits must still apply (must hit first), what if we had the following (I generally don't like "what if," but I think this one is powerful):

If you use Oath of Enmity and roll doubles, you hit, unless you get double ones.

That language is fundamentally the same as the existing Holy Ardor feature:

If you use Oath of Enmity and roll doubles, you score a critical hit, unless you get double ones.

Do you folks see the same result (in your case:  Doubles 2 denied the Hit because a "2" did not at least tie the target's defense) or would the language that essentially says doubles = Hit override the previous rule?

FWIW, as I see it in both cases:

A new mechanic (roll doubles) has a new rule for it ("Hit", in the "what if; "Score a Critical Hit" in "Holy Ardor") and it is that simple.  You follow the new rule, which is creating an exception.


----------



## keterys (Sep 3, 2009)

The hit rules don't include 'Precision' - crits do - so those are entirely different rules. The first can work, while the latter fails.

The doubles being a hit would be interesting, though


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 3, 2009)

Cailte said:


> ...The problem is that this requires that Holy Ardor not roll a number on a d20 as part of an attack roll to not invoke Precision. But Holy Ardor does roll a number on a d20 on an attack roll, leaving that as false. You cannot ignore the underlying rules unless explicitly told to do so in exception based design.




1.  With Holy Ardor you roll two attacks rolls and pick the highest one per Oath of Enmity.  At that point, all the normal rules apply and you have your attack roll (the higher one) that is used for the "Hit" and "Critical Hit" rules.  Then Holy Ardor adds in a new wrinkle - check the result of the OTHER (now unused) d20 and, if they are identical, you score a critical hit.  At this point you are no longer looking at the result from a d20, but the result from TWO d20s TOGETHER.  This is something entirely new, and comes with a new rule for it, "you score a critcal hit."

2.  "You score a critical hit" is an explicit exception.  ALL other modifications to Critical Hit rules either explicitly give you the* possibility *of a Critical Hit or are explicitly applied only after a Hit is achieved. The dropping of the word "can" cannot be presumed to be meaningless, especially in the context of a new rules mechanic (doubles).

WotC knows how to write "you *can* score a critical on 18-20" or, as it would be in this case, "you *can* score a critical if you roll doubles."  They chose not to write it that way and how can we, with intellectual honesty, disregard the way they chose to write it?  It's a claer signal that this new rule is a departure (an exception) from the previous rule on how to score a critical hit.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 3, 2009)

keterys said:


> The hit rules don't include 'Precision' - crits do - so those are entirely different rules. The first can work, while the latter fails.
> 
> The doubles being a hit would be interesting, though





Fair point.  So what does Precision really say?  Let's parse it:

Precision: Some class features and powers allow you to score a critical hit when you roll numbers other than 20 (only a natural 20 is an automatic hit).

Some class features and powers allow you to score a critical hit when you roll numbers other than 20...

That says nothing we don't know from each feature or power.  Nothing new, no actual rules here.

,,,(only a natural 20 is an automatic hit)

Again, nothing new, we already know that only a natural 20 is an automatic hit.

So there is no new information or rule here.

The Critical Hit rule tells you how to decide if the possibility of a critical hit actually scores a critical hit.

So, Precision is nothing, really.  Just reminders of rules that exists elsewhere anyway.  It does serve one useful purpose though, it reminds us that if you have the possibility of a critical hit and don't at least tie the target's defense score, you'll only hit with a natural 20.

Attempts to use Precision as a rule requires one to assumptions and implications to some up with some rule that would void our Holy Ardor new rule on doubles.


----------



## keterys (Sep 3, 2009)

You might want to not ungroup Precision from the lines immediately above it 'you score a critical hit if your total attack roll is high enough to hit your target’s defense.
If your attack roll is too low to score a critical hit, you still hit automatically.'

Well, I suppose you _do_ want to ungroup it. Carry right on.

Actually - out of curiosity - do you play or DM for a character who is an avenger and might have or take this paragon path? Or is it more just for the fun of debate?


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 3, 2009)

keterys said:


> You might want to not ungroup Precision from the lines immediately above it 'you score a critical hit if your total attack roll is high enough to hit your target’s defense.
> If your attack roll is too low to score a critical hit, you still hit automatically.'
> 
> Well, I suppose you _do_ want to ungroup it. Carry right on.
> ...




1.  Grouping it back into the lines above we get:

If you roll a 20 (or a feature or power designated number other than 20) on the die when making an attack roll, you score a critical hit if your total attack roll is high enough to hit your target’s defense. If your attack roll is too low to score a critical hit, you still hit automatically if you rolled a natural 20.

That still adds no real value and does not change the rule.

2.  Just for fun of debate.  And, I suppose, as a public service.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Sep 3, 2009)

Ok, so first there is the Natural 20 rule.

If you roll a natural 20 *you score a critical hit* if your total attack roll is high enough to hit your target's defense. If the attack roll is too low to score a critical hit, you still hit automatically.

So this means that you do NOT score a critical hit if you miss on a natural 20. It's not "you crit, but because you miss it's only a normal hit", it's a case of "you do not score a critical hit, but you do get an automatic hit instead".

Precision: Some class features and powers allow you to score a critical hit when you roll numbers other than 20.

This just points out other methods of scoring criticals exist. Then, in brackets, it adds:

only a natural 20 is an automatic hit.

So, when it says "you can score a critical hit on an 18-20" it means, when you roll betwen 18-20, you _can_ score a critical hit. Only a 20 can you fail to score a critical hit and still get an automatic hit. Since it doesn't say that you _do_ score a critical hit, you use the rule for natural 20, with the modifier that an automatic hit occurs only on a natural 20.

No one is arguing that automatic hit applies for the ardent champion. They are either arguing that rolling a pair of 2's, for example, will result in a miss OR it will result in a critical hit. No is arguing that it will result in an automatic hit (which would mean a non-critical hit).

Unlike all other critical hit class features and powers and feats ... the Ardent Champion does not allow that you _can_ score a critical hit, but states that you actually score a critical hit. Precision says nothing about how to score a critical hit, only when other powers increase the crit range, it doesn't also increase automatic hit range. If you score a critical hit, you have hit. Normally, in order to check to see if you have scored a critical hit, you need to check to see if you have hit. This is why the powers that increase the 'crit range' all say that you _can_ score a critical hit on 19 and 20 or 18-20, etc ... because it is possible in some corner cases to roll those numbers and not hit, and therefore, not score a critical hit.

In this case, rolling doubles instantly causes you to score a critical hit, skipping over the hit/miss check completely.

There is a difference between "hits regardless of roll and it's a critical hit as well" and "automatic hit". The latter is a specific case when you roll a natural 20 and still fail to hit, resulting in a normal hit. The former is what some are claiming is occuring. It does not contradict Precision, because people are not claiming an automatic non-critical hit when the dice are double, but the total is less than the target defense. The are claiming that a critical hit is scored that does not compare the attack roll to the target defense at all, so long as the dice are doubled and not 1's.


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 3, 2009)

> No one is arguing that automatic hit applies for the ardent champion.




No, they're just arguing you get to hit without a resolution of the normal hit rules, to which the only precident is Natural 20.

So, you're saying it acts -exactly- like an automatic hit, talks like an automatic hit, behaves like an automatic hit, and not an automatic hit?

Buddy, you're describing an automatic hit, i.e., a hit that ignores the normal hit resolution mechanic.

I don't know how else to say that.

Precision is -not- a redundant rule.  It doesn't -restate- previous rules.  What it does is say 'There are other situations that score critical hits, and they do not get to circumvent the normal hit resolution.'

This is important because without that rule, the implication exists that -they do.- 

Again, I say, you do not -get to choose to ignore a rule you find inconvenient to your argument.-

That is exactly what you are doing.

Your opposition has yet to ignore a rule to make a point, pretend things are defined differently to make a point.

In other words, all you've proven is that if you change the rules of the game, you're right.  However, that is faulty: You're supposed to prove that if you -don't- change the rules of the game things work as you say.

But regardless.  Let's prove that you crit when the ability says you crit first.

So follow me here.

You have a wisdom modifier of +4.  You hit with a power that says: 'Hit: Wisdom modifier radiant damage'.  It is a Ranged power, and you are attacking a Spirit Conjuration.  How much damage did you deal to the conjuration?

If you go by your argument as to how the rules work, you did 4 damage.  If you go by how the rules -actually- work, you did 0.


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 3, 2009)

WalterKovacs said:


> There is a difference between "hits regardless of roll and it's a critical hit as well" and "automatic hit". The latter is a specific case when you roll a natural 20 and still fail to hit, resulting in a normal hit. The former is what some are claiming is occuring. It does not contradict Precision, because people are not claiming an automatic non-critical hit when the dice are double, but the total is less than the target defense. The are claiming that a critical hit is scored that does not compare the attack roll to the target defense at all, so long as the dice are doubled and not 1's.




Sadly tho, 'score a critical hit' does not include 'circumvent the hit mechanics' either.  Please find where it does.  -If- it does, then you'll notice it's through automatic hit rules.  Precision says -no- to that.

If it doesn't, then you have a case where you're using the assumption success occured to prove that failure is impossible.  You have no instance telling you success is assured, which means you have no exception to the normal hit rules, because you are not told that you hit at all.


Here's another way to look at it:  You are attacking a square you think an enemy is in with a power.  You have a feature that says 'You hit'.  He is invisible, and is not in the square.  Do you hit?

The answer is 'no' because even if the ability says you hit, you do not get to automaticly apply a hit when that hit is rendered impossible with the situation.

Here's another situation.  Let's assume Holy Ardor works as you say.  You roll doubles.  The above situation occurs.  Do you hit?

No.  You already -know- you do not hit.

This means that you don't get to circumvent hit mechanics just because the text says 'You score a critical.'  If it worked as you say, it would circumvent -all- methods of failure with regards to hits.

Clearly it does not, therefore the argument that 'score a critical hit' implies the hit will occur is flawed.  You are missing something there, so please point out the missing premise.


----------



## CovertOps (Sep 3, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> If you use Oath of Enmity and roll doubles, you hit, unless you get double ones.




No matter what I prefer to see the specific exception.  How about:
If you use Oath of Enmity and roll doubles, you hit - even if your roll does not beat the defense of the target, unless you get double ones.

This text overrides the denial text you are looking to ignore.  I am curious though, if given free choice, what you would want the power to do?

For fun what about this:

If you use Oath of Enmity and roll doubles, you hit - even if your roll does not beat the defense of the target, unless you get double ones.  If you use Oath of Enmity and roll doubles, and your roll *does* beat the defense of the target, you score a critical hit, unless you get double ones.

This gives you an increased crit range where you would normally hit and an automatic hit if you would normally miss.
EDIT: Left a loophole where you didn't need doubles to get the critical.


----------



## Trebor62 (Sep 3, 2009)

WalterKovacs said:


> Ok, so first there is the Natural 20 rule.
> 
> If you roll a natural 20 *you score a critical hit* if your total attack roll is high enough to hit your target's defense. If the attack roll is too low to score a critical hit, you still hit automatically.
> 
> ...




Excellent summation.


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 3, 2009)

Trebor62 said:


> Excellent summation.




And like I said, 'score a critical hit' does not automaticly mean a critical hit is scored.  It's disproven now.

So the premise is false.

EDIT: Kraydak:  When something is shown to be logically true 'unsupported by the rules' is not the right rebuttal when you agree with the premise that proves it to be the case.  I.E. you agreed with 'If you crit, you must hit' means you -must- logically agree with 'If you do not Crit, you cannot hit.'  The logic there is irrefutable... it's a basic law applied.


----------



## kugelkj (Sep 3, 2009)

WalterKovacs said:


> The are claiming that a critical hit is scored that does not compare the attack roll to the target defense at all, so long as the dice are doubled and not 1's.




This is an interesting case.  Are you arguing that in the case of 20/20 that Holy Ardor overrides the Natural 20 rule and Precision?  Just applying OoE, you would discard one of the dice and the Natural 20 rule kicks in (if your attack would miss, you still hit without a crit).  However, with Holy Ardor in effect (your interpretation) the same number on both dice cause a critical hit regardless of your roll (except 1's).

I'm asking b/c OoE you only use one of the dice rolled as your actual roll.  When Holy Ardor kicks in, do you not still discard one of the dice (even though it doesn't matter which one)?  Giving you one final number... thus the Natural 20 rule kicks in.

Full Disclosure: I read 9 pages of this thread and then skipped to the last page b/c i couldn't stand the back and forth of it.

Flame on.


----------



## CovertOps (Sep 3, 2009)

kugelkj said:


> Full Disclosure: I read 9 pages of this thread and then skipped to the last page b/c i couldn't stand the back and forth of it.
> Flame on.




You need to read pages 19+ which covers some new ground and pretty much proves that "Critical Hit" does not grant a "Hit" and that in this case Precision doesn't even matter.


----------



## Kraydak (Sep 3, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> And like I said, 'score a critical hit' does not automaticly mean a critical hit is scored.  It's disproven now.




But it does mean that a critical hit is scored UNLESS something explicitly says otherwise, AND that thing takes rules priority.  Of course, I believe we disagree about what a critical hit is, as noted below.



> So the premise is false.
> 
> EDIT: Kraydak:  When something is shown to be logically true 'unsupported by the rules' is not the right rebuttal when you agree with the premise that proves it to be the case.  I.E. you agreed with 'If you crit, you must hit' means you -must- logically agree with 'If you do not Crit, you cannot hit.'  The logic there is irrefutable... it's a basic law applied.




Two things:
a) Nowhere in the rules does it say that a critical hit must also be a hit.  This is what I meant by "unsupported by the rules".  People are assuming this, but there doesn't seem to be any solid reason rules-based reason for it.

b) IF  you believe that "if you crit, you must hit", then a critical hit is a special kind of hit, and then Holy Ardor, being the more specific rule, trumps all else, and grants a hit (except even more specific weird corner cases like a monster being able to negate a critical hit as an encounter power...).


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 3, 2009)

Kraydak said:


> But it does mean that a critical hit is scored UNLESS something explicitly says otherwise, AND that thing takes rules priority.  Of course, I believe we disagree about what a critical hit is, as noted below.




Good point.



> Two things:
> a) Nowhere in the rules does it say that a critical hit must also be a hit.  This is what I meant by "unsupported by the rules".  People are assuming this, but there doesn't seem to be any solid reason rules-based reason for it.




That's a good point.... but the case 'it's a critical hit and therefore it must hit' is the assumption presented, the counter argument being 'In that case, if it does not hit, it must not crit' is a valid counter.



> b) IF  you believe that "if you crit, you must hit", then a critical hit is a special kind of hit, and then Holy Ardor, being the more specific rule, trumps all else, and grants a hit (except even more specific weird corner cases like a monster being able to negate a critical hit as an encounter power...).




I agree to a point.  But that has to assume the critical hit is automaticly successful, and that the rules for how critical hits themselves work don't say otherwise (they do).  That is an assumption that is impossible to make: It is -quite- possible to have an ability that automaticly crits, but does not hit, and therefore does not crit.  A perfect example is rolling a natural 20 to hit an invisible man who is not in the square you elect.  You don't hit him, even tho you -automatically- hit him.

Therefore 'The ability says X' is not sufficient to prove X when rules evidence exists that suggest X is not able to occur, and there is no exception noted to said rules evidence.


----------



## Eldorian (Sep 3, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> You need to read pages 19+ which covers some new ground and pretty much proves that "Critical Hit" does not grant a "Hit" and that in this case Precision doesn't even matter.




You do not need to read pages 19+, this thread is a mire of circular arguments and nitpicking of the highest degree.  The fact remains that no one has given me a reason that Precision does not apply.  This was pointed out on like page 2.


----------



## abyssaldeath (Sep 3, 2009)

Kraydak said:


> Two things:
> a) Nowhere in the rules does it say that a critical hit must also be a hit.  This is what I meant by "unsupported by the rules".  People are assuming this, but there doesn't seem to be any solid reason rules-based reason for it.
> 
> b) IF  you believe that "if you crit, you must hit", then a critical hit is a special kind of hit, and then Holy Ardor, being the more specific rule, trumps all else, and grants a hit (except even more specific weird corner cases like a monster being able to negate a critical hit as an encounter power...).




On page 276 Critical Hit is indented under Hit which means that a critical hit is completely contingent on you hitting first.


----------



## Kraydak (Sep 3, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> That's a good point.... but the case 'it's a critical hit and therefore it must hit' is the assumption presented, the counter argument being 'In that case, if it does not hit, it must not crit' is a valid counter.




But that isn't a counter!  It is a statement of fact that is unlikely to be of relevance.  If we have "it's a crit, and therefore it must hit", then "in that case, if it does not hit, it must not crit", while true, only matters if something *actively, and with priority* makes it not hit.



> I agree to a point.  But that has to assume the critical hit is automaticly successful, and that the rules for how critical hits themselves work don't say otherwise (they do).




The "precision" section is, flat out, wasted text.  *Everything it refers to* (class features and powers, and, I guess, although not stated, feats) takes rules priority over it.  Therefore, if crits don't need to be hits, it is merely belaboring the obvious, and if crits are hits, then it gets overruled by *everything it talks about*.



> That is an assumption that is impossible to make: It is -quite- possible to have an ability that automaticly crits, but does not hit, and therefore does not crit.  A perfect example is rolling a natural 20 to hit an invisible man who is not in the square you elect.  You don't hit him, even tho you -automatically- hit him.
> 
> Therefore 'The ability says X' is not sufficient to prove X when rules evidence exists that suggest X is not able to occur, and there is no exception noted to said rules evidence.




Surprise, surprise, the *targeting* rules take priority over Mr. Natural 20.  Shocker, that.  Note that in this case, there IS someone with priority explicitly saying "STOP".  And that is what it would take, were critical hits a subset of hits.  The base hit/miss rules aren't that someone.


----------



## kugelkj (Sep 3, 2009)

Eldorian said:


> You do not need to read pages 19+, this thread is a mire of circular arguments and nitpicking of the highest degree.  The fact remains that no one has given me a reason that Precision does not apply.  This was pointed out on like page 2.




I am in agreement with this position.  Quagmire all around. 

Even if both dice show the same number (without Holy Ardor),  one of those dice is ignored (though it doesn't matter which one), you determine the "roll" and if it beats the target defense you hit and deal damage.  if not, you miss and apply that effect if it exists.  Crits only happen when one of the dice show a natural 20 .  

In the case of Holy Ardor, if both of the dice show the same number, your attack is a critical hit only if it beats the target defense (just like a die roll that shows a natural 19 crits for DaggerMaster, unless the modified attack roll does not beat the target defense, in which case you miss and apply that effect, if it exists). (thanks precision)

For those people I disagree with (i.e. those who think a pair of naturally rolled 2's is a critical hit even if your attack roll does not beat the target defense) I pose this question:

Does the case of a pair of naturally rolled 20's override the natural 20 rule? i.e. does that cause a crit even if the attack roll does not beat the target defense?

If so, why? that seems to contradict OoE: roll two dice and use EITHER result.

Was that clear?


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 3, 2009)

Kraydak said:


> But that isn't a counter!  It is a statement of fact that is unlikely to be of relevance.  If we have "it's a crit, and therefore it must hit", then "in that case, if it does not hit, it must not crit", while true, only matters if something *actively, and with priority* makes it not hit.




Indeed, I agree with this.  And in this case, it's a governing rule on the limitations on scoring a crit.  I.E. Precision.



> The "precision" section is, flat out, wasted text.  *Everything it refers to* (class features and powers, and, I guess, although not stated, feats) takes rules priority over it.  Therefore, if crits don't need to be hits, it is merely belaboring the obvious, and if crits are hits, then it gets overruled by *everything it talks about*.




Except its absense indicates that you'd replace a critical range with natural 20 over -all- the critical hit rules, meaning that a 19 would automaticly hit for abilities that crit over 19-20 because 19-20 would be implied to replace 20.

So, no, it is not wasted text.

It's similiar to how they say that ranged attacks and ranged powers both provoke attacks of opportunity.  It -seems- the mention of ranged attacks is redundant, but there are corner cases where it is not.

This happens to be one of those corner cases.

Without Precision, any critical hit altering ability would except the entirety of the critical hit rules, and it would be a mess.  Precision is there to make sure that those exceptions have a specific rule telling you how to run them.  That means that it is -not- redundant, as those critical hit changing abilities are not themselves exceptions to Precision.

And -that- is why Precision is not a 'non-rule'  It isn't just to clarify the crit rules to -you-.  It clarifies it to class features themselves, so they know what to do.




> Surprise, surprise, the *targeting* rules take priority over Mr. Natural 20.  Shocker, that.  Note that in this case, there IS someone with priority explicitly saying "STOP".  And that is what it would take, were critical hits a subset of hits.  The base hit/miss rules aren't that someone.




Absolutely, I agree.  And Precision itself comes in to take precident over abilities that allow critical hits.  It calls it out by name.  It says 'Look, buddy, the critical hits don't except this rule.'  It's a rule that creates an exception to what -would- otherwise be an exception.  It's a -governing rule.-


----------



## CovertOps (Sep 3, 2009)

Eldorian said:


> You do not need to read pages 19+, this thread is a mire of circular arguments and nitpicking of the highest degree.  The fact remains that no one has given me a reason that Precision does not apply.  This was pointed out on like page 2.




Precision is a reminder of the rules for "Hit" found on p276.  But even more important than that is this:



CovertOps said:


> Since we don't like the hit rules let's go back even further.
> 
> Page 269 Making an attack
> This is an ordered list and therefore MUST be performed in the order given.
> ...




What I said was "*...in this case Precision doesn't even matter*" which is not the same as it doesn't apply.  If you roll doubles in step 3 and that roll is not good enough to beat the target's defenses (step 4) then you "Miss".  Clear as day.  No ifs, ands, or buts.  Therefore there will *never* be a case where you are granted a critical by Holy Ardor on an attack roll that misses and Precision will therefore never apply because you never met the requirement of "Hit" to even get to Precision.

If on the other hand if you roll high enough on your doubles roll to hit the targets defense then you've already qualified for "Hit" and Precision doesn't matter because you met it's requirements.

So the bottom line is that no matter what you roll using Holy Ardor, Precision doesn't matter.

On a separate note I'm not convinced the rules even need Precision.  Given this rules text that I quoted above from p269 it just seems redundant because you'll never be applying damage on a roll that "Missed".  Based on that I'd have to adjust my comment above to say that Precision is really a reminder of this "Making an Attack" rules sequence.

Regardless of what it is or isn't, if you follow these rules and apply them - in order - you will never have a case where Precision does anything.


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 3, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> What I said was "*...in this case Precision doesn't even matter*" which is not the same as it doesn't apply




The problem with that is that without it, the critical hit rules become a sum total of the entire critical hit rules block, which means that triggering a critical hit triggers -all- the rules for it.  So, 19-20 -can- replace everything inside that text, creating the situation where a 19 could automaticly hit, because even tho automatic hit is a part of the hit rules, it is -also- a part of the critical hit rules, and an exception to -that- would most -definately- apply.

Therefore Precision is necessary to nail down alterna-crit rules, and make it so that they are -not- exceptions to the entirety of the critical hit rules, and therefore can't specific out the entire ruleset for critical hits, like some people are saying it does.

Specific beats general actually requires it there for the rules to work.  Plus it adds clarity to seeming rules quagmires like this one.  It defines the limits of such things discretely and explicitly.

An argument could be made without it, but -with it- the argument is moot as it states -flat out- what the rule is.  Some people are just in denial.


----------



## jgsugden (Sep 3, 2009)

To me, an actual lawyer, the rules are either ambiguous or in conflict.  There are reasonable interpretations on both sides.  Either interpretation arguably makes some of the language in the books superflous.  

Result: The DM should look at the situation and decide which rule makes the most fun for his party, and then wait for official clarification.


----------



## CovertOps (Sep 3, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> The problem with that is that without it, the critical hit rules become a sum total of the entire critical hit rules block, which means that triggering a critical hit triggers -all- the rules for it.  So, 19-20 -can- replace everything inside that text, creating the situation where a 19 could automaticly hit, because even tho automatic hit is a part of the hit rules, it is -also- a part of the critical hit rules, and an exception to -that- would most -definately- apply.
> 
> Therefore Precision is necessary to nail down alterna-crit rules, and make it so that they are -not- exceptions to the entirety of the critical hit rules, and therefore can't specific out the entire ruleset for critical hits, like some people are saying it does.
> 
> ...




So in the case of Holy Ardor, Precision does matter?  Or is this a more general case that Precision is needed for other cases and my case for Holy Ardor is correct in that Precision essentially has no effect.  I'm not quite clear what you're trying to get across.


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 3, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> So in the case of Holy Ardor, Precision does matter?  Or is this a more general case that Precision is needed for other cases and my case for Holy Ardor is correct in that Precision essentially has no effect.  I'm not quite clear what you're trying to get across.




That Precision is necessary to establish what alterna-crit abilities except, and do not except.  

While I agree that Precision should not be necessary for Holy Ardor, from a technical standpoint it is for the rules to function as we understand it to begin with.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Sep 3, 2009)

Eldorian said:


> You do not need to read pages 19+, this thread is a mire of circular arguments and nitpicking of the highest degree. The fact remains that no one has given me a reason that Precision does not apply. This was pointed out on like page 2.




Precision says too things:

(a) There are other ways to score criticals outside of 20.

(b) 20 is the only part that allows automatic hits.

An automatic hit MEANS that when you roll a 20 and do NOT beat the defense it's a hit.

It has absolutely nothing to do with critical hits, only that a 20 would normally be a critical hit IF it hit.

The Natural 20 rules explain how natural 20's work.

If you roll a 20 and you hit -> You score a critical hit.

If you roll a 20 and you miss -> You score an automatic hit.

Precision does not say anything about scoring a critical hit but _not_ hitting (which _is_ different than an automatic hit).

One problem is that people are confusing automatic hit (which has a specific definition in the game rules under Natural 20) with the 'score a critical hit means that you hit'.

EDIT:

What Precision says is basically this:

A Daggermaster rolls an 18, but misses (presumably they are debuffed and blind or something). It is not an automatic (non-critical) hit. Precision says that some powers will modify the Natural 20 rules to allow you to score critical hit on more than just a natural 20. Precision clarifies that just because you _can_ score a critical hit on an 18-20, does not mean that you can get an automatic hit (a non-critical hit when you should have missed per attack roll vs. defense check).

Effects that increase crit range say you 'can' score a critical hit. Powers that cause a critical hit to occur, do not use that wording [Such as the cleric paragon path power that turns a normal hit into a critical hit ... there is also the channel divinity power that was later errata'd. Unfortunately, this is the first case where it says you DO "score a critical hit", which wasn't triggered off a normal hit anyway.

The basic argument is this:

The first paragraph, called Natural 20, basically says: "If you roll [20] and it is a hit, you score a critical hit." In the case of feats/paragon path abilities/etc that improve the crit range you change [20] to [19 or 20] or [18-20], etc ... with all the same rules applying. However, in this particular case, the ability says that you DO score a critical hit. 

The normal situation is: If X then Y.
The normal modifiers says: You may Y ... and end up changing X.
For Ardent Champion it instead says: If Z then Y.


----------



## CovertOps (Sep 3, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> That Precision is necessary to establish what alterna-crit abilities except, and do not except.
> 
> While I agree that Precision should not be necessary for Holy Ardor, from a technical standpoint it is for the rules to function as we understand it to begin with.




In this case I have an intellectual exercise for those who said Precision does not apply to Holy Ardor.

Given:  For any "Critical Hit" being granted there are only two outcomes possible in the Critical Hit rules.
1. Natural 20
2. All other results (including the reference back to the Hit rules where you might miss).

With the previous being assumed as fact, how would you want to see Precision re-worded so that it DOES apply to Holy Ardor?


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 3, 2009)

WalterKovacs said:


> Precision says too things:
> 
> (a) There are other ways to score criticals outside of 20.
> 
> ...




The thing is, 'an effect stating you score a critical hit means that you skip hit resolution rules' doesn't exist in the rules, isn't implicated by the rules, and, in fact, is argued -against- by the rules.  It's making an assumption than an effect that grants you a critical hit must therefore grant you a hit in order to do so, when that assumption isn't even a cogent argument in the face of the evidence provided by those very critical hit rules.  

Automatic Hit doesn't refer to the act of rolling a natural 20, it refers to the -consequence- of doing so, which is that doing so means you register a hit regardless of the defense of the target.

And so Precision is saying, only by rolling a natural 20 can you register a hit regardless of the defense of the target.  That's why it's not redundant.  The automatic hit rule tells you a nat-20 -allows- it to occur, then Precision adds that -only- a nat-20 allows it to occur, but other rolls exist that allow criticals to happen.

That's a -huge- difference.  It's like the difference between 'I sell chocolate ice cream' and 'I -only- sell chocolate ice cream.'

To think it doesn't matter is senseless.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Sep 4, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> Automatic Hit doesn't refer to the act of rolling a natural 20, it refers to the -consequence- of doing so, which is that doing so means you register a hit regardless of the defense of the target.
> 
> And so Precision is saying, only by rolling a natural 20 can you register a hit regardless of the defense of the target. That's why it's not redundant. The automatic hit rule tells you a nat-20 -allows- it to occur, then Precision adds that -only- a nat-20 allows it to occur, but other rolls exist that allow criticals to happen.




If you roll a natural 20, it is an automatic hit, which turns misses into hits. In other situations it is not.

Precision merely (a) says that there are some 'specific' situations that trump the general rule that a natural 20 _might_ result in a critical hit. and (b) This does not change the rule about automatic hits.

An automatic hit that turns a miss into a hit does not result in a critical hit. The "rolling doubles" argument put forward about the path feature does not claim an automatic hit. It is not saying that you always hit when you roll doubles, and you crit if you roll high enough to hit 'normally'. 

The argument is that, unlike other powers, it doesn't say "can". When you "can" score a critical hit, it means rolling that number isn't enough, you also have to meet the other conditions of scoring a critical hit. The wording IS different. There are other critical hit modifying paragon path features in Divine Power that still use the old wording.

The Natural 20 definition puts forward the normal rules for scoring critical hits. Certain powers modify the definition by adding other numbers. Natural 20 sets forward a condition that result in a critical hit.

If X (roll a natural 20) then
If Y (your total attack roll is high enough to hit your target's defense)
Then Z (you score a critical hit).

In the case of a natural 20, IF X but not Y, you get a normal hit. That's what an automatic hit is. Precision points out the special cases that modify X to include other numbers. Ardent Champion however changes it completely. 

If A (you roll doubles)
If Not B (except for double 1's)
Then Z (you score a critical hit).

In both cases the end result in scoring a critical hit.

The other powers and class features like Daggermaster or Weapon Mastery feats do not say that rolling numbers WILL result in scoring a critical hit, only that they may. Ardent Champion is an exception because it's wording is exceptional.

The _general_ rule of scoring a critical hit requires you actually hit to do so. This is a specific case that gives specific conditions under which you can score a critical hit.


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 4, 2009)

WalterKovacs said:


> _general_ rule of scoring a critical hit requires you actually hit to do so. This is a specific case that gives specific conditions under which you can score a critical hit.




If the general rule for scoring a critical hit requires you actually hit, then 'score a critical hit' follows that rule.  The word 'can' isn't what allows the rule to work, it's 'score a critical hit'.

That's kinda what rules do.  They tell you how to do stuff.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Sep 4, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> If the general rule for scoring a critical hit requires you actually hit, then 'score a critical hit' follows that rule. The word 'can' isn't what allows the rule to work, it's 'score a critical hit'.
> 
> That's kinda what rules do. They tell you how to do stuff.




If you roll a natural 20, and you hit the target's defense THEN you score a crticial hit.

Scoring a critical hit is the end state. When you CAN score a critical hit, you still have to check to see if you scored a critical hit. If you HAVE scored a critical hit, you have already past the point where you check to see if it's a hit.

To use some older edition terms.

General rule: Natural 20 is a potential critical. It is also an automatic hit. The crit is confirmed (scored) if your attack total is enough to hit even if it wasn't an automatic it.

"You may score a critical on a 18-20): As above, plus natural 19 and 18 are also potential criticals. They are confirmed if they hit, but they don't automatically hit like a natural 20 does.

"You score a critical hit" : In this case there is no 'potential' about it. You skip straight to having confirmed (scored) a critical hit.

There are results of scoring a critical hit (max damage, bonus damage, etc). There are also conditions for scoring a critical hit. Nowhere does it say that it is impossible for other conditions to cause critical hits. SOME change the numbers you need to roll BUT still require a hit. SOME turn any hit into a critical. This one just so happens to create a condition where a critical hit can occur that does not utilize a 'check if it hits' mechanism.

The precision 'rule' points out that there are ways to score criticals that supercede the 'only on a natural 20'. That isn't a necessary rule, because it is simple reinforcing exception based design. At the time, there were no exceptions that ignored the "have to hit" requirement as well. The bracketed part of Precision only pointed out that Automatic Hits is a different mechanic than (potential) critical hits, and that something that lets you crit with an 18 doesn't let you automatically hit with an 18. An automatic hit occurs _instead_ of a critical hit. (When it happens in addition to a critical, it doesn't matter, since the critical hit trumps normal hit/automatic hit and deals max damage, etc).

There is a difference between being ALLOWED to score a critical hit, and SCORING a critical hit. If RAI was that it misses if you roll doubles but would otherwise miss, all they had to do was include "can" like they did with EVERY OTHER increased crit range effect they've put out in 4e, and they wouldn't have needed to include the double 1's comment for obvious reasons. Instead, they worded this feature unlike any other of the increased crit range powers.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 4, 2009)

WalterKovacs said:


> ..."You score a critical hit" : In this case there is no 'potential' about it. You skip straight to having confirmed (scored) a critical hit.
> 
> 
> ...There is a difference between being ALLOWED to score a critical hit, and SCORING a critical hit. If RAI was that it misses if you roll doubles but would otherwise miss, all they had to do was include "can" like they did with EVERY OTHER increased crit range effect they've put out in 4e, and they wouldn't have needed to include the double 1's comment for obvious reasons. Instead, they worded this feature unlike any other of the increased crit range powers.




Yep, exactly.


----------



## keterys (Sep 4, 2009)

If the lack of 'can' is the basis for rules argument, does Steel Vanguard Veteran not need to 'hit' with a 19? Or 20, for that matter.

"You score critical hits on a 19 or 20 with any at-will exploit associated with this feat when using a two-handed heavy blade."

Or Cutthroat Scrutiny?

"During this time, you score a critical hit against the target on a natural roll of 19 or 20."


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 4, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> If the general rule for scoring a critical hit requires you actually hit, then 'score a critical hit' follows that rule.  The word 'can' isn't what allows the rule to work, it's 'score a critical hit'.
> 
> That's kinda what rules do.  They tell you how to do stuff.




I am so glad you posted this, for this is your key mistake.

The rules say if you do A, you score a critical hit if you also do B.

Another rule comes along and says Whenever you do C, you score a critical hit if you also do D.

That other rule just changed what you need to score a critical hit - it creates an exception to the previous rule by specifying a new rule.  

This is what you do not see - or least is that with which do you do not agree.

Actual words from the rules (the parallel is truly amazing):

If you roll a 20 on the die when making an attack roll, you score a critical hit if your total attack roll is high enough to hit your target’s defense.

Whenever you make two attack rolls because of your oath of enmity, you score a critical hit if both dice have the same roll, except if both rolls are 1.

It more than strains credibility to think they'd write up the new rule in a way so parallel to the old rule if they did not intend it to replace the old rule in the way that the plain text reads.

As for Precision, it simply says nothing new.  It says that some features/powers might change the number you roll, and that only a 20 will be an automatic hit  - as in a automatic hit if the roll is not a critical hit


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 4, 2009)

keterys said:


> If the lack of 'can' is the basis for rules argument, does Steel Vanguard Veteran not need to 'hit' with a 19? Or 20, for that matter.
> 
> "You score critical hits on a 19 or 20 with any at-will exploit associated with this feat when using a two-handed heavy blade."
> 
> ...




As written, yes they should, but, since they do not present a new mechanic (as Holy Ardor does), it is reasonable to assume that they meant to make this work like all similar powers that simply change the 20 needed for a critical hit to be 19 or 20.


----------



## N8Ball (Sep 4, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> The problem with that is that without it (precision), the critical hit rules become a sum total of the entire critical hit rules block, which means that triggering a critical hit triggers -all- the rules for it.  So, 19-20 -can- replace everything inside that text, creating the situation where a 19 could automaticly hit, because even tho automatic hit is a part of the hit rules, it is -also- a part of the critical hit rules, and an exception to -that- would most -definately- apply.






CovertOps said:


> Therefore there will *never* be a case where you are granted a critical by Holy Ardor on an attack roll that misses and Precision will therefore never apply because you never met the requirement of "Hit" to even get to Precision.
> 
> If on the other hand if you roll high enough on your doubles roll to hit the targets defense then you've already qualified for "Hit" and Precision doesn't matter because you met it's requirements.
> 
> So the bottom line is that no matter what you roll using Holy Ardor, Precision doesn't matter.




It seems that these two positions are seriously at odds with one another on the subject of how crits are applied.  

If I can paraphrase the two camps:

Draco is saying that precision is needed to prevent mastery feats from getting an "Automatic hit" on a 19.  This is internally consistent with his view that the "can" in the mastery feats is superfluous and they would otherwise grant what he calls "automatic crits" (if Precision were not present).

CovertOps is saying that Precision will never apply because *any* application of a critical hit is first subject to getting a successful attack roll obviating the need for reminders about when you don't crit.

Is that about right?


----------



## N8Ball (Sep 4, 2009)

keterys said:


> If the lack of 'can' is the basis for rules argument, does Steel Vanguard Veteran not need to 'hit' with a 19? Or 20, for that matter.
> 
> "You score critical hits on a 19 or 20 with any at-will exploit associated with this feat when using a two-handed heavy blade."
> 
> ...




I'm glad you posted this Keterys because this is exactly what I was asking for a few pages ago (post 304).  "What is the fruit of this tree?"  Meaning what are the implications of my argument (crit=hit) and  what are the implications of a "crit and miss" theory, a path that has yet to be fully explored since defenders of my position have mostly been on the defensive explaining our own position and not attacking the alternative.

As a purist, a true rules monkey, and with due respect to Artoomis, I would have to concede that (if things work the way I believe they do) these powers do indeed crit on a 19 regardless of the defense score.  Any other intrepretation would undermine the implications and importance that we have placed on permissive language in the crit ability text and rules.  
There can be no wiggle room or mercy in my camp! 

These powers you mentioned (written as they are) and the Holy Ardor double 2-crit seem to be the only crazy-power-combo implications of my position.

I would like to address the implications of the other camp's position, but there seems to be some internal debate on the subject of precision and how crits are awarded.  

Rather than risk putting further effort into defeating what may end up being a fringe theory, I will wait until their position consolidates so that I have something bigger to shoot at.


----------



## keterys (Sep 4, 2009)

I assume they also crit on a 20, even if that misses? Or does the 19 crit, but a 20 doesn't because the normal rule stopping it from critting actually applies? (I hope not, but good to be clear)


----------



## CovertOps (Sep 4, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> If you roll a 20 on the die when making an attack roll, you score a critical hit if your total attack roll is high enough to hit your target’s defense.
> 
> Whenever you make two attack rolls because of your oath of enmity, you score a critical hit if both dice have the same roll, except if both rolls are 1.
> 
> It more than strains credibility to think they'd write up the new rule in a way so parallel to the old rule if they did not intend it to replace the old rule in the way that the plain text reads.




You are completely ignoring the context of these two rules.  One absolutely must be definitive in that it is inside the body of the actual critical hit rules.  The other is a power granting a critical hit that must still meet *any requirements that were not overridden* in the power granting the critical.

Rolling doubles is indeed a new mechanic as you claim, but it specifically replaces the normal requirement of rolling a (natural) 20.  The other requirement of a critical is that you hit, but that is not granted by any ability that increases crit range.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 4, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> You are completely ignoring the context of these two rules.  One absolutely must be definitive in that it is inside the body of the actual critical hit rules.  The other is a power granting a critical hit that must still meet *any requirements that were not overridden* in the power granting the critical.




But, of course, I maintain the other requirements have indeed been overridden.



CovertOps said:


> Rolling doubles is indeed a new mechanic as you claim, but it specifically replaces the normal requirement of rolling a (natural) 20.  The other requirement of a critical is that you hit, but that is not granted by any ability that increases crit range.




Well, I disagree and maintain that the new mechanic plus the new rule for it stand on their own as complete.  That's the most straightforward way to read it.


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 4, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> But, of course, I maintain the other requirements have indeed been overridden.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## CovertOps (Sep 4, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> But, of course, I maintain the other requirements have indeed been overridden.
> 
> Well, I disagree and maintain that the new mechanic plus the new rule for it stand on their own as complete.  That's the most straightforward way to read it.




In this case I ask again.  Let's assume for a moment that Holy Ardor does NOT create a new mechanic.  How would you reword Precision so it applies to Holy Ardor AND any other granted critical hit other than natural 20?

I want to know what you think about Precision doesn't apply.


----------



## Otakkun (Sep 4, 2009)

Wow ... that's a lot of posts. Anyone even called custserv?


----------



## abyssaldeath (Sep 4, 2009)

Otakkun said:


> Wow ... that's a lot of posts. Anyone even called custserv?




Yes, someone posted their reply. That was soo many pages ago I don't remember which way they ruled.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 4, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> In this case I ask again.  Let's assume for a moment that Holy Ardor does NOT create a new mechanic.  How would you reword Precision so it applies to Holy Ardor AND any other granted critical hit other than natural 20?
> 
> I want to know what you think about Precision doesn't apply.




Okay, seems kind of pointless, but I'll play.

First, I'd eliminate Precision all together.

I'd re-write Critical to be:

If you roll a 20 (or a lower number as granted by a feature or power) on the die when making an attack roll, you score a critical hit if your total attack roll is high enough to hit your target’s defense. If your attack roll is too low to score a critical hit, you still hit automatically if you rolled a natural 20.

This is much better, I think, but still would not apply to rolling doubles, especially as phrased in Holy Ardor.

If I wanted Holy Ardor to be covered by the normal Critical Hit rules with only an exception changing the roll being from one die to doubles but still needing to hit, I'd re-wrtite as:

Whenever you make two attack rolls because of your oath of enmity, you may score a critical hit if both dice have the same roll (your total attack roll must still be high enough to hit your target’s defense).


----------



## WalterKovacs (Sep 4, 2009)

keterys said:


> If the lack of 'can' is the basis for rules argument, does Steel Vanguard Veteran not need to 'hit' with a 19? Or 20, for that matter.
> 
> "You score critical hits on a 19 or 20 with any at-will exploit associated with this feat when using a two-handed heavy blade."
> 
> ...




That would be a result.

Then again, there is a RAI vs. RAW question as well and since this argument isn't going to be resolved until WOTC makes an official ruling odds are that everything questionable will be errata'd. Also, both of the powers you quoted are from the same Dragon Magazine issue (article?) which could indicate simple poor wording. I don't recall "during this time" being used before, but I could be wrong.

The biggest problem of course is that any critical mechanic outside of Ardent Champion is a corner case situation, since it is only on rare occaisions where a natural 17-20 will NOT hit your opponent's defences ... ussually a perfect storm of high defence opponent and debuffing, probably blindness or running as well.

At this point it's every DM for himself until we get an errata/'official' ruling.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 4, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> ...I also maintain that your willingness to override requirements without said override being explicitly stated has ramifications well beyond this simple power...




Well, I maintain the rules has been explicitly replaced by Holy Ardor as shown by the language used.  I have shown this to be the case in many different ways, and your unwillingness to see that does not change the validity of my logic one bit.



DracoSuave said:


> ....Holy Ardor is a new kind of rule, but it has yet to create an unexpected situation.  That's what matters for 'newness.'  Otherwise, Oath of Enmity would never crit, because it -too- is a 'new rule.'
> 
> You've not established the new mechanic creates an unaccounted for situation.  You've not established a new rule for resolution -even exists-.
> 
> Therefore you're creating something out of nothing here.




Oath of Enmity crits normally because, though it too is a new rule, it merely causes you to pick one of two attack rolls.  As soon as you do that, you have one attack roll to use, which works fine with all rules as written.

Holy Ardor creates an entirely new situation where you actually *use* the results of two rolls.

The previous rules give no way to handle that situation.

Sure, you *can* read Precision is such a way so to make it apply to Holy Ardor, but I maintain that's a strained reading and ignores the context of Precision completely - that being analyzing the results of *an* attack roll.

Further, as I have shown, the way Holy Ardor is written as "When... you score a critical hit if..." is virtually identical construction as the Critical Hit rule of "If...you score a critical hit if..." and therefore can only reasonably be read as replacing that rule.  That's as explicit as it needs to be, at least for me,  though, apparently, not for you.


----------



## CovertOps (Sep 4, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> Okay, seems kind of pointless, but I'll play.
> 
> First, I'd eliminate Precision all together.
> 
> ...




I guess maybe I missed the mark on the question I asked.  What I am trying to get at is how would you word the critical hit rules such that they apply to ALL critical hits without having to mention specific exceptional mechanics such as a critical being granted by Holy Ardor on doubles AND any other new mechanic WotC might come up with over the course of the game.

Our position has pretty much been that the critical hit rules apply to ALL critical hits and that either you got a natural 20 (one path) or you got any other result that allows a critical (Precision).  Either way the "Hit" rules (Precision) still apply (mostly just a reminder).

So my question again is how would you want Precision reworded so it simply applies to ANY critical where you rolled something other than 20 *without mentioning specific mechanics of how you got the critical*?  A general rule that does what it is supposed to do...cover all cases by being generic enough in it's wording where you need some really specific wording to circumvent it.

Or alternatively some reasoning why you think doubles *IS* different enough (without granting itself a specific exemption) to warrant being immune to Precision.

I'd be willing to hear from you N8Ball on this too.  I am genuine in my interest about what you think makes doubles so special that Precision does *not* apply (considering that OoE - the ability that allows you to roll the two dice - gives a method to resolve the two rolls into a single roll which could then qualify for Precision).

Edit: Keeping in mind that my position is that this is all resolved by following the ordered rules for making an attack on p269 and that permissive language just simply doesn't matter ("can" - Dagger Master IMO could be worded "you score a critical" and would be no different than it is now, or if it was worded this way would you argue that Precision doesn't apply to it either based on the lack of the permissive?).  I'm more interested in how you think Precision would need to be reworded, but if you prefer to do the other what I'd like to know is why doubles is so different than rolling say 18-19 for Dagger Master when both grant you a critical.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 4, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> ...Or alternatively some reasoning why you think doubles *IS* different enough (without granting itself a specific exemption) to warrant being immune to Precision....




Okay.

Doubles is not *an attack roll.*  It is comparing two attack rolls and, in addition  to picking one and then applying the normal Hit/Automatic HIt/Critical Hit rules to that roll, we are told to "score a critical hit " if the doubles are not double ones.

It's the fact that it is not *an attack roll* that creates the totally new situation that is not covered by Precision or the other Hit/Automatic Hit/Critical Hit rules, either.

Holy Ardor presents something entirely new - using the result of BOTH attack rolls you make with Oath of Enmity.  Because of this, it needs to gives us the rule for what to do with that result, and it does.  Score a critical hit unless it is double ones.

For with Holy Ardor two things are happening.

1.  Roll twice and use the highest roll for your attack roll (Oath of Enmity).
2.  If you roll doubles, score a critical hit unless they are ones.

The only reasonable counter to this argument would need to focus on how rolling doubles is nothing special, but I have a lot of trouble with that as explained above.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 4, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> ...Edit: Keeping in mind that my position is that this is all resolved by following the ordered rules for making an attack on p269...




Ah, but, when scrutinized, those rules don't support your argument. 

Focusing only the relevant steps:

3.  Make an Attack Roll.  (Whoops - Holy Ardor is not "an Attack Roll" - it is TWO Attack Rolls and, unlike Oath of Enmity, not using just one of them (which would be "an Attack Roll"), but using when the two rolls match (doubles - which is not "an Attack Roll")

4.  Compare your attack roll to your target's defense (page 274) to determine if whether you hit or miss.  (Whoops again - it turns out that's not how you always do this right from the start - "Automatic Hit" would never trigger if you had to always check against the target's defense first.  This sets a nice precedent for the possibility of a class feature or power that does not care whether you roll high enough to hit your target’s defense to get credited with a hit)

So far, all counters to my arguments seem to require one to look at doubles as if it was really nothing special, and that is wrong because this mechanic is not used anywhere else in the rules, and that is practically the definition of "special.". 

So, a question right back at you:

How is using the *both* results of the Oath of Enmity attack rolls (doubles) the same as making *an* attack roll?


----------



## Nifft (Sep 4, 2009)

Otakkun said:


> Wow ... that's a lot of posts. Anyone even called custserv?



 Several people did, but nobody treats CustServ as authoritative.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## CovertOps (Sep 4, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> Ah, but, when scrutinized, those rules don't support your argument.
> 
> Focusing only the relevant steps:
> 
> ...






			
				Oath of Emnity said:
			
		

> Effect: When you make a melee attack against the target and the target is the only enemy adjacent to you, you make two attack rolls and use either result. This effect lasts until the end of the encounter or until the target drops to 0 hit points, at which point you regain the use of this power.





> How is using the *both* results of the Oath of Enmity *attack roll*(s) (doubles) the same as making *an* *attack roll*?




Note the use of the *exact same terminology*?  Perhaps you missed where the outcome of OoE is an *attack roll*.

Your flawed logic:
Holy Ardor does not grant an attack roll of any kind (we agree).  Therefore you cannot use Holy Ardor in the resolution of step 3 *because it isn't an attack roll granting power*.  Nor does it modify the attack roll process.

OoE, however, does modify *attack roll* by granting 2 dice rolls *and then giving a rule on how to resolve those 2 rolls into a single result* which can then be used in step 4 to determine an outcome.

Trying to use a power that grants a critical hit to resolve the results of an *attack roll* is absurd.  Holy Ardor can (correctly) be applied to step 5 (apply damage).


----------



## Dan'L (Sep 4, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> Well, I maintain the rules has been explicitly replaced by Holy Ardor as shown by the language used.



Okay, I've been trying to stay out of this, but this has been bugging me.



			
				World Book Dictionary said:
			
		

> *explicit*, adjective.
> 1. clearly expressed; distinctly stated; definite.
> 
> *implicit*, adjective.
> ...




Explicit is what Draco has been arguing and showing, and implicit is what you've been maintaining.



Artoomis said:


> Sure, you *can* read Precision is such a way so to make it apply to Holy Ardor, but I maintain that's a strained reading and ignores the context of Precision completely - that being analyzing the results of *an* attack roll.




So please, then, show how Precision _explicitly_ applies only to single attack rolls, or to attack rolls at all, since there is no actual mention of attack rolls anywhere within Precision.  

Do you take it as _implicit_ that "roll numbers" = "make an attack roll?"  If so, then how is that necessarily any more valid that "numbers" (in the plural) can implicitly cover rolling two dice and not just one?



Artoomis said:


> How is using the *both* results of the Oath of Enmity attack rolls (doubles) the same as making *an* attack roll?



Because both situations involve rolling numbers on dice which may not equal 20.  QED.

-Dan'L


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 4, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> Note the use of the *exact same terminology*?  Perhaps you missed where the outcome of OoE is an *attack roll*.




Huh?  I did not miss that, and agree, though it is no relevant to Holy Ardor.



CovertOps said:


> Your flawed logic:
> Holy Ardor does not grant an attack roll of any kind (we agree).  Therefore you cannot use Holy Ardor in the resolution of step 3 *because it isn't an attack roll granting power*.  Nor does it modify the attack roll process.
> 
> OoE, however, does modify *attack roll* by granting 2 dice rolls *and then giving a rule on how to resolve those 2 rolls into a single result* which can then be used in step 4 to determine an outcome.
> ...




Unfortunately, your logic also means you cannot possible get a automatic hit, because that modifies the results of comparing the attack roll to the target's defense.

There is no reason why a new rule (an exception) cannot modify the way you achieve the result of "Critical Hit"  Further, we know that any time you actually achieve the result of Critical Hit you apply damage (critical damage, to be specific) per page 276.

So what, excatly, does Holy Ardor do relevant to the above paragraph?  It creates a new rule for how to acheive the result of "Critical hit."  That way is to roll doubles (other than doubles ones) when rolling the attack rolls for OoE.


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 4, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> 3.  Make an Attack Roll.  (Whoops - Holy Ardor is not "an Attack Roll" - it is TWO Attack Rolls and, unlike Oath of Enmity, not using just one of them (which would be "an Attack Roll"), but using when the two rolls match (doubles - which is not "an Attack Roll")




I am simply going to point out the absurdity that Holy Ardor is two Attack Rolls and therefore unlike Oath of Emnity?

WUT!?!

And that making two attack rolls is not the same as making attack rolls?

WUT!?!

And that doubles on an attack roll isn't an attack roll?

WUT!?!

I'm sorry.  You've gone into the realm of rediculous with this one.  Once cannot argue with rediculous.  One point -has- been made however:



> The previous rules give no way to handle that situation.




And our whole point the entire time is that the rules, in fact, do.  Roll doubles.  Precision says hit is not automatic.  Can the hit be resolved normally?  Yes, it can, because Oath of Emnity works just fine.  Therefore things can be done as is.

*Your Premise here Is Disproven.*

Any argument based on this premise requires reformulation.


Can you please stop rehashing disproven arguments, this is part of the reason we keep going in circles.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 4, 2009)

Dan'L said:


> ...Do you take it as _implicit_ that "roll numbers" = "make an attack roll?"  If so, then how is that necessarily any more valid that "numbers" (in the plural) can implicitly cover rolling two dice and not just one?
> 
> 
> Because both situations involve rolling numbers on dice which may not equal 20.  QED.
> ...




Actually, you can *only* get to the precision "rule" if you have followed the path to the Critical Hit rule.  That path start with "an attack roll."

Holy Ardor sort of jumps pat all that and straight to a result of Critical Hit based upon not "an attack roll" but upon rolling doubles on two attack rolls.  this fundamentally changes the normal OeE situation where on result would normally be discarded to leave you with "an attack roll."

Realizing that Precision is only in the context of "an attack roll," the "numbers" term can only be referring to the fact that some powers let you roll numbers other than 20 to potentially get a critical - those number could be, for example, 18 and 19.

If "numbers" is truly vital to be taken as plural then, by that reading, if a feature or power lets you roll a 19 to possibly get a critical hit, Precision would not apply because that is only the possiblity of one number other than 20, not "numbers."


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 4, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> I am simply going to point out the absurdity that Holy Ardor is two Attack Rolls and therefore unlike Oath of Emnity?
> 
> WUT!?!




No, Holy Ardor is BOTH attack rolls and therefore not like OeE which is pick one of the two attack rolls.

WUT!?!



DracoSuave said:


> And that making two attack rolls is not the same as making attack rolls?
> 
> WUT!?!




Making *and using* the result of BOTH attack rolls is not thw same as making an attak roll.



DracoSuave said:


> And that doubles on an attack roll isn't an attack roll?
> 
> WUT!?!




Right - *doubles on a pair of attack rolls* is not the same as *an attack roll*.



DracoSuave said:


> ...*Your Premise here Is Disproven.*




No, it is not.  What I have *proven* (since you like that word so much) is that your whole argument has a false premise - that rolling doubles is nothing more than a rolling numbers on an attack die, the context of "Precision."


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 4, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> Actually, you can *only* get to the precision "rule" if you have followed the path to the Critical Hit rule.  That path start with "an attack roll."




You know Oath of Emnity -also- only kicks in at 'An attack roll', right?  And that what Oath of Emnity does is make two attack rolls into one, right?



> Holy Ardor sort of jumps pat all that and straight to a result of Critical Hit based upon not "an attack roll" but upon rolling doubles on two attack rolls.  this fundamentally changes the normal OeE situation where on result would normally be discarded to leave you with "an attack roll."




Not at all.  Both happen during the 'make an attack roll step.'  It's no different between seeing doubles and seeing a 19 staring at you.  And doing so doesn't make Oath of Emnity stop working.  It -still- makes you choose one of the dice.  

You also don't -stop- resolving an attack at 'critical hit.'  Nothing in the book suggests you stop.

Where are you pulling this from?



> Realizing that Precision is only in the context of "an attack roll," the "numbers" term can only be referring to the fact that some powers let you roll numbers other than 20 to potentially get a critical - those number could be, for example, 18 and 19.




Holy Ardor is only in the context of Oath of Emnity.  Oath of Emnity is only in the context of an attack roll.  If Precision only applies in the context of "an attack roll" then Oath of Emnity is the -very thing- that puts Holy Ardor in that context.

Or does Oath of Emnity have to do with something other than attacking?

And regardless, making two attack rolls is still making an attack roll twice.  I know, I counted.



> If "numbers" is truly vital to be taken as plural then, by that reading, if a feature or power lets you roll a 19 to possibly get a critical hit, Precision would not apply because that is only the possiblity of one number other than 20, not "numbers."




Seriously, are you honestly trying to present this as a premise?  It's rediculous if you've gotten past Grade 3 in English communication.

The plural is the correct way to discribe an indefinate number that may include 1.  If I ask you 'How many pages describe critical hits?' that doesn't mean the answer is automaticly not 1.

Please do not be obtuse on purpose to make a point.  It devalues your argument.


----------



## Flipguarder (Sep 4, 2009)

Artoomis, to believe that holy ardor is not an attack roll is just... unreasonable. So you are implying that WOTC created an entirely new mechanic for hitting things and explained it completely by omitting the word "can". That is just.... unreasonable.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 4, 2009)

*Before this goes any further, let me explain my current goal is this debate.*

It is not to convince my opponents I am right, not to declare they are flat out wrong.  It may appear that way, but all I really want is for them to say,

"Yes, I can see where you are coming from and that is a legitimate alternate interpretation of these rules and there, since the rules allow to valid interpretation; neither of is truly really right or wrong here and both interpretations are valid until WotC clarifies this point."


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 4, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> No, Holy Ardor is BOTH attack rolls and therefore not like OeE which is pick one of the two attack rolls.
> 
> WUT!?!




No, it's making two attack rolls however, and what you claim is the context of Precision, an attack roll, is the situation happening that allows those doubles in the first place.

I figured that was obvious, seeing as OoE says 'MAKE TWO ATTACK ROLLS'




> Making *and using* the result of BOTH attack rolls is not thw same as making an attak roll.




Rolling a natural 20 on an attack roll is not the same thing as an attack roll either.  Both are events, but one is the effect, and the other is a cause.

Precision is concerned with 'an attack roll' as you say, which is the -cause-.  That -cause- still applies to Holy Ardor.  And there is no way you can say that -cause- doesn't apply, because Oath of Emnity flat out -tells you- to make attack rolls.

I thought that was obvious.



> Right - *doubles on a pair of attack rolls* is not the same as *an attack roll*.




No, doubles on a pair of attack rolls is the -result- of an attack roll in this instance.  So that context STILL APPLIES.



> No, it is not.  What I have *proven* (since you like that word so much) is that your whole argument has a false premise - that rolling doubles is nothing more than a rolling numbers on an attack die, the context of "Precision."




Putting your fingers in your ears and saying 'blah blah blah' and flat out ignoring the fact that in order for Holy Ardor to work, at some point, you have to make attack rolls.  And attack rolls are what Precision apply to.

And you're doing it.

Seriously.

The -result- of that attack roll is modified by different factors than you might be used to, but that doesn't take the context away from it, nor does any of that make Precision not work.  And we've -proven- it isn't a situation Precision can't handle, as we -went ahead and showed it working just fine-.

You claim the rules can't handle it, but we've proven that the rules -can.-

THAT IS A PROOF.  That is not 'suggestion.'  That is not 'intension' or 'speculation.'  We've disproven your claim; proven that the rules can handle the situation by showing you how it does, and how it can.  It is -not- an opinion, it is a fact.

So -please- stop ignoring or disregarding facts that do not support your argument.  Please stop saying the facts are not facts because they do not support your argument.  And the fact is:  The rules support Holy Ardor just fine.  You don't need to read -anything- into it other than what you'd read into any other critical-hit granting power.

That's why Occam's Razor points to our position... because it's simply the most reasonable and simplest fit:  That it's business as usual.


----------



## Flipguarder (Sep 4, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> *Before this goes any further, let me explain my current goal is this debate.*
> 
> It is not to convince my opponents I am right, not to declare they are flat out wrong.  It may appear that way, but all I really want is for them to say,
> 
> "Yes, I can see where you are coming from and that is a legitimate alternate interpretation of these rules and there, since the rules allow to valid interpretation; neither of is truly really right or wrong here and both interpretations are valid until WotC clarifies this point."




Yes, I can see where you are coming from, however some of your premises are flawed and unreasonable, the rules only really allow for one valid interpretation. I apologize for the inconvenience, but your interpretation is fairly clearly less probable than ours. All this being said, I don't think it's completely idiotic or ridiculous to use your interpretation until WotC clarifies this point (which it does need to do).


----------



## Nifft (Sep 4, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> It's rediculous if you've gotten past Grade 3 in English communication.



 Before anyone jumps on him, there is, in fact, a law that states you must make a ridiculous spelling and/or grammar mistake when flaming someone else for spelling and/or grammar.

However, I note you've fallen into insulting your opponent's abilities instead of countering his arguments.

Methinks the debate part of the thread is over.

Ciao, -- N


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 4, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> Artoomis, to believe that holy ardor is not an attack roll is just... unreasonable. So you are implying that WOTC created an entirely new mechanic for hitting things and explained it completely by omitting the word "can". That is just.... unreasonable.




Well, it's not *only* leaving out the word, "can."

The whole rule is spelled out the same way as the normal rule for Critical Hit, but with a different mechanic and a different way to get to the result.

That's the core of it, really.  It's hard to imagine that this new rule (Holy Ardor) does not replace the old rule for Critical Hit determination when the language chosen is so close to being identical except for the change in conditions that get you to "score a critical hit."

The old rule:  If A happens, then "score a critical hit" if B.

The new rule:  When C happens, "score a critical hit" if D.

I find it a very difficult interpretation to say it really means When C happens, "score a critical hit" if D, but also only if B.

I also find it a stretch that "Precision" somehow means that the normal rules for Critical Hit apply even if a power supersedes those rules.


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 4, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> *"Yes, I can see where you are coming from and that is a legitimate alternate interpretation of these rules and there, since the rules allow to valid interpretation; neither of is truly really right or wrong here and both interpretations are valid until WotC clarifies this point."*



*

Unfortunately, I do not hold this belief that your interpretation is reasonable, nor even cogent.  I do not see your interpretation as valid, because it does not have reasonable premises leading to a reasonable conclusion through a reasonable argument, nor do I see it as cogent, because it does not seem to me to be a likely interpretation under rational examination.

So, I cannot in good conscience describe your position as valid, nor as cogent.

Validity of a position is based on the validity of the argument for that position.  

The only valid argument I've seen for your position was someone a long time ago suggesting it might be more fun to do it your way.  And -that- position I promptly -did- say, 'Yep, that's some good reason right there.'

If you wish to prove the case where both sides have valid, do not present invalid arguments.*


----------



## CovertOps (Sep 4, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> Unfortunately, your logic also means you cannot possible get a automatic hit, because that modifies the results of comparing the attack roll to the target's defense.



This ignores "Compare your attack roll to your target's defense *(see page 274 to see how this is accomplished)* and (without the books in front of me mind you) I'm pretty sure that p276 with the automatic hit rules are included in that resolution.



> There is no reason why a new rule (an exception) cannot modify the way you achieve the result of "Critical Hit"  Further, we know that any time you actually achieve the result of Critical Hit you apply damage (critical damage, to be specific) per page 276.
> 
> So what, excatly, does Holy Ardor do relevant to the above paragraph?  It creates a new rule for how to acheive the result of "Critical hit."  That way is to roll doubles (other than doubles ones) when rolling the attack rolls for OoE.




You are correct....there is no reason why a new rule cannot modify the way you achieve a critical hit.  All those methods require you to first:


> 4. Compare your attack roll to your target's defense (see above)...



Then...


> 5. Apply damage *and other effects* (including critical if you met the requirements of the normal rules - or some other rule - such as holy ardor or even Dagger Master - that gives you an exception)
> 
> 
> I'm sorry that you think that a power that grants you a critical modifies what an attack roll is or how it modifies or ignores step 3 of this simple 5 step process.  At best it modifies step 4 after you have determined that you "Hit" by allowing you to critical with something other than a natural 20.
> ...


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 4, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> This ignores "Compare your attack roll to your target's defense *(see page 274 to see how this is accomplished)* and (without the books in front of me mind you) I'm pretty sure that p276 with the automatic hit rules are included in that resolution...




I see where you are coming from and I agree that your argument is every bit as good as mine.


----------



## Dan'L (Sep 4, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> Realizing that Precision is only in the context of "an attack roll,"



This is absolutely, positively, provably untrue.  There is no text which supports the assertion that Precision's context is uniquely "an attack roll."  Why you put this in quotes, when this phrase appears nowhere in connection or context with precision, I'm not sure.  What are you quoting?  What is your source, other than your own supposition and inference, that this is the unique context of Precision?

In fact, your constant inability to recognize the actual contextual wording of Precision leads me to wonder if you do not comprehend it at all, or are willfully and deliberately being ignorant of it;  I suspect it's the latter, done for the sake of continuing this spiraling conversation?

***

Beyond this, let me also add, re: The rule on p. 276 about Critical Hits dealing maximum damage v. the expanded rules on Critical Hits found on p. 278

I take the implication that, due to it's relative brevity and lack of clarifying detail, the rule on p.276 would be the general rule, and that the rule set on p. 278 with it's specific detailing would be the overriding specific rule.

This means, that even though the 276 rule states that a critical hit deals damage, we are informed by the more specific rule on p.278, under Maximum Damage, that there are times when a critical hit does NOT deal damage.  By the explicit wording of the rules defining critical hits, an attack roll that results in a "miss" satisfies the conditions to be one of those times.  

And because we have it as explicit and implicit that a "miss," in absence of explicit overriding rules such as miss effects on daily powers, does not get to apply damage and/or rider effects, we actually don't even have to worry about all the things that trigger on a crit, either.

-Dan'L


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 4, 2009)

Dan'L said:


> ...
> 
> ***
> 
> ...




Wow.

Sorry but a *Critical Hit* cannot *Miss* by definition.  A Critical Hit is a type of a Attack Result of which there are only two - Hit and Miss.  A Critical Hit is of the type "Hit."

You *can* have a *potential* Critical Hit turn out to be a Miss, but once you "score a critical hit" you have indeed Hit.

I have seen the thought that a Critical hit can also Miss put forth a number of times, but that's an apparent misunderstanding of the way Critical Hits work.

If you can critical on a 19, then rolling a 19 *does not* give you a Critical Hit.  Rolling a 19 *plus *having that roll meet the target's defense score *does* score a Critical Hit.   Rolling a 19 and failing to meet the target' s defense score gives you a miss - that's *not* a Critical Hit that misses, it's a *possible* Critical Hit that turns out to not be one and it misses entirely besides.

Because a Critical hit is defined as a hit and cannot possibly be a miss, if a feature or power states unambiguously that you "score a critical hit" then you must have also hit, by definition.  You simply can't both hit and miss.

This leaves only the issue of Precision as a possible out for those who don't want Holy Arbor to actually have you "score a critical hit" on all doubles.

But, Precision really just lets you know that some powers might change the numbers you need to roll to qualify for a critical hit and, parenthetically, reminds you that only a 20 automatically hits, which, *in the context of modifying the previous Natural 20 paragraph,* is pretty clearly just there to make sure folks don't think that if you roll a 19 and don't get a Critical Hit you get to automatically hit.


----------



## CovertOps (Sep 4, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> Because a Critical hit is defined as a hit and cannot possibly be a miss, if a feature or power states unambiguously that you "score a critical hit" then you must have also hit, by definition.  You simply can't both hit and miss.




This is the problem Artoomis.  Imagine this math problem:

x = 1 + 2 * 3

I hope we can agree that x = 7 based on order of operations.  You are suggesting that with Holy Ardor you can suddenly change the order of operations because you rolled doubles and you have an ability that says "if you roll doubles you score a critical hit...".  To me you are claiming that x = 9 [(1 + 2) * 3].  An attack roll has an order of operations that I posted above (I'll skip the first 2 as we're not debating those).

3. Roll an attack roll (p 273)
4. Compare attack roll to defense (p 274)
5. Apply damage.

At step 3 you are trying to declare victory with your "I rolled doubles and score a critical hit" and want to skip straight to step 5.  You have just broken the system.  The system hasn't even asked if you got a critical yet.  It *doesn't care at this point*.

3.  Roll an attack roll (if you have OoE roll 2 dice and pick one).

4.  Compare attack roll to defense (p 274)
4a. Did you beat the targets defense? Yes goto 4b.  No goto 4c.
4b. You score a hit.  Did you roll a natural 20 or (using Precision) qualify for a critical hit using some other feat, ability, or feature (Holy Ardor)?  Yes goto 5a.  No goto 5b.

4c. Did you roll a natural 20?  Yes goto 5b.  No you "Miss" and are done (in some cases a power will do half damage on a miss and that would be here or perhaps 5b?).

5a. You scored a critical hit.  Deal max damage etc.
5b. You did not score a critical hit.  Deal normal damage.

There is no path to 5a where you miss.  If you got there you did indeed hit, but that does NOT mean there isn't a way to roll some value that winds you up at 5b or even a miss that also qualified for being a critical.


----------



## Trebor62 (Sep 4, 2009)

if I understand Artoomis correctly he looks at his doubles and if they are not double 1's he has a crit. There is no need to test the doubles against the targets defense. Its already a crit. He's ending a step 3 for doubles not equal to 1. For doubles equal to 1 and none doubles he would then move to step 4.

Artoomis do I understand correctly?


----------



## Turtlejay (Sep 4, 2009)

Poor Artoomis.  He is all alone here, and I see where he is coming from.  He sees a hole in the wording of the power, and just wants other people to see it too.  Admittedly, it is a poorly worded ability.  I don't think he's right, but I feel like he is kind of alone in this.  Chin up, big guy.

Jay


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 5, 2009)

Trebor62 said:


> if I understand Artoomis correctly he looks at his doubles and if they are not double 1's he has a crit. There is no need to test the doubles against the targets defense. Its already a crit. He's ending a step 3 for doubles not equal to 1. For doubles equal to 1 and none doubles he would then move to step 4.
> 
> Artoomis do I understand correctly?




If:

3. Roll an attack roll (p 273)
4. Compare attack roll to defense (p 274)
5. Apply damage.

Then yes, exactly right.  Holy Ardor redefines this (for holy Ardor only, of course), at least the way it is written.

What is meant ()RAI), well, I am not sure.  What is written is as clear as it can be:

Get doubles that are not ones = score a critical hit.  This is most certainly departure from the normal rules order of 3-4-5 but that's the way it was written.

We could argue about how the baseline rules require you to check the attack roll against the defense before you can hit until the cows come home, it won't change the fact that the Holy Ardor rule, as written in plain words, simply skips right over that.

The way to read the rules is simplicity itself:

Base rules:  Critical = Roll at least a certain number (normally 20, but could be less) plus that roll must be at least equal to the target's defense score.

Holy Ardor rule:  Critical = Roll doubles that are not also ones.


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 5, 2009)

The part of Art's logic I agree with is the fact that if *you have successfully scored a critical hit, you must have hit.*  That's pretty intuitive.

Also, this means if *you have not hit, you cannot have scored a critical hit. * This is logically the same statement, only with a different purpose.  If the first statement is true, this statement is also true.

However, Art, the -problem- is that you've -assumed- you've successfully critically hit, when there are rules and situations that say you might not, in fact, hit, and therefore, do not critical hit.

It is a -fact- that an ability saying you must do something* can be prevented by other rules, by other abilities, by effects, by conditions, by any number of different things that say 'No, you don't get to do that.' * This statement is fact, and I'm tired of reproving it.

In this instance, we have -proof- that there are situations where Holy Ardor should not hit even under your interpretation.  This means that we've proven, even under -your- interpretation, that 'score a critical hit' in Holy Ardor does not allow it to circumvent all hit mechanics.  Your interpretation doesn't discriminate between miss-based mechanics, it uses an absolute interpretation of It Says Crit = You Must Hit.  Therefore the possibility exists that there are -other- situations where a miss can occur.

And no, I don't mean 'because someone used an interrupt on you.'  I mean a -rules based- missed.  But according to you, this gets to Specific vs General the rules because it is new.

But it doesn't work, and the idea that it works this way has ramifications way beyond just this one power.  

So, to sum up.  Holy Ardor cannot create automatic hits because there is a rule that says it does not.  It's that simple.  If it were intended to create automatic hits, it would -say- so.


----------



## Dr_Sage (Sep 5, 2009)

Well,

the OP asked for rule lawyers, and he certaily got them!  this must be some kind of world record right here.


****** Silly momment on ***********

We have a joke over here, something like this: "what are 2000 lawyers in the botton of the ocean?"

"Its a good start".

******* Silly momment off ****************


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 5, 2009)

Dr_Sage said:


> Well,
> 
> the OP asked for rule lawyers, and he certaily got them!  this must be some kind of world record right here.
> 
> ...




hmmm alternate answer "one very small us state having a flood."


----------



## CovertOps (Sep 5, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> If:
> 
> 3. Roll an attack roll (p 273)
> 4. Compare attack roll to defense (p 274)
> ...




Well I'm done.  The only answer I've seen is it overrides every rule that says "no" it doesn't work that way and it does so without even saying it does which is so totally broken in an exception based game it's laughable.  If you can't be intellectually honest then don't bother.  I could say that 2+2 = 4 and you'd still say it's wrong.

Where does Holy Ardor say it:
1. Changes the order of attack resolution?
2. overrides the hit rules?
3. overrides precision?

If you want a specific rule to replace a general rule then it MUST give details.  If it fails at this test then it's not a specific rule that overrides a general rule.  It is really that simple.  Even your base assumption isn't explicit, it's implied.  You ASSUME that a critical MUST be a hit, but no where in the rules does it say that.  You say that "according to the definition...", but a definition means nothing when you are talking about a game with rules and procedures that MUST be followed in a specific order to determine an outcome.  You can't start with the outcome and then override the procedure where ever it doesn't agree with the outcome.  That's just nonsense.  You follow the procedure and it TELLS you what the outcome is.  Every ability in the game fits into the procedure at some point.  You can't suddenly just decide...you know what...I'm going to skip these other steps and go straight to this specific ability because it says what I want.

To use your phrasing, Holy Ardor really says "you MIGHT score a critical..." because there are other rules in the attack resolution that might just say you missed and therefore didn't get that critical.  But the "MIGHT" isn't necessary for any of the denial rules to apply.  Holy Ardor doesn't grant them permission to work, they just work unless Holy Ardor says they don't work which it doesn't do.


----------



## N8Ball (Sep 5, 2009)

HOLY CRAP!  We are putting PAGES on this thread every day.  It's hard to keep up without checking multiple times per day, even for me who enjoys this kind of debate.

A couple responses caught my eye...



CovertOps said:


> Or alternatively some reasoning why you think doubles *IS* different enough (without granting itself a specific exemption) to warrant being immune to Precision.
> 
> I'd be willing to hear from you N8Ball on this too.  I am genuine in my interest about what you think makes doubles so special that Precision does *not* apply (considering that OoE - the ability that allows you to roll the two dice - gives a method to resolve the two rolls into a single roll which could then qualify for Precision).
> 
> Edit: Keeping in mind that my position is that this is all resolved by following the ordered rules for making an attack on p269 and that permissive language just simply doesn't matter ("can" - Dagger Master IMO could be worded "you score a critical" and would be no different than it is now, or if it was worded this way would you argue that Precision doesn't apply to it either based on the lack of the permissive?).  I'm more interested in how you think Precision would need to be reworded, but if you prefer to do the other what I'd like to know is why doubles is so different than rolling say 18-19 for Dagger Master when both grant you a critical.




I differ from Artoomis slightly on the view of the rolling of the doubles.  I think he has an argument there, but in my opinion it is not a critical piece of the battle and the result of that battle would not win or lose this war.  

Before I go into how precision applies to Holy Ardor I need to point out a significant difference in how we're reading the critical hit rules.  Covert, you pointed out that Artoomis was taking statements out of context in one of his posts:



> If you roll a 20 on the die when making an attack roll, you score a critical hit if your total attack roll is high enough to hit your target’s defense.
> 
> Whenever you make two attack rolls because of your oath of enmity, you score a critical hit if both dice have the same roll, except if both rolls are 1.





CovertOps said:


> You are completely ignoring the context of these two rules.  One absolutely must be definitive in that it is inside the body of the actual critical hit rules.  The other is a power granting a critical hit that must still meet *any requirements that were not overridden* in the power granting the critical.




The interpretation that you suggests has its own problems.  If we read the way you suggest, the term "score a critical hit" has a completely different meaning in the two cases. 

In the case of the PHB "score a critical hit" means you proceed with applying damage and extra effects without any further checking.  

In the Holy Ardor case, you're suggesting that "score a critical hit" means that you must still meet other requirements (hitting) before applying damage.

"score a critical hit" should mean one thing and it should not change with context.  Any other way invites too much fuzzy speculation as to what any given term means in this or that context.

It is worth pointing out that the hit rules (ph 276) do not grant critical hits, nor do they deny them.  The hit rules simply point to the crit rules when you roll a 20 as situation that "*might* be a critical hit".  It's also important to note that the rules do not say that you *have* "scored a critical hit" with a 20 only that you might.  This prescedent is followed in how we view the mastery feats and other crit enhancing powers with permissive language.

Covert, with your order of operations analysis you must conceed that the automatic hit rules must be observed some time prior to checking the attack score (and then possibly declaring a miss).  So that when "automatic hit" is satisfied, *the option of missing is no longer present* and that part of the order is skipped.  All that is left is to check for a critical hit or not.

The regular critical hit rules require 2 things, one of which is an attack roll that surpasses the defense, but this is not a check to hit, per-se, since the hit has already been check for.  It's a duplicate requirement for sure, but it's written out in full detail twice in completely different areas (276 and 278), so I think it's proper that we consider them as seperate requirements for seperate rules.

Along comes Holy Ardor.  Its only requirements are the numbers on the attack die, much like "Automatic hit".  If you check the dice at the same time that you would check for 20s then just like "automatic hit" you'd skip steps in the normal order of operations and go to the place where it sends you.  "Automatic hit" sends you to the point AFTER hits are declared, and Holy Ardor sends you to the point AFTER crits are declared.  That's a big jump and I think there should be amplifying text to reinforce such a big move, but I think that's where the rule points.

I think one of my objections is that people are using Precision to deny critical hits when I believe it's purpose is to deny *hits* to people who thought that their mastery feat let them auto-hit on a 19.  *After all, Precision comes RIGHT AFTER a sentence that says, "If your attack roll is too low to score a critical hit, you still hit automatically.*" Within that context (having rolled a crittable number), that statement is absolutely true until you introduce mastery and other crit enhancing abilities, at which time the possible crit range and auto-hit range diverge, thus requiring the clarifying statement in Precision.

I view Precision as a reminder of the subtle differences between a possible crit range (one part of the normal crit rules) and the automatic hit range.  

As stated elsewhere, I think that crit enhancing powers that use permissive language do so because they only change part of the normal crit requirements (the crittable numbers) and not the normal hit requirement.  

I don't think that Holy Ardor Grants automatic hits.  I think it grants critical hits and in doing so jumps well past what the automatic hit rule does.  I think when those crits are granted that several parts of the normal attack procedure are necessarily skipped.  One of those parts is achieving the hit, and the other is achieving the crit.

I understand that the modifier "automatic" has been used in many places to amplify powers granting hits that were not required to beat the targeted defense.  In most cases regarding attack rolls it can be replaced with the phrase "regardless of the attack score".  

That prescedent is amplifying and helpful and would have helped here as well, but in almost all instances of that word, it's presence does not really change anything about the rule or power but just clarifies.  In the same sense I think it should have been used to amplify (clarify) this power, but much like the other powers that use the word I think that the mechanics are the same even in its absence.

Whew!  That was a long one.  OK guys, I want at least 4 pages of rebuttals from this.

Just kidding.  There will be plenty of time next week to continue the sparring, so I'm goin to try to relax this weekend, and I hope you guys have a great weekend too.


----------



## CovertOps (Sep 5, 2009)

Excellent post N8Ball.  Well considered.
First I want to correct a couple of typos from the book:
3. Make an attack roll (p274 - the book says p273)
4. Compare your attack roll... (p276 - the book says p274)



N8Ball said:


> HOLY CRAP!  We are putting PAGES on this thread every day.  It's hard to keep up without checking multiple times per day, even for me who enjoys this kind of debate.
> 
> A couple responses caught my eye...
> 
> ...



Well said.  I think I have to agree with the "one meaning" you have laid out.  Having spent quite a bit of time reviewing p269-278 I think the only consistent meaning that makes sense is "you have met the requirements for dealing critical hit damage".  I pick that term because it is the header for the block of rules text.



> Covert, with your order of operations analysis you must conceed that the automatic hit rules must be observed some time prior to checking the attack score (and then possibly declaring a miss).  So that when "automatic hit" is satisfied, *the option of missing is no longer present* and that part of the order is skipped.  All that is left is to check for a critical hit or not.



The automatic hit would be checked in step 4 (compare attack roll).  My view of "Automatic Hit" is that it is an override to the more "general" "miss" rule.

Also of note is that the entry for "Critical Hit" listed under the "Hit" rules is only there to establish the default case of natural 20 being a possible crit, but does not actually give you anything (I'll get to this later), nor does it prove crit = hit.


> The regular critical hit rules require 2 things, one of which is an attack roll that surpasses the defense, but this is not a check to hit, per-se, since the hit has already been check for.  It's a duplicate requirement for sure, but it's written out in full detail twice in completely different areas (276 and 278), so I think it's proper that we consider them as seperate requirements for seperate rules.



I think this just compliments what is stated in the "Hit" rules for the default case.  It also prevents a possible conflict between the "Hit" rules and the "Critical Hit" rules in that they both mention the same default case of natural 20.  The only difference I see here is that it is telling you ("if you got a 20...and you hit...then you score a crit") if you meet these requirements you qualify for "Critical Hit Damage".


> Along comes Holy Ardor.  Its only requirements are the numbers on the attack die, much like "Automatic hit".  If you check the dice at the same time that you would check for 20s then just like "automatic hit" you'd skip steps in the normal order of operations and go to the place where it sends you.  "Automatic hit" sends you to the point AFTER hits are declared, and Holy Ardor sends you to the point AFTER crits are declared.  That's a big jump and I think there should be amplifying text to reinforce such a big move, but I think that's where the rule points.



I don't think any rules at all allow you to skip steps in the order of operations including Holy Ardor.  Other rules provide alternate rules within one specific step or another, but *nothing* allows you to jump around.  I would need some serious specific rules override within a given power to believe this was the case.  Would you try to skip "Make an attack roll" and go straight to damage without rolling any dice?


> I think one of my objections is that people are using Precision to deny critical hits when I believe it's purpose is to deny *hits* to people who thought that their mastery feat let them auto-hit on a 19.  *After all, Precision comes RIGHT AFTER a sentence that says, "If your attack roll is too low to score a critical hit, you still hit automatically.*" Within that context (having rolled a crittable number), that statement is absolutely true until you introduce mastery and other crit enhancing abilities, at which time the possible crit range and auto-hit range diverge, thus requiring the clarifying statement in Precision.
> 
> I view Precision as a reminder of the subtle differences between a possible crit range (one part of the normal crit rules) and the automatic hit range.



Based on my reading I have to believe that Precision prevents every critical hit granting ability from having to override the critical hit rules by providing a case for them.  Without Precision, abilities that grant a critical in any other way could be argued to not work without it or be said to replace the normal critical hit rules.  By providing a case for these powers this is avoided.  It does also note that just because you got a critical granted by some other power (Holy Ardor included) that said attack is not an automatic "Hit".  This specifically says (or implies strongly) that you cannot skip steps from p269.


> As stated elsewhere, I think that crit enhancing powers that use permissive language do so because they only change part of the normal crit requirements (the crittable numbers) and not the normal hit requirement.
> 
> I don't think that Holy Ardor Grants automatic hits.  I think it grants critical hits and in doing so jumps well past what the automatic hit rule does.  I think when those crits are granted that several parts of the normal attack procedure are necessarily skipped.  One of those parts is achieving the hit, and the other is achieving the crit.
> 
> ...




Ok...I need to clarify/modify a little of my previous post about order of operations.

(using my modified page numbers)
3. Make attack roll (p274)
4. Compare attack roll to defenses (p276)
5. Apply damage and other effects (p276)

All the rules in the book that come after the list on p269 are grouped according to the list and appear in order.  So what does this mean?

Make an attack roll has about a column and a half of rules text on p274 ending where the heading says "Defenses".

Compare attack roll to defenses takes up about 2 pages starting at the heading of "Defenses" and ending on p276 with the heading of "Damage" (the last section is the block on "Attack Results" ie hit or miss).

Apply damage starts at p276 under "Damage" and ends at "Durations" on p278.

This was clearly done on purpose.  It makes the "Critical Hit" rules part of the "Apply Damage" step.  This makes sense as that's what a critical hit does is modify how you determine damage so in this sense it is a more specific override to the general damage rules at the beginning of the section on p276.

So my final resulting example would look like this:

3. Make attack roll (using OoE you can roll 2 dice and pick one).
4. Compare to defenses.  Two pages of rules here that explain defenses and stuff and the final block where you either hit or miss with natural 20 overriding the miss rules and a note about the default possible critical hit on natural 20.
5. Apply damage and other effects.  (I admit this now has a gaping hole in it, but it was there to begin and I'll get to that in a sec)  Two cases are listed for critical hit.  Natural 20 and Precision (some class features and powers allow you to score a critical hit when you roll numbers other than 20 - grammar sniping to the side the plural "numbers" is inclusive of one or more die rolls because it makes no distinction between the result of a single die or multiple dice...that is a position invented by the other side that isn't true) with the reminder that even if a power grants you a critical hit on some result other than natural 20 it is not an automatic hit (and therefore can miss).  At this point we can safely apply Holy Ardor and maximize our damage.

Now...about that gaping hole I mentioned above.  It seems that there is a corner case where if you are using any power that does damage on a "Miss" that if you qualified for a critical hit you would first maximize the damage and add any extras before cutting the damage in half.  I see nothing in the rules to prevent this reading and frankly it sounds kinda fun.  So the next time your Dagger Master misses on 18-19 using a daily power be sure to maximize your damage before cutting it in half.  Same for Holy Ardor if you roll doubles and miss.


----------



## eriktheguy (Sep 5, 2009)

Niift is correct. Although rolling two '8's in this situation is not an automatic hit, it is still an automatic critical hit, even if an 8 would not hit. The rules say that you only score an automatic hit on a roll of a 20, but the power says that you score a critical hit on a roll of (lets say) an 8, so specific beats general.
Even if you do not believe that there is a difference between 'you can score a critical hit' and 'you score a critical hit' (and there is a difference), the power still specifies that you hit in a certain situation, so the rules are ignored since specific beats general.


----------



## Flipguarder (Sep 5, 2009)

eriktheguy said:


> Even if you do not believe that there is a difference between 'you can score a critical hit' and 'you score a critical hit' (and there is a difference), the power still specifies that you hit in a certain situation, so the rules are ignored since specific beats general.




The counter-argument is that this is NOT a specific vs. general situation, because the general rule clarifies what happens IN this situation. This is because the section of critical hit that points out that only a 20 is an automatic hit works WITH this rule to ensure you know that holy ardor doesn't automatically hit.


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 5, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> The counter-argument is that this is NOT a specific vs. general situation, because the general rule clarifies what happens IN this situation. This is because the section of critical hit that points out that only a 20 is an automatic hit works WITH this rule to ensure you know that holy ardor doesn't automatically hit.




And more accurately, yes, critical hit altering mechanics -are- exceptions to when you can roll a critical, but they are not an exception to Precision which is the rule that specificly governs these exceptions.


----------



## CovertOps (Sep 5, 2009)

eriktheguy said:


> Niift is correct. Although rolling two '8's in this situation is not an automatic hit, it is still an automatic critical hit, even if an 8 would not hit. The rules say that you only score an automatic hit on a roll of a 20, but the power says that you score a critical hit on a roll of (lets say) an 8, so specific beats general.
> Even if you do not believe that there is a difference between 'you can score a critical hit' and 'you score a critical hit' (and there is a difference), the power still specifies that you hit in a certain situation, so the rules are ignored since specific beats general.




I never claimed that you don't get a critical hit.  What you don't get is a "Hit".  You also don't get to ignore the rules as written without an exception.  
1. Show us where Holy Ardor overrides the "Making an Attack" sequence.  
2. Show us where it says you get to skip comparing your attack roll against the targets defenses to see if you hit or missed?
3. Show us where it says a "Critical Hit" (p278) gives you a "Hit".

I have asked many times for any of these things to be proven with actual rules quotes and page references, but all I keep getting is "...but that's not what it says...".  If you think the phrase "score a critical hit" (forget for a moment the the whole "can" debate) overrides as many general rules as it needs to in order for your position to be correct you are sadly mistaken.  Are you seriously suggesting that one little phrase overrides like almost the entire general rules on how to resolve an attack (mainly due to the absence of the word "can")?????????  That is just beyond silly.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 6, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> I never claimed that you don't get a critical hit.  What you don't get is a "Hit".  You also don't get to ignore the rules as written without an exception.
> 1. Show us where Holy Ardor overrides the "Making an Attack" sequence.
> 2. Show us where it says you get to skip comparing your attack roll against the targets defenses to see if you hit or missed?
> 3. Show us where it says a "Critical Hit" (p278) gives you a "Hit".
> ...




Number (3) is the crucial one, for if it truly is a *hit*, then (1) and (2) simply don't matter as the rule just overrode the rest of the hit rules.  If a rule creates a new exception that says you hit, well, then, you hit.

So, if you "score a critical hit" have you hit?  Well, let's see:

Page 276 Makes that clear:

Attack Results:
Hit....
...Automatic Hit
...Critical Hit
Miss...
...Automatic Miss

From this we see that the following are the *only* possible results for an attack:

1.  *Hit*.
2.  An automatic *hit*.
3.  A critical *hit*
4.  Miss
5.  Automatic Miss

1, 2 and 3 all are *hits*.

Further, page 276 also say "A critical hit deals maximum damage..."

Saying that one can "score a critical hit" and yet not hit and do damage is beyond silly.


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 6, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> Saying that one can "score a critical hit" and yet not hit and do damage is beyond silly.




Again, you've assumed the critical must be successful before applying rules showing that it might not be.  And that assumption you then use to say those rules could not apply.

Abilities that say you do something do not guarantee that something is done.

That's all the rebuttal that is needed.  You cannot use that non-existant guarantee to say that rules that -exist specificly to tell you what you want to happen does not happen- cannot apply.

-That- is as ludicrous as saying the Move action is more specific than the general rule of being Immobilized.


----------



## ObsidianCrane (Sep 6, 2009)

Kraydak said:


> But that only refers to critting on a natural 20.  It is not inherent in critting *in general*.  Note that the algorithm for applying criticals does not (or at least I noticed it didn't the last time I looked at it, but I could have missed it, AFB) reference running the "hit" line.




What is the Precision rule - chopped liver?

Critical Hits are subset of Hit, that is how the rules are structured, they are also structured so that if your result might be a Critical (Natural 20 or Precision) you still might Miss and thus not get a Critical Hit. But all actual Crits are actual Hits, without some sort of special rule to say the normal Crit rules (including Precision) do not apply.

The only way Holy Ardor gets a Crit without a Hit is if the Precision rules do not apply, and the only way for that to happen is for Holy Ardor to create Artoomis' "new rule", which I do not believe it does as that ignores the fundamental nature of what is happening - rolling an attack roll.


----------



## CovertOps (Sep 6, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> Number (3) is the crucial one, for if it truly is a *hit*, then (1) and (2) simply don't matter as the rule just overrode the rest of the hit rules.  If a rule creates a new exception that says you hit, well, then, you hit.
> 
> So, if you "score a critical hit" have you hit?  Well, let's see:
> 
> ...




Critical hit only means you get to maximize any damage you do.  If you don't hit and therefore don't do any damage you have nothing to maximize.  And quit pointing to p276.  Those are the "Attack Results" rules NOT the "Critical Hit" rules.  Quit attempting to use the "Attack Results" rules to prove that your "Critical Hit" is a "Hit".  I quite clearly said "Show where the "Critical Hit" rules *PAGE 278* give you a "Hit".


			
				Attack Results said:
			
		

> If the attack roll is higher than or equal to the defense score, the attack hits and deals damage, has a special effect, or both.
> 
> Automatic Hit: If you roll a natural 20 (the die shows a 20), your attack automatically hits.
> 
> Critical Hit: If you roll a natural 20 (the die shows a 20), your attack might be a critical hit. A critical hit deals maximum damage, and some powers and magic items have an extra effect on a critical hit.



I'd also like to ask...what makes you think you get to ignore the requirements (the very first line) of "Attack Results", but unfortunately I already know the false answer you're going to give so I won't bother.

The number of assumptions and holes in your position are staggering.  It's really amazing how much of the rules you get to just ignore or twist to mean something different to "prove" you are right.  My position is pretty simple..."score a critical hit" says you qualify to apply "Critical Hit Damage" as shown in the rules on (amazingly) "Critical Hits" on p278.  To phrase it differently a critical hit is not a special type of hit, it is a specific override to the general "Damage" rules found on p276.  *If you don't do any damage then a "Critical Hit" doesn't do anything.*  If your attack roll grants you a result that does damage you get to do maximum damage.  Holy Ardor only applies within step 5 (Apply Damage) of the attack resolution.  A critical hit is part of the "Apply Damage" rules as I have already proven and to keep trying to claim they are something different is just false.



> Saying that one can "score a critical hit" and yet not hit and do damage is beyond silly.




This has already been proven to be possible so any claim about how silly it is just smacks of dis ingenuousness.  Also this is your position only because of the missing (and unneeded) word "can".  Rules don't need permission to apply to a given situation.  They either apply or some specific rule gives you an override.  You have created a 3rd state where some rules simply don't apply at all without an override - this is *never* the case.


----------



## CovertOps (Sep 6, 2009)

One more thought Artoomis.

In your intrepritation you are invoking Holy Ardor in step 4 (Compare your attack roll...) and yet maintain that Holy Ardor is "not an attack roll".  You then try to use this (Holy Ardor) that grants you a critical hit (see step 5 - apply damage) to prove that you don't need to "Compare your attack roll".

What if I tried to perform an OA on my turn.  Does that work?
What if I tried to perform a move action when it isn't my turn.  Does that work?
What if I tried to use Weapon Focus during "Compare your attack roll..."  Does that work?

You are trying to use an ability (Holy Ardor) on an action (Compare your attack roll) to which it doesn't even apply according to your own argument.  Your words.  Your position.


This is essentially your process:
You are skipping step 4 entirely (Compare your attack roll) going to step 5 (apply damage), invoking Holy Ardor and then using the granted "Critical Hit" to prove that you were allowed to skip step 4 in the first place.  You have put the proverbial cart in front of the Horse and that my friend IS circular logic.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 7, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> Critical hit only means you get to maximize any damage you do.  If you don't hit and therefore don't do any damage you have nothing to maximize.  And quit pointing to p276.  Those are the "Attack Results" rules NOT the "Critical Hit" rules.  Quit attempting to use the "Attack Results" rules to prove that your "Critical Hit" is a "Hit".  I quite clearly said "Show where the "Critical Hit" rules *PAGE 278* give you a "Hit"...




There is no need to look to page 278 for that.  Page 276 *DEFINES* Critical Hit as one of the possible results of Hit or Miss.  Since it is one of the possible HIT results, if you "score a critical hit" you hit."

Bottom line:

If you "score a critical hit" you have hit.  There is just no way around it - that's they it is *defined.*

It's beyond ludicrous to think you can have actually scored a critical hit and yet missed.



			
				DracoSuave said:
			
		

> Again, you've assumed the critical must be successful before applying rules showing that it might not be. And that assumption you then use to say those rules could not apply.




Well, right now I need to focus on one argument only, as trying to argue both is too confusing.

For now,  I will focus on CoverOps' argument that when you "score a critical hit" you may actually have missed.

I say that's bunk.  If you actually "score a critical hit" then you,well, have a critical hit and apply critical damage as explained in the rules introducing critical hits on page 276.  On the other hand, if you have only *possibly* scored a critical hit, that's whole different matter.

I simply can no longer do this three-way debate where I am trying to argue against two fundamentally different positions at the same time.  It's too confusing.


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 7, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> I say that's bunk.  If you actually "score a critical hit" then you,well, have a critical hit and apply critical damage as explained in the rules introducing critical hits on page 276.  On the other hand, if you have only *possibly* scored a critical hit, that's whole different matter.




Awesome.

Now prove that Holy Ardor definatively scores a critical hit, and that it gets around the need to hit, that rules that would prevent it from hitting -cannot work.-

Prove that, you prove your case.

Because as it stands, all that is needed to -disprove- that is a case where Holy Ardor does not hit, and that's trivial.


----------



## Kraydak (Sep 7, 2009)

Cailte said:


> What is the Precision rule - chopped liver?




Yes.  Everything that the Precision rule could refer to takes rules priority over the Precision rule.  Oops!

For sake of argument, if Critical Hits were a subset of Hits, then unless carefully written, class features/feats/etc... that grant critical hits would contradict Precision, and take priority over it.



> Critical Hits are subset of Hit, that is how the rules are structured, they are also structured so that if your result might be a Critical (Natural 20 or Precision) you still might Miss and thus not get a Critical Hit. But all actual Crits are actual Hits, without some sort of special rule to say the normal Crit rules (including Precision) do not apply.




Critical hits are defined on page 278.  They are at the same level as Insubstantial, Conditions and Forced Movement, none of which only apply on hits.  (twould be funny if Insubstantial didn't work on misses, mind.....)
The page 276 Hit section talking about criticals is there only to define the baseline way to get a critical hit, and doesn't matter when you have other critical hit triggers.


----------



## CovertOps (Sep 7, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> There is no need to look to page 278 for that.  Page 276 *DEFINES* Critical Hit as one of the possible results of Hit or Miss.  Since it is one of the possible HIT results, if you "score a critical hit" you hit."
> 
> Bottom line:
> 
> ...




It's really simple Artoomis, but you don't even bother addressing my issue at all.  My point is that if you compare your attack roll and that attack roll says you miss then you never get to invoke Holy Ardor or any other critical power because you never get to the "Apply Damage" phase of attack resolution and therefore you are (were?) never granted the critical hit in the first place.

If you want to try and defend something try defending my points from my last post.  Holy Ardor is not an "attack roll".  You have said it and I'll agree to it.  On that assumption you therefore CANNOT invoke/use Holy Ardor during either step 3 (make attack roll) or step 4 (compare attack roll to ...) because both of those steps need an attack roll in order to resolve.  Your assertion is that Holy Ardor grants you a whole new way to get a critical hit and a Hit because it is NOT an attack roll.  My point is because it isn't an attack roll you are not allowed to invoke it's use until step 5 (apply damage).  What you are trying to do is no different from my examples above (repeated here):

What if I tried to perform an OA on my turn. Does that work?
What if I tried to perform a move action when it isn't my turn. Does that work?
What if I tried to use Weapon Focus during "Compare your attack roll..." Does that work?

All of these are examples of trying to use an ability that doesn't apply to the situation given.  You are trying to use Holy Ardor in a situation to which it does not apply.

EDIT:  On the other hand if Holy Ardor IS an attack roll then it doesn't create the new path to a critical you claim it does and the normal hit rules still apply.


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 7, 2009)

Kraydak said:


> Yes.  Everything that the Precision rule could refer to takes rules priority over the Precision rule.  Oops!
> 
> For sake of argument, if Critical Hits were a subset of Hits, then unless carefully written, class features/feats/etc... that grant critical hits would contradict Precision, and take priority over it.




And this is the problem.

This means that rules that tell you how to do something cannot be used.

So, critical hits cannot be governed by the general rule that tells you not to automaticly hit, as you claim?  That means that you also cannot deal maximum damage with them, because while the 'General' rule of critical hits say you do, no power exists in the game that grants you permission to deal -a single point- of damage over what it claims in the text.

SPECIFIC (a power) beats GENERAL (a rule) AMIRITE?

I guarantee you that if -this- is the correct interpretation, you cannot so much as deal a single hit point of damage using fourth edition.  This is because damage (a general rule) cannot deduct from hit points (a number specific to each class).


This is the natural ramification of the idea that 'specific beats general' meaning 'everything specific beats everything general no matter what'.

That is incorrect.  Specific beats general -only when there is a contradiction.-  And when you have a situation that has a rule governing it and tells you -exactly- how to adjudicate it, you -do not have a contradiction- even if it doesn't turn out exactly how you want it.

I suggest you reread "Specific beats General" beyond those three words, and read -the entire paragraph.-  You will notice that it is -very- clear that it only applies when there are contradictions.

A contradiction is when you have a rule that says 'You score a critical hit on natural 20s' and a specific ability that says 'You score a critical hit on 19-20.'  A contradiction -does not occur- when you then have a rule that says 'Some abilities allow you to score critical hits on numbers other than 20.  Only a natural 20 is an automatic hit.)' because that rule is -telling you how to use them.-  It is clarifying what those exceptions -can and cannot do.-  Which means if that exception wants to do something other than that, then it not only needs to except -the first rule- but also -the rule that tells you how it works.-

An example of this is simple:  If you have a push power, you always count it from the user of the power, not the origin point.  As well, every square of motion must be away.  We understand this.  However, powers exist which change the point from where the pushes come from... those powers do not suddenly say 'Oh yeah, and you don't have to worry about the away part'.  All rules that are not contradicted by the change in origin square -are not excepted by the power.-  

And Precision is -not- contradicted by Holy Ardor.


----------



## Kraydak (Sep 7, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> And this is the problem.
> 
> This means that rules that tell you how to do something cannot be used.
> 
> ...




Not in the slightest.  The critical hit rules redefine how you interpret the XdY definitions.



> I guarantee you that if -this- is the correct interpretation, you cannot so much as deal a single hit point of damage using fourth edition.  This is because damage (a general rule) cannot deduct from hit points (a number specific to each class).




If the rules for the *current* hit points were defined by class (and con, and feat etc...), as opposed to the actual case, where the *maximum* hp were defined by them, you might have a case.  The good news is, barring a specific feat/power/etc... (which would take priority) that targets your maximum hp total, we don't have to worry about that.



> This is the natural ramification of the idea that 'specific beats general' meaning 'everything specific beats everything general no matter what'.
> 
> That is incorrect.  Specific beats general -only when there is a contradiction.-  And when you have a situation that has a rule governing it and tells you -exactly- how to adjudicate it, you -do not have a contradiction- even if it doesn't turn out exactly how you want it.




Dead on correct, which is why I preface all my specific-trumps -general comments with a "in the hypothetical case that critical hits are a type of hit" comment.  There is no contradiction at all if they aren't.  There is a contradiction if they are.  This is because if they are, then a statement that "you get a crit" is equivalent to "you get a hit and a crit".



> I suggest you reread "Specific beats General" beyond those three words, and read -the entire paragraph.-  You will notice that it is -very- clear that it only applies when there are contradictions.




Yes.  Very much yes, and a point that many people ignore.



> A contradiction is when you have a rule that says 'You score a critical hit on natural 20s' and a specific ability that says 'You score a critical hit on 19-20.'  A contradiction -does not occur- when you then have a rule that says 'Some abilities allow you to score critical hits on numbers other than 20.  Only a natural 20 is an automatic hit.)' because that rule is -telling you how to use them.-  It is clarifying what those exceptions -can and cannot do.-  Which means if that exception wants to do something other than that, then it not only needs to except -the first rule- but also -the rule that tells you how it works.-




*If* critical hits are a subset of hits, *THEN* there is, very much, a contradiction.  This is in the same sense that I don't have to say, every time, that every time you use the rules for a halberd, you also use the rules for a polearm.  Because a halberd is a subset of polearms, if I give you a halberd, I am also giving you a polearm.



> An example of this is simple:  If you have a push power, you always count it from the user of the power, not the origin point.  As well, every square of motion must be away.  We understand this.  However, powers exist which change the point from where the pushes come from... those powers do not suddenly say 'Oh yeah, and you don't have to worry about the away part'.  All rules that are not contradicted by the change in origin square -are not excepted by the power.-
> 
> And Precision is -not- contradicted by Holy Ardor.




True, but only because you can trigger crits on misses.


----------



## keterys (Sep 7, 2009)

Kraydak said:


> True, but only because you can trigger crits on misses.




So if you knock prone on a critical hit, and do half damage on a critical hit, if you use a daily, you could get the following situation?

Crit: 80 damage and knocks prone
Hit: 30 damage
Miss: 15 damage
Holy Ardor Miss: 40 damage and knocks prone

Out of curiosity, do people who think Holy Ardor's language in lacking a 'can' is purposeful _also_ think that the lack of a can in Steel Vanguard Veteran and Cutthroat Scrutiny are also purposeful? Because it really seems more likely they just forgot on those other two powers.

Finally, can someone who has received a customer service response that Holy Ardor allows this please copy the conversation into the thread? There was a claim that CustServ had ruled both ways, but I only saw the one ruling that Holy Ardor still required a hit.


----------



## Kraydak (Sep 7, 2009)

keterys said:


> So if you knock prone on a critical hit, and do half damage on a critical hit, if you use a daily, you could get the following situation?
> 
> Crit: 80 damage and knocks prone
> Hit: 30 damage
> ...




Yes, with two caveats:
a) Holy Ardor isn't the only way to get crit-misses.
b) Some (all?) sources of extra damage on crits may not be effected by the half-damage on miss.


----------



## keterys (Sep 7, 2009)

Kraydak said:


> Yes, with two caveats:
> a) Holy Ardor isn't the only way to get crit-misses.
> b) Some (all?) sources of extra damage on crits may not be effected by the half-damage on miss.




a) I guess I'll take your word for that one. 
b) Interesting. So if it was 30 normal (15 half), but if you max the normal it's 42, and you got 38 extra from the critical hit damage... you'd halve the 42 to 21, then add the 38, to 59?


----------



## CovertOps (Sep 7, 2009)

keterys said:


> So if you knock prone on a critical hit, and do half damage on a critical hit, if you use a daily, you could get the following situation?
> 
> Crit: 80 damage and knocks prone
> Hit: 30 damage
> ...




I've been trying to reconcile this with the rules.  This may be a case where...dare I say it....you can't crit because crit is a type of hit and not a miss?  And no Artoomis, this is not an admission that a crit is therefore a hit.


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 7, 2009)

Kraydak said:


> *If* critical hits are a subset of hits, *THEN* there is, very much, a contradiction.  This is in the same sense that I don't have to say, every time, that every time you use the rules for a halberd, you also use the rules for a polearm.  Because a halberd is a subset of polearms, if I give you a halberd, I am also giving you a polearm.




If, and ONLY if, said critical hit is guaranteed by the ability.  If the critical hit is not guaranteed 100%, then the ability -saying- you have a critical is not a guarantee of a critical, and is not a guarantee of a hit, and therefore does not override the rules that say 'This is not a guarantee of a hit.'


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 7, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> It's really simple Artoomis, but you don't even bother addressing my issue at all.  My point is that if you compare your attack roll and that attack roll says you miss then you never get to invoke Holy Ardor or any other critical power because you never get to the "Apply Damage" phase of attack resolution and therefore you are (were?) never granted the critical hit in the first place...




Well, by that logic you'd never get an Automatic Hit.

First, you'd roll to hit.  If you did not beat the defender's attack roll, you'd miss and never move on down the possible attack results to Automatic Hit. 

If you missed, you cannot continue on to check for a automatic hit, because you've already missed.

Really, you are making the wrong argument.  *Page 276 defines Critical Hit* whereas page 278 explains it and adds more details on how to rule on them.

Your argument about you can "score a critical hit" and still miss is fundamentally flawed because of the very definition of Critical Hit on page 276.

Instead, you should focus on why "score a critical hit" in plain language really means only "*potentially* score a critical hit."

Arguments around that at least have some merit.  You argument that a critical hit can be a miss is essentially that black is white, and thus cannot stand.

Again, I point to the fact that page 276 states that there there are only two possible "Attack Results: "Hit and Miss."

Critical Hit falls into the category of "Hit."

Given that fact, how can a Critical Hit turn out to be a Miss?  It's simply not possible and would indeed be akin to stating "black is white."


----------



## Dan'L (Sep 8, 2009)

keterys said:


> Finally, can someone who has received a customer service response that Holy Ardor allows this please copy the conversation into the thread? There was a claim that CustServ had ruled both ways, but I only saw the one ruling that Holy Ardor still required a hit.




Without going back & searching all the posts, from what I remember:  quite possibly it can't be done.  The individual who posted that CustServ had green-lighted Holy Ardor's auto-hit-crit followed up that it had been a telephone conversation, and therefore had no written record of the exchange.  If someone else has received a similarly affirming response over e-mail, they have not weighed in with it here.

-Dan'L


----------



## CovertOps (Sep 8, 2009)

I have nothing else to say if you're not going to try to deny my position.  I am going to take your lack of rebuttal as an acceptance that my position is correct.  Your comments lead me to believe that you have not even tried to either understand my argument or even bothered to read my posts.  You ignore the substance of what I'm saying and just selectively respond to the most insignificant parts.  For example your first point is silly if you had read the rules...

"Well, by that logic you'd never get an Automatic Hit."  Step 4 of the attack resolution includes 2 FULL PAGES OF RULES ending with the block about hits and misses (which incidentally includes the automatic hit rule).

Artoomis...you really need to sit down one night with your PHB and actually read the whole section.  Look at it's organization.  Read the steps that you are *required* to take and then all the supporting rules that go with it.  Look at the flow of the rules.  You're too focused in on just one particular part.

That and despite your best efforts at a denial the critical hit rules are on p278.  Assertions to the contrary are unfounded.  Try reading the headers above the rules blocks.  On p276 the header clearly says "Attack Results" and on p278 you find the header...wait for it......"Critical Hits".


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 8, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> ...Try reading the headers above the rules blocks.  On p276 the header clearly says "Attack Results" and on p278 you find the header...wait for it......"Critical Hits".




True - but Critical Hits are defined on page 276, not page 278.  They are simply further explained (or even "further defined," if you like) under the Critical Hit header.

I do not see how you can deny that a Critical Hit falls into one of two possible Attack Results - Hit or Miss, and it is a Hit.

I know you want to focus on page 278 and other rules, but they are irrelevant since *the basic rule (Attack Results) defines a Critical Hit result as on of the possible Hit results (as opposed to a Miss).* 

It is not possible to reconcile a successful Critical Hit as producing a Miss with the rules on page 276.  

If you can show how the rules on page 276 can be reconciled with how scoring critical hit being a miss, then I might tackle your other points,  You have not done that because it can't be done, which leaves me no reason to go further.


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 8, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> Blah and stuff




So all this has proven is that a successful Critical Hit is a successful hit.  Congrats.  That also proves an unsuccessful hit is therefore an unsuccessful Critical hit.  This is not debatable, it's logic 101.

Now present that Holy Ardor automaticly produces a -successful- critical hit.  That's the crux of the issue, and it's time to stop dancing around it.  

The thing is, you cannot prove it, because it has already been disproven by counterexample.  It is also proven that stating an event happens is not necessarily sufficient for that event to happen.  It is also proven that the word 'can' is not relevant to this, that even a definitive event can be prevented by the rules.

Because you cannot then prove that it automatically successfully produces a critical hit, you cannot use that to prove that it automatically hits.  
And because you cannot prove it automatically hits, you cannot rationally assume that it hits.
Because you cannot use that assumption, it cannot counter a rule that tells you it does not automatically hit.

Therefore, the argument 'It says you crit, therefore it must hit' is debunked.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 8, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> So all this has proven is that a successful Critical Hit is a successful hit.  Congrats.  That also proves an unsuccessful hit is therefore an unsuccessful Critical hit.  This is not debatable, it's logic 101.
> 
> Now present that Holy Ardor automatically produces a -successful- critical hit.  That's the crux of the issue, and it's time to stop dancing around it.
> 
> ...




Well, "score a critical hit" is when you successfully get a critical hit - that's the language is used in the Critical Hit rule, in fact.

CovertOps (and now you) keep trying to somehow say "score a critical hit" can result in a miss, but that's not possible by your own "logic 101" statement above - at least not without using (well, I say misusing) the Precision "rule."

I am staying away from Precision right now to focus on CovertOps' claim that you can "score a critical hit" and yet still miss.  As you point out, logic 101 denies this is possible.

I have pointed out how "score a critical hit" is defined phrase in Critical Hit and, further, how the phrasing of Holy Ardor matches up nicely with Critical Hit, making it replace that rule.

I have yet to see that being rebutted in an effective manner.

If we can get to the point where we agreed that Holy Ardor would indeed grant a critical hit (meaning critical damage) on any doubles other than ones if the Precision statement did not exists, I'd then be free to focus on other arguments.

Right now, I am dumbfounded how the pure simplicity of "Do A and "score a critical hit" if B" can possibly mean something *other* than you get to  "score a critical hit" and therefore do critical damage - at least without consider Precision.


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 8, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> Right now, I am dumbfounded how the pure simplicity of "Do A and "score a critical hit" if B" can possibly mean something *other* than you get to  "score a critical hit" and therefore do critical damage - at least without consider Precision.




Alright.

Attack a hidden opponent.  Fail to guess the square he is in.

You miss.

Game.  Set.  Match.

The ability does not trump the 'Hitting what you Cannot See' rule.  Therefore the ability does not guarantee a hit within the ruleset.  Therefore it does not guarantee a critical hit.  Therefore you cannot rationally assume it guarantees a critical hit.  Therefore you cannot rationally assume it hits.

Therefore you cannot rationally assume it trumps -other- rules that state you do not automaticly hit without -further- evidence to the contrary... which you don't have.

Logic 101 states that if your argument is not possible due to evidence, then the argument is somehow flawed.  In this case, the flaw is assuming that 'score a critical hit' is a guarantee of success, which it -is proven- it is not.  Therefore, you cannot use the argument that it is a guarantee of success and therefore trumps rules that say it would fail.


Now to prove that Precision applies to it.



> I have pointed out how "score a critical hit" is defined phrase in Critical Hit and, further, how the phrasing of Holy Ardor matches up nicely with Critical Hit, making it replace that rule




And I have pointed out how "score a critical hit" is explicitly stated in Precision, and -that- is the exact phrase it refers to, thereby becoming evoked by Holy Ardor by dint of Precision being a rule defining that exact sort of ability.  Verbatim.  Therefore -anything- that allows one to "score a critical hit" is subject to Precision.

By your own logic.


----------



## Kraydak (Sep 8, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> Alright.
> ...
> 
> The ability does not trump the 'Hitting what you Cannot See' rule.  Therefore the ability does not guarantee a hit within the ruleset.  Therefore it does not guarantee a critical hit.  Therefore you cannot rationally assume it guarantees a critical hit.  Therefore you cannot rationally assume it hits.
> ...




If a rule in 4e (DnD throughout all editions, actually) states that something happens (which Holy Ardor does), then the burden of proof is on the person who says it *doesn't* happen AND even if it doesn't happen in specific circumstances, that has no impact at all in other circumstances.  Rules in 4e are contradicted ALL THE TIME.  This causes no existential angst, nor does it make you prove that the rule functions in general.

4e explicitly gives feats and class abilities higher rules priority than Precision, therefore Precision will never, ever matter.  Precision would only come into play if someone has a feat/class ability/etc... that modifier the "getting crits" rules, but if that ability contradicts Precision, Precision never kicks in.  If crits are a type of hit, then that ability will either say: "you get a crit when blah blah on the attack roll ..." or "you can get a crit when blah blah on the attack roll..." (which are equivalent for us, and, contradicting Precision, overrule it) OR it would say "if your attack roll is blah blah and that result hits, then you can get a crit" in which case Precision is redundant.

If you know the system, Precision is sort of like an attack that tries prevent perfect defenses in Exalted by calling out specific defensive abilities by name.  There are some, and they do not work as designed because defenses in Exalted take rules priority over attacks, regardless of the text.


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 8, 2009)

Kraydak said:


> If a rule in 4e (DnD throughout all editions, actually) states that something happens (which Holy Ardor does), then the burden of proof is on the person who says it *doesn't* happen AND even if it doesn't happen in specific circumstances, that has no impact at all in other circumstances.  Rules in 4e are contradicted ALL THE TIME.  This causes no existential angst, nor does it make you prove that the rule functions in general.




I present Precision.  Now present counter-proof stating it does not work.

I'm -well- aware of where the burden of proof is on this.



> 4e explicitly gives feats and class abilities higher rules priority than Precision, therefore Precision will never, ever matter.




LOL WUT

So, rules priority goes from feats, class abilities, and then rules eh?

So, if you have a rule that says you do maximum damage on a coup de grace, the fact the power says you deal a specific die roll of damage means that you can't?

If you have a power that pushes a creature, it overcomes the rule that you cannot move through obstacles?

That's not how it works in this game, and don't pretend it does.  If you have a situation X, then if there are rules that say what you do with situation X, you -use those rules.-

So, if you charge, even tho a melee basic attack is a part of that action, does that make charge unplayable because melee basic attack says it's a Standard Action?

These examples are rediculous, but they are -exactly- the sort of rules interraction you claim exists here.

The game does not work this way, never has, and never will.



> Precision would only come into play if someone has a feat/class ability/etc... that modifier the "getting crits" rules, but if that ability contradicts Precision, Precision never kicks in.  If crits are a type of hit, then that ability will either say: "you get a crit when blah blah on the attack roll ..." or "you can get a crit when blah blah on the attack roll..." (which are equivalent for us, and, contradicting Precision, overrule it) OR it would say "if your attack roll is blah blah and that result hits, then you can get a crit" in which case Precision is redundant.




Um no.  Those rules are exceptions to -how- you can get critical hits.  If you do a straight replacement of Natural 20 with those other results, you get to a point where if the roll isn't high enough to hit, instead of a successful critical, you just get a hit.  However Precision then tells you that doesn't happen either.  Changing the -range- of the crit, or the circumstances a crit happens overrides the Natural 20 part.  It doesn't override what you do with it, it does NOT override the entirety of the critical hit rules.



> If you know the system, Precision is sort of like an attack that tries prevent perfect defenses in Exalted by calling out specific defensive abilities by name.  There are some, and they do not work as designed because defenses in Exalted take rules priority over attacks, regardless of the text.




That's great.  Except my book doesn't say 'Exalted' on the cover.  And so, no, it is NOT like that at all, because that means the game does not work.  And the game -does- work, which proves that it cannot be as you claim.

And if I were running Exalted, and you -tried- to make that argument at the table, I'd say you're being a rules-shister (a corrupt rules-lawyer) and if you continued with this nonsense, you'd not be invited back to my table.


----------



## Kraydak (Sep 8, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> I present Precision.  Now present counter-proof stating it does not work.




In the (faulty) case that critical hits are a type of hit, I already have.  Because each and every ability that expands your means of getting critical hits is its own, unique, snowflake, they all take rules priority over Precision.



> So, rules priority goes from feats, class abilities, and then rules eh?
> 
> So, if you have a rule that says you do maximum damage on a coup de grace, the fact the power says you deal a specific die roll of damage means that you can't?




I'm not entirely sure what you are asking here, but I think the answer is:
Correct, albeit largely irrelevant.  If you have a feat that says: on a coup de grace, do an extra d10 damage, than you have to roll that d10.  The normal weapon damage does get maxed as per normal.  See High Crit weapons.



> If you have a power that pushes a creature, it overcomes the rule that you cannot move through obstacles?




Different subsystems.



> That's not how it works in this game, and don't pretend it does.  If you have a situation X, then if there are rules that say what you do with situation X, you -use those rules.-




Until the rules contradict eachother, yes.  We *have* a contradiction though.



> So, if you charge, even tho a melee basic attack is a part of that action, does that make charge unplayable because melee basic attack says it's a Standard Action?




Both are normal rules, Charge makes a call to MBA, so Charge takes priority.  No problems here.



> These examples are rediculous, but they are -exactly- the sort of rules interraction you claim exists here.
> 
> The game does not work this way, never has, and never will.




I despair at my writing skills, as the examples don't begin to be the sort of rules interaction I have claimed exist.



> Um no.  Those rules are exceptions to -how- you can get critical hits.  If you do a straight replacement of Natural 20 with those other results, you get to a point where if the roll isn't high enough to hit, instead of a successful critical, you just get a hit.  However Precision then tells you that doesn't happen either.  Changing the -range- of the crit, or the circumstances a crit happens overrides the Natural 20 part.  It doesn't override what you do with it, it does NOT override the entirety of the critical hit rules.




Expanding the range or circumstances of crits doesn't ever interact with the Natural 20 part in the first place, *because you didn't roll a freaking natural 20* (unless you want to claim that a given attack can double critical... which might be an interesting discussion in and of itself).

If you have Heavy Blade Mastery, and roll a 19 that misses, AND critical hits are (again, falsely) a type of hit, then we have:
Precision: "you don't hit."
Heavy Blade Mastery: "I crit, and therefore hit, and because I am a more unique snowflake, I get to beat up Precision and take its lunch money."



> That's great.  Except my book doesn't say 'Exalted' on the cover.  And so, no, it is NOT like that at all, because that means the game does not work.  And the game -does- work, which proves that it cannot be as you claim.
> 
> And if I were running Exalted, and you -tried- to make that argument at the table, I'd say you're being a rules-shister (a corrupt rules-lawyer) and if you continued with this nonsense, you'd not be invited back to my table.




*sigh*
I was just trying to bring up a game where specific-beats-general (basically the default case everywhere) is explicitly contradicted.  Exalted runs on all rule contradictions being handled by specific-beats-general EXCEPT for IOvUF (immovable object vs unstoppable force) where, by the explicit admission of the game designers, any perfect defense trumps any attack even if that attack calls out that defense by name.


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 8, 2009)

Kraydak said:


> In the (faulty) case that critical hits are a type of hit, I already have.  Because each and every ability that expands your means of getting critical hits is its own, unique, snowflake, they all take rules priority over Precision.




Except Precision explicitly calls on those abilities.





> I'm not entirely sure what you are asking here, but I think the answer is:
> Correct, albeit largely irrelevant.  If you have a feat that says: on a coup de grace, do an extra d10 damage, than you have to roll that d10.  The normal weapon damage does get maxed as per normal.  See High Crit weapons.




High crit is a rule.  Powers do not say you can deal extra damage with stuff like that.  Therefore -by your logic- they can only do the damage listed and no more.

That logic is incorrect.

That's the point, it's called a disproof by counterexample.



> Until the rules contradict eachother, yes.  We *have* a contradiction though.




Please point this contradiction out.  Holy Ardor doesn't say -anything- about not applying Precision.



> Both are normal rules, Charge makes a call to MBA, so Charge takes priority.  No problems here.




Charge is a rule.  Basic Melee Attack is a power.  Therefore -by your logic- the power takes precidence and you can't BMA unless you have a standard action free.

Again, another disproof by counterexample of your claim that powers automaticly trump rules.



> I despair at my writing skills, as the examples don't begin to be the sort of rules interaction I have claimed exist.




They are examples of powers taking precedence over the rules in the exact same manner you claim that critical-hit altering abilities would take precedent over Precision.



> Expanding the range or circumstances of crits doesn't ever interact with the Natural 20 part in the first place, *because you didn't roll a freaking natural 20* (unless you want to claim that a given attack can double critical... which might be an interesting discussion in and of itself).




Yes they do.  They change what can garner a critical hit.  So you have the range noted instead of Natural 20.

I thought that was obvious.



> If you have Heavy Blade Mastery, and roll a 19 that misses, AND critical hits are (again, falsely) a type of hit, then we have:
> Precision: "you don't hit."
> Heavy Blade Mastery: "I crit, and therefore hit, and because I am a more unique snowflake, I get to beat up Precision and take its lunch money."




Except that's not how it works at all.



> *sigh*
> I was just trying to bring up a game where specific-beats-general (basically the default case everywhere) is explicitly contradicted.  Exalted runs on all rule contradictions being handled by specific-beats-general EXCEPT for IOvUF (immovable object vs unstoppable force) where, by the explicit admission of the game designers, any perfect defense trumps any attack even if that attack calls out that defense by name.




That's not the case in this game, however, and never has been.  In this, and every case where Precision applies, specific -is- trumping a rule... the rule of where critical hits can occur.  And that is fine.  But it doesn't trump Precision, which is the rule that flat out governs -how those exceptions work.-  Changing the range doesn't except Precision, only where you can critical hit.  

This shouldn't be difficult, as the entire PHB is filled with rules that tell you how to adjudicate exceptions.  Precision is just one of many: Forced Movement, Teleportation, how bonuses stack (more accurately, how they don't stack), the list goes on and on.  

Every single one of those is an exception to some other rule.  Forced movement is an exception to how a creature must use an action to move (amongst other things), Teleportation is an exception to how a creature moves through squares or attracts Opportunity Actions, bonuses are -themselves- exceptions to how the rules for anything -involving- the rolls they modify work, and so on and so forth.

So, yes, you -can- have rules that govern what exceptions may and may not do, and those rules must -themselves- be excepted specificly in order to not apply.  Otherwise you do -not- have a contradiction, you simply have to follow the rules.


----------



## Kraydak (Sep 8, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> Except Precision explicitly calls on those abilities.




Yes it does, as a general effect.  No, it doesn't matter.  If it called out Heavy Blade Mastery *by name* it would matter.



> High crit is a rule.  Powers do not say you can deal extra damage with stuff like that.  Therefore -by your logic- they can only do the damage listed and no more.




They also don't say you can't.  Crucial point.



> Please point this contradiction out.  Holy Ardor doesn't say -anything- about not applying Precision.




It doesn't have to.  It just needs to contradict Precision.



> Charge is a rule.  Basic Melee Attack is a power.  Therefore -by your logic- the power takes precidence and you can't BMA unless you have a standard action free.
> 
> Again, another disproof by counterexample of your claim that powers automaticly trump rules.




The line:"standard action" in BMA gets tied into the action type rules (and the reading powers rules etc...), and is meaningless without them.  Charge can take priority over the action type/allotment rules.  If MBA had a special line saying that you must spend a standard action to use MBA (it doesn't), then you would have to spend a standard action to use it.  This could be a bog-normal standard action, or it could be through a power that says: "convert a minor action into a standard action".



> Yes they do.  They change what can garner a critical hit.  So you have the range noted instead of Natural 20.




I have an ability to get a crit on a non-natural 20.  I don't roll a 20.  I never enter the Natural 20 paragraph.  Full Stop.  Abilities that grant you crits on non-20s never invoke or interact with the natural 20 rule UNLESS you can score double-crits.


----------



## CovertOps (Sep 8, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> Well, "score a critical hit" is when you successfully get a critical hit - that's the language is used in the Critical Hit rule, in fact.
> 
> CovertOps (and now you) keep trying to somehow say "score a critical hit" can result in a miss, but that's not possible by your own "logic 101" statement above - at least not without using (well, I say misusing) the Precision "rule."
> 
> ...




What I am trying to say can best be shown by this example because it is exactly what I am trying to get across.

I have a feat called Weapon Focus.  It gives me a +1 feat bonus to damage.

In step 4 I have to "compare attack roll to defenses" (which of course has ~2 full pages of rules).  If I "Miss" according to the "Attack Results" at the end of that section of the rules then I cannot possibly invoke the use of "Weapon Focus" because it modifies the damage I do (which is step 5) and "Miss" clearly says I don't do any damage.

You keep trying to skip ahead in the rules to step 5 where you have an ability that says you get to do max damage and because of the wording of said power then claim that you didn't need to hit in the first place.

Unless you want to argue the logic that Weapon Focus can still do damage when you miss, then this is my point.  Holy Ardor itself (the text of the rule) does not grant you a "Hit", therefore it does not override the general attack resolution.  Without such a rule modifier you have to "Hit" before you can apply damage.  If you get to "Apply Damage" then you can invoke Holy Ardor and maximize that damage, otherwise you miss and Holy Ardor does not apply no matter what you rolled.  (This is the part where we argued the needed clause of "automatic hit") to override the general "attack results" rules.

Also if you want to use specific beats general then you cannot invoke the Attack Resolution rules (p276) to prove that your critical hit is a hit.  That is using the rule that tells you if you hit or not to prove that you hit.  A rule cannot be both the specific rule and the general rule and override itself.  If you want some specific rule that overrides the general rules on "Attack Results" then you need to reference ANY OTHER RULE to make your case.

Pick either hole in your argument and try to prove it true...either Weapon Focus does damage when you miss or the circular logic that a rule can be used to override itself.  Quite frankly you need to prove both for me to believe you are correct (note: this is not possible).


----------



## WalterKovacs (Sep 8, 2009)

People keep mentioning Precision is a rule.

It says two things:

(a) That there are exceptions to Natural 20 where feats/class features/powers can make it so that you can roll numbers other than 20 and score a critical hit. This is equivalent to putting after rolling for damage that there are magic items and feats and class features that can increase the ammount of damage you deal past the ability modifier. It's restating something that is already contained in the rules.

(b) It then has an added part in parenthesis. This points out that a power that allows you to potentially score a critical hit on a 19 changes the rules about critical hits ... _not_ the rules about automatic hits. While a Natural 20 triggers both Automatic Hits and potentially Critical Hits, those are two seperate things. So, it's reminder text that "if something modifies critical hits, it doesn't also modify automatic hits".

Neither of those things are _new_ rules. They don't define anything new. They point out that (a) there are exceptions to the rules and (b) those exceptions apply to the rule they reference, not a seperate (but related) rule they don't reference.

As for targetting a square that doesn't contain someone ... if the attack 'automatically misses' does that mean you deal half-damage to something that isn't even there? What about a natural 20? Is it scoring a critical because the attack roll is high enough to hit and becomes a critical hit? Is it an automatic hit because it would of it, but becomes an automatic miss, but because it's a natural 20 that missed it's an automatic hit? It would seem that the 'attacking what you can't see' uses automatic miss improperly in the first place (since you probably shouldn't deal any damage or effect if you don't attack the correct square which is worse than 'just a miss'). Also "automatic miss" vs. "automatic hit" or "automatic miss" vs. "automatic crit" is much different than "should be a miss" vs. "automatic crit". It's apples and oranges to compare "critting a target that isn't there" to "scoring a crit with a pair of 2's" and call it 'proof'.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Sep 8, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> What I am trying to say can best be shown by this example because it is exactly what I am trying to get across.
> 
> I have a feat called Weapon Focus. It gives me a +1 feat bonus to damage.




Note: Damage _rolls_

If, on a miss, you do not roll damage, you don't apply weapon focus. If you do roll damage on a miss (i.e. half-damage), you would apply weapon focus.



> In step 4 I have to "compare attack roll to defenses" (which of course has ~2 full pages of rules). If I "Miss" according to the "Attack Results" at the end of that section of the rules then I cannot possibly invoke the use of "Weapon Focus" because it modifies the damage I do (which is step 5) and "Miss" clearly says I don't do any damage.




And certain powers say that you deal half damage on a miss, which is a specific trumps general exception. 



> You keep trying to skip ahead in the rules to step 5 where you have an ability that says you get to do max damage and because of the wording of said power then claim that you didn't need to hit in the first place.
> 
> Unless you want to argue the logic that Weapon Focus can still do damage when you miss, then this is my point.




Weapon Focus doesn't deal extra damage on a HIT if you don't roll for damage. So, it has nothing to do with hit/miss ... it has to do with rolling damge. So it's a moot point.

Also, you are basically saying "you can't do damage on a miss". But, a number of powers have the ability to overide that rule ... pretty much every power that has Miss: X will do something.



> Holy Ardor itself (the text of the rule) does not grant you a "Hit", therefore it does not override the general attack resolution. Without such a rule modifier you have to "Hit" before you can apply damage.




So does every power that applies damage on a miss override the general attack resolution? Because it allows damage despite a miss.



> Also if you want to use specific beats general then you cannot invoke the Attack Resolution rules (p276) to prove that your critical hit is a hit. That is using the rule that tells you if you hit or not to prove that you hit. A rule cannot be both the specific rule and the general rule and override itself. If you want some specific rule that overrides the general rules on "Attack Results" then you need to reference ANY OTHER RULE to make your case.




Of course, you are claiming that the resolution rules are a single rule.

However critical hits are a SPECIFIC kind of hit. All Critical Hits are Hits, not all Hits are Critical Hits. Similar to Automatic Hits and Automatic Misses. While they are grouped together ... it's unquestionable that there are rules about hitting and missing, and that the rules for Automatic Hits and Automatic Misses break those normal rules (if you roll a 20, and would miss, you actualy hit. If you roll a 1, and would hit, you actually miss.) Rules pertaining to scoring a critical hit are similarly exceptions to the normal rule, and have to re-invoke the rules on hitting. In part this is because a 20 is already an Automatic Hit, so it has to check to see if it would hit without the Automatic Hit rule to result in Scoring a Critical Hit. Regardless, exceptions are nested within the more general rules throughout. It makes it a lot easier to not have to cross reference things if you list exceptions (albeit 'general case' exceptions) immediately after the more general case.

Another example: Opportunity Attack explains the various rules of opportunty attack, including threatening reach which is an exception to the earlier rules requiring the target of the OA be adjacent.



> Pick either hole in your argument and try to prove it true...either Weapon Focus does damage when you miss or the circular logic that a rule can be used to override itself. Quite frankly you need to prove both for me to believe you are correct (note: this is not possible).




The first is impossible because:

(a) Weapon Focus doesn't deal damage. It modifies damage ROLLS. If there is no damage roll, it modifies nothing. There are powers that have no damage roll on a hit (Sleep, for example). And there are powers that have damage rolls on a miss (Fireball, for example). So, your first 'hole' is in fact an illogical argument itself.

(b) A rule cannot overide itself, true. However, there is a difference between a SINGLE rule, and a sequence of rules that explain hit/miss resolution AND include common exceptions to those rules. A common exception (such as a critical hit) is still an exception.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 8, 2009)

Busy day today - I'll get back to this later.  Lest anyone think I am ignoring you...


----------



## keterys (Sep 8, 2009)

WalterKovacs said:


> People keep mentioning Precision is a rule.




Because it's a hell of a lot more convenient than saying:
'Critical hits only trigger when you hit, and even if you automatically hit, you still need to hit to crit, and some abilities expand critical hits so they require things other than a 20, but that doesn't change the fact that you still need to hit nor does it make you automatically hit, because that's part of a whole 'nother rule not to be confused with this one'

Precision is 'Some abilities let you get crits on other rolls. Those abilities still follow the rules. So, y'know, follow them.'

Like Holy Ardor. Where lack of design or editing or the simple forgetting of the word 'can', like those other two powers I brought up that are almost _guaranteed_ to have simply been errors of omission, has apparently spawned a near-30 page argument of... nothing. 

On the other hand, like any good car accident, I can't help but watch and toss shells from the peanut gallery. I think the thing that bothers me most is how much is being discussed by people who don't have any reason to care about the ruling.


----------



## CovertOps (Sep 8, 2009)

WalterKovacs said:


> Note: Damage _rolls_
> 
> If, on a miss, you do not roll damage, you don't apply weapon focus. If you do roll damage on a miss (i.e. half-damage), you would apply weapon focus.



And this is my point.  If you don't roll damage you cannot invoke Holy Ardor.


> And certain powers say that you deal half damage on a miss, which is a specific trumps general exception.



Yes.  Holy Ardor is not an example of this kind of power however.


> Weapon Focus doesn't deal extra damage on a HIT if you don't roll for damage. So, it has nothing to do with hit/miss ... it has to do with rolling damge. So it's a moot point.
> 
> Also, you are basically saying "you can't do damage on a miss". But, a number of powers have the ability to overide that rule ... pretty much every power that has Miss: X will do something.



Again you have not argued against my point.  You either need a power that does damage on "Miss" (override to the normal hit/miss rules) or you need to "score a hit and deal damage" in order to deal damage.  If you do not meet this requirement, then Holy Ardor does not apply (nor does Weapon Focus).


> So does every power that applies damage on a miss override the general attack resolution? Because it allows damage despite a miss.



No.  It overrides "Apply Damage" which requires you to "Hit".



			
				Damage p276 said:
			
		

> When you hit with an attack, your normally deal damage...etc.





> Of course, you are claiming that the resolution rules are a single rule.
> 
> However critical hits are a SPECIFIC kind of hit. All Critical Hits are Hits, not all Hits are Critical Hits. Similar to Automatic Hits and Automatic Misses. While they are grouped together ... it's unquestionable that there are rules about hitting and missing, and that the rules for Automatic Hits and Automatic Misses break those normal rules (if you roll a 20, and would miss, you actualy hit. If you roll a 1, and would hit, you actually miss.) Rules pertaining to scoring a critical hit are similarly exceptions to the normal rule, and have to re-invoke the rules on hitting. In part this is because a 20 is already an Automatic Hit, so it has to check to see if it would hit without the Automatic Hit rule to result in Scoring a Critical Hit. Regardless, exceptions are nested within the more general rules throughout. It makes it a lot easier to not have to cross reference things if you list exceptions (albeit 'general case' exceptions) immediately after the more general case.
> 
> ...




The resolution rules have a single outcome (hit or miss).  Holy Ardor does not provide a direct override of this outcome.  If you have to invoke a different rule (attack resolution) then you no longer have an override.  Specific beats general is that A overrides B.  Not A gives you B and because B is C therefore A overrides C.  That is not the structure of an override.  Especially when C is the very thing that determines if you get the thing you are after.  This becomes C overrides C which is plain silly.


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 8, 2009)

Prove that Precision is not a rule.  It looks like rules text.  Smells like rules text.  It has a situation, tells you what you cannot do in that situation.  Specifically calls things out.

Yeah, it looks like a rule to me.

But yeah.  The argument that powers can override Precision because it's a rule.  Already disproven as fatuus.  The argument 'Another game does it this way, and it doesn't work' doesn't exactly prove your case.  I operate under the assumption that the rules work when I try to prove a rules-interpretation as valid.  Arguing a logical set that does not work under the rules and following up with 'and this doesn't work' is making my case for me.


And that's the problem with this... the rules, as you all are claiming they work, allow powers to -completely- override all rules just because they are powers.  This means that powers don't actually have to -follow- rules.

We've already proven there are situations where Holy Ardor does not guarantee a hit -because of the rules- so do not even -try- to insinuate Holy Ardor is not subject to the rules.

And 'Precision is not a rule because I say it is not a rule' is a dishonest argument.  Prove it is not a rule, because otherwise, it is irrational to believe otherwise.


I'm growing more and more tired of this.  Any argument that is rational against my position is debunked, and any argument that is irrational is called out as such.  The only exception to this is 'I think it's more fun to just have it automaticly work' which I agreed is a valid reason.

So.   Can we stop arguing nonsense, please?  When you have to say 'That's not a rule!' without actually supporting this premise, or when you have to say 'This other game that does not work as intended does it this way, so we should also do it that way' you're reaching into the field of irrationality.


----------



## Kraydak (Sep 8, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> Prove that Precision is not a rule.  It looks like rules text.  Smells like rules text.  It has a situation, tells you what you cannot do in that situation.  Specifically calls things out.
> 
> Yeah, it looks like a rule to me.




That is good, because it is a rule.  If I have ever so much as insinuated otherwise, it was unintended.



> ...
> And that's the problem with this... the rules, as you all are claiming they work, allow powers to -completely- override all rules just because they are powers.  This means that powers don't actually have to -follow- rules.




Powers override any rules they explicitly call out by name.  They also override any rules they contradict and take priority over.



> We've already proven there are situations where Holy Ardor does not guarantee a hit -because of the rules- so do not even -try- to insinuate Holy Ardor is not subject to the rules.




I hope and believe I have never insinuated that Holy Ardor is not subject to the rules.



> And 'Precision is not a rule because I say it is not a rule' is a dishonest argument.  Prove it is not a rule, because otherwise, it is irrational to believe otherwise.




I can't prove Precision isn't a rule because it is.  I don't believe I have ever said it is not a rule.

Now, let us try some more productive stuff.

Take a hypothetical Holy Ardor 2.0: On doubles (not 1s) you hit and crit.  Does Precision cause misses?

Note that if crits were a subset of hits, then any place you read "crit" you could replace it by "hit and crit" with no change to anything.  So, in that case, Holy Ardor 1.0=Holy Ardor 2.0.


----------



## CovertOps (Sep 8, 2009)

Kraydak said:


> Now, let us try some more productive stuff.
> 
> Take a hypothetical Holy Ardor 2.0: On doubles (not 1s) you hit and crit.  Does Precision cause misses?
> 
> Note that if crits were a subset of hits, then any place you read "crit" you could replace it by "hit and crit" with no change to anything.  So, in that case, Holy Ardor 1.0=Holy Ardor 2.0.




If Holy Ardor were worded this way I would have no problems with it because it would then specifically overrule the "Compare attack roll to defenses" step of attack resolution.  The way it is worded now does not do that, so Holy Ardor 1.0 <> Holy Ardor 2.0.


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 8, 2009)

Kraydak said:


> Take a hypothetical Holy Ardor 2.0: On doubles (not 1s) you hit and crit.  Does Precision cause misses?
> 
> Note that if crits were a subset of hits, then any place you read "crit" you could replace it by "hit and crit" with no change to anything.  So, in that case, Holy Ardor 1.0=Holy Ardor 2.0.




Except that Precision informs you directly that 'score a critical hit' does not guarantee a hit.  If the ability says 'you hit' however, -then- you have the power explicitly contradicting this rule.

The problem with the logic 'A critical hit is a hit' is that it is incomplete.  Premises are skipped.  I agree that -a successful critical hit must be a hit- but I do not agree that Holy Ardor guarantees successful hits, because there are rules that tell you that such a guarantee does not exist, and Holy Ardor does not make any explicit guarantee to contradict -any- of those rules.

And if the hit is not guaranteed, by the corrolary -a failed hit is never a critical hit- that means that in those cases, the critical hit can be prevented.


----------



## CovertOps (Sep 8, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> If Holy Ardor were worded this way I would have no problems with it because it would then specifically overrule the "Compare attack roll to defenses" step of attack resolution.  The way it is worded now does not do that, so Holy Ardor 1.0 <> Holy Ardor 2.0.




Also note that this would also override the natural 20 rules as well since you would now crit on a 20 as well.

So...according to the other side of the fence Holy Ardor overrides the following rules without calling any of them out specifically simply by excluding the word "can":

1. Precision (Holy Ardor isn't an "attack roll" so Precision doesn't apply).
2. Attack Resolution step 4 (compare attack roll to defenses) (Holy Ardor isn't an attack roll, but we can use it here anyway by claiming that crit = hit)
3. Natural 20 rules.  Why use natural 20 rules when you can crit and hit on double 20's?

Did I miss any?

Anything else you guys want to add to the list of exceptions?  Does this not even make you raise your eyebrows as absurd?

EDIT: Did it ever cross your minds that maybe, just maybe, Holy Ardor doesn't apply BECAUSE it isn't an attack roll as opposed to suggesting that because Holy Ardor isn't an attack roll that therefore it overrides all these rules?


----------



## Flipguarder (Sep 8, 2009)

but there's no "can"!!!!


----------



## Kraydak (Sep 8, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> Also note that this would also override the natural 20 rules as well since you would now crit on a 20 as well.




It certainly doesn't override the Natural 20 rules.  Natural 20 tells you one method of getting critical hits.  Holy Ardor tells you another.  Oh look, you triggered both, I guess you crit...

(people, and there will be some, somewhere, who think that if you trigger a crit twice on the same attack, you get your high crit damage twice will be of a slightly different opinion)



> So...according to the other side of the fence Holy Ardor overrides the following rules without calling any of them out specifically simply by excluding the word "can":




Excluding the word "can" has no effect, other than to forbid the player to not take a crit if, for some strange reason, he does not want to.



> 1. Precision (Holy Ardor isn't an "attack roll" so Precision doesn't apply).




Precision applies, but gets overruled.



> 2. Attack Resolution step 4 (compare attack roll to defenses) (Holy Ardor isn't an attack roll, but we can use it here anyway by claiming that crit = hit)




Yup, if you believe that criticals are a subset of hit.  People claim this w/o justification other than pg 276 which isn't where criticals are defined.



> 3. Natural 20 rules.  Why use natural 20 rules when you can crit and hit on double 20's?




Because you can use the Natural 20 rule when you roll a 20 and a 1?



> Did I miss any?
> 
> Anything else you guys want to add to the list of exceptions?  Does this not even make you raise your eyebrows as absurd?
> 
> EDIT: Did it ever cross your minds that maybe, just maybe, Holy Ardor doesn't apply BECAUSE it isn't an attack roll as opposed to suggesting that because Holy Ardor isn't an attack roll that therefore it overrides all these rules?




Holy Ardor being or not being an attack roll..... never shows up in the first place ?


----------



## CovertOps (Sep 8, 2009)

Kraydak said:


> Precision applies, but gets overruled.
> 
> Yup, if you believe that criticals are a subset of hit.  People claim this w/o justification other than pg 276 which isn't where criticals are defined.
> 
> Holy Ardor being or not being an attack roll..... never shows up in the first place ?




First I want to point out Kraydak that you and I are on the same side.  I don't believe for a moment that Holy Ardor grants a "Hit" simply because it doesn't say that it does.  For specific vs. general to work you have to provide the specific in the rule that is going to do the overriding.

I am attempting to show them just how many rules they have broken in order for their position to be correct (which is quite a few).

To me, Precision is just a reminder that if you are granted a critical hit by any other method than natural 20, you still need to hit.

Yes.  Critical hits are defined on p278.  References to p276 are incorrect.

The claim they made many pages back is that Precision and some of these other rules don't apply because it is not an "attack roll".  That because it is not an "attack roll" it "creates an entirely new mechanic to get a critical hit and a hit".  I am countering that they are correct that Holy Ardor is not an attack roll, but they made the wrong conclusion in that they cannot apply Holy Ardor to the attack resolution rules because it isn't an attack roll.


----------



## Dan'L (Sep 8, 2009)

Kraydak said:


> In the (faulty) case that critical hits are a type of hit, I already have.



Let me get this straight... you're arguing a point based upon a premise you yourself hold to be faulty?  Why?  There are over 500 posts that seem to indicate no "devil's advocate" is necessary here.  Don't poke the bears!

-Dan'L


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 9, 2009)

I am not sure where this will go, but I am going to address some of CovertOps points (and maybe others) by writing up an outline of the Combat chapter starting with page 269, Attacks and Defenses.  Where I think it is relevant, I'll add parenthetical remarks.

Attack and Defenses (Including Making an Attack (Shaded Box))
...Attack Type
......Melee Attack
......Ranged Attack
......Close Attack
......Area Attack
......Areas of Effect
...Choosing Targets
......Range
......Seeing and Targeting
...Attack Roll
...Defenses 
...Attack Results (includes shaded box defining Critical Hits)
......Damage
......Resistance and Vulnerability
......Conditions
......Insubstantial
......Ongoing Damage
......Critical Hits (explains Critical Hits in more detail that the basic definition from page 276)
......Forced Movement
...Durations
...Saving Throws
Attack Modifier (and then it goes on from there, but with nothing else relevant to Critical Hits)

Since it is relevant, a couple of quotes (copy and paste from the Rules Compendium where I could):

(page 269)
Making an Attack
All attacks follow the same basic procedure:
1.  Choose that attack type...
2.  Choose targets...
3.  Make an attack roll
4.  Compare your attack roll to the target' s defense to determine whether you hit or miss.

(page 276, Attack Results)

Hit

If the attack roll is higher than or equal to the defense score, the attack hits and deals damage, has a special effect, or both.

Automatic Hit: If you roll a natural 20 (the die shows a 20), your attack automatically hits.

Critical Hit: If you roll a natural 20 (the die shows a 20), your attack might be a critical hit. A critical hit deals maximum damage, and some powers and magic items have an extra effect on a critical hit.

(page 278, Critical Hit)

Natural 20: If you roll a 20 on the die when making an attack roll, you score a critical hit if your total attack roll is high enough to hit your target’s defense. If your attack roll is too low to score a critical hit, you still hit automatically.

Precision: Some class features and powers allow you to score a critical hit when you roll numbers other than 20 (only a natural 20 is an automatic hit).

Maximum Damage: Rather than roll damage, determine the maximum damage you can roll with your attack. This is your critical damage. (Attacks that don’t deal damage still don’t deal damage on a critical hit.)

Extra Damage: Magic weapons and implements, as well as high crit weapons, can increase the damage you deal when you score a critical hit. If this extra damage is a die roll, it’s not automatically maximum damage; you add the result of the roll.

.
.
.
.
.


Interesting.

1.  The general rule requires checking the results for a hit or miss.
2.  The Attack Results rules on Hit (a higher level rule that Critical Hit) defines the first case where you might get a critical hit (a natural 20) and sates that a critical hit deals maximum damage (plus whatever items and powers might give you)
3.  The Critical Hit rules again state the natural 20 case, and then introduce the concept (Precision) that other numbers might *allow* you to score a critical hit if a feature or power so stated.  Precision, as a modification to the natural 20 rule fro Critical Hit, also reminds us that in this context, only a natural 20 is an automatic hit (so we don't think a 19 will hit if it does not score a critical hit).

It's worth noting that Critical Hit is in the "Hit" section under Attack Results in the intial defintion on page 276 and under "Attack Results" in the further explanation on page 278, as I think I once saw it stated, under "damage."  

ALL of that material is around when one MIGHT score a critical hit and how to know if the possibility turns into an actuality.

Along comes Holy Ardor, throwing a HIUGE curve ball:

Whenever you make two attack rolls because of your oath of enmity, you score a critical hit if both dice have the same roll, except if both rolls are 1.

There is no wiggle room in the language.  It defines an entirely new case where you score a critical hit.  This is a very gigantic departure form the previous rule, but the language is clear - under these circumstances, you score a critical hit. 

Now we know from page 276 that a (successful) critical hit requires you to apply critical damage, and also that it is a type of hit.

This is the simplest and most consistent way to read this.  Holy Ardor simply creates a new exception to the rules - a new situation where you score a critical hit.
It's not the only way to read it, of course.

After reading all the argument, my opinion (FWIW) is:

1.  The most straightforward way to read this is that Holy Ardor creates a new exception where OoE doubles = score a critical hit so long if they are not double ones.  Once you "score a critical hit" you apply critical damage and any possible effects from hitting, as normal for scoring a crtical hit.

2.  While I think it ignores the context of Precision, it is not completely unreasonable to view Precision as overriding Holy Ardor such that you don't get what amounts to an automatic hit from doubles.  This is a possible reading of the Precision "rule" due to the imprecise nature with which that rule was written.    This is the *only* way to override the clear "score a critical hit" language in Holy Ardor.

3.  I think it is completely unreasonable and defies common sense (and the rules) to think it is possible to "score a critical hit" and yet still miss.  This also potentially generates some very weird results.


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 9, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> This is the simplest and most consistent way to read this.  Holy Ardor simply creates a new exception to the rules - a new situation where you score a critical hit.
> It's not the only way to read it, of course.




A situation accounted for by Precision, however.  So while it is new, it is not so new it requires new rules to encapsulate it.



> After reading all the argument, my opinion (FWIW) is:
> 
> 1.  The most straightforward way to read this is that Holy Ardor creates a new exception where OoE doubles = score a critical hit so long if they are not double ones.  Once you "score a critical hit" you apply critical damage and any possible effects from hitting, as normal for scoring a crtical hit.




This has already been disproven.  The situation exists outside of Precision that you still miss.  Which means your hit is not guarnateed, which means it is not a contradiction of Precision, assuming the word 'can' is substantial.

Which is proven to not be the case, either.



> 2.  While I think it ignores the context of Precision, it is not completely unreasonable to view Precision as overriding Holy Ardor such that you don't get what amounts to an automatic hit from doubles.  This is a possible reading of the Precision "rule" due to the imprecise nature with which that rule was written.    This is the *only* way to override the clear "score a critical hit" language in Holy Ardor.




The context of Precision is that it is a game rule within a list of game rules.  I don't understand how it is otherwise.  It's not redundant.  The previous statements tell you Natural 20s score critical hits, but if you'd miss, they do not and instead deal normal damage.  Precision is needed to tell you that if the range of critical hits is extended, the automatic hit range is not.

That's pretty clear, and that language doesn't exist before then.  Without it, 'crit on 19-20' would overide -both- Critical Hit and Automatic Hit.



> 3.  I think it is completely unreasonable and defies common sense (and the rules) to think it is possible to "score a critical hit" and yet still miss.  This also potentially generates some very weird results.




Unfortunately, it is possible, it is proven possible, the example has been given, and it is irrational to suggest that it is otherwise.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Sep 9, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> Prove that Precision is not a rule. It looks like rules text. Smells like rules text. It has a situation, tells you what you cannot do in that situation. Specifically calls things out.




How often is rules text put into parenthesis? 

Let's see ... Sustaining a Grab says you can't take opportunity actions. In parenthesis it states dazed, stunned, suprised, unconcious as examples. Since those things already say you can't take opportunity actions, this is reminder text. 

Opportunity attack says that an opportunity attack is a melee basic attack and in parenthesis it says page 287, which refers it to the rules on melee basic attack.

Readying an Action, for Choose Action to Ready, in parenthesis it includes (what attack you plan to use, for example). Second Wind includes (see "Healing", page 293). Also it adds (either yours or another character's) to the statement "Some powers allow you to spend healing surges...

Squeeze clarifies after each example what it means by 'space of X' by having in parenthesis the number of squares it fills. The size/space rules exist elsewhere, but are repeated here as a reminder/clarification. 

Hit poins mentions that your bloodied value is one-half your maximum hit points (rounded down). Rounding down is the general rule. It is already in the rules, but refering to it helps to clarify instead of cross referencing.

In almost all cases, they are either reminders of previously stated rules, references to pages within the rules or pointing out natural consequences of said rules. In the case of Precision, it points out that while there are powers that allow you to crit on numbers other than natural 20, you still only get an automatic hit on a natural 20.

Is it necessary to have a rule that says:

(a) There are exceptions to the previous rule? When there are already rules that there _can_ be exceptions to any rule?

(b) Exceptions to critical hits do not apply to automatic hits? This reminder text is helpful ... since it's possible to confuse the two, but earlier references to scoring a critical hit seperate it from automatic hits, and they are clearly seperate (though related) ideas, and thus modifying one does not modify the other without stating otherwise.



> We've already proven there are situations where Holy Ardor does not guarantee a hit -because of the rules- so do not even -try- to insinuate Holy Ardor is not subject to the rules.




The "targeting invisible person in wrong square" proof again? When you roll a natural 20 and get an automatic hit, the automatic miss from choosing the wrong square trumps the automatic hit from the natural 20. So the fact that in THAT instance you fail to score a critical hit because you AUTOMATICALLY missed is far different than claiming you fail to score a critical hit (when the power says you score a critical hit) because you miss normally. A normal miss is different than an automatic miss. 



> And 'Precision is not a rule because I say it is not a rule' is a dishonest argument. Prove it is not a rule, because otherwise, it is irrational to believe otherwise.




See above for why it isn't a rule. It doesn't actually say anything that isn't contained in earlier stated rules. Namely the stuff stated at the beginning of the book that "simple rules, many exceptions" and "specific beats general". Generally, you can only score a crit on a natural 20. There are specific ways to do this other ways. You do not need a rule to point this out. You also only score an automatic hit on a natural 20. You do not need a rule to point out that something has to specifically alter it in order to change that. Precision points out that the stuff that alters crits, doesn't alter autohits. No new information is given by the rule, it merely restates the core mechanics as a reminder/clarification instead of cross referencing the exception rules.

A dishonest argument is to take this reminder and twist it to suit the purposes of ones argument, such as reading the power as saying 'you must hit in order to crit'. The _general case_ for scoring a crit requires that your attack roll be high enough to hit. However, Holy Ardor is not a general case for scoring a critical hit. It does not allow the possibility of a critical hit, like (nearly) every other critical modifying effect, but instead states that if conditions are met, a critical hit is scored. It _is_ possible that the hit/miss resolution and rules on critical hits, etc ... require that you hit before it checks if you've scored a critical hit ... but Precision has nothing to do with it. All Precision says is that Automatic Hit is only on a 20.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Sep 9, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> That's pretty clear, and that language doesn't exist before then. Without it, 'crit on 19-20' would overide -both- Critical Hit and Automatic Hit.




The first example of Automatic Hit and Critical Hit (under the Hit rules) are as seperate rules. While both tied to Natural 20's, the rules that precede Precision already make the decision. 

IF it is necessary to have a rule explicitly stating that modifying a crit range also modifies the auto hit range ... where is the rule that says "score a critical hit" doesn't mean "hit and score a critical hit". If you do, ultimately, score a critical hit, you have also hit. [Since you need to hit in order to score a critical hit, you can't score a critical hit without also hitting].

If the argument is that Precision is necessary, otherwise you WOULD auto hit with a 19 that would otherwise miss when attacking with a jagged weapon ... then how is it that "scoring a critical hit", not potentially, but actually, _needs_ to include a line about also hitting to work?

Precision doesn't say "you still need to hit in order to score a critical hit". The normal rules for critical hits say that already. Most powers that modify critical hits only modify the general case slightly, giving other "potential crit" numbers. Holy Ardor is different. It doesn't provide other potential chances for scoring a critical hits, but a secondary path to reach it. It doesn't require breaking a ton of rules ... it merely creates a "If X and Y go to Z" shortcut within the hit/miss timing breakdown. If you meet these conditions, go directly to scoring a critical hit, skipping over the stuff in between.


----------



## CovertOps (Sep 9, 2009)

@Artoomis:  I have never disagreed that you can use Holy Ardor to grant you a critical hit.  My objection is two-fold.

1.  If indeed Holy Ardor grants a hit then this is the first exception rule EVER that overrides a general rule by indirection --- meaning that you have to reference the attack results rules in order to prove that crit = hit.  This breaks the nature of specific vs. general override rules.  Also note that you have to reference the very rule you are overriding (attack results) which is unbelieveable.  To say that the attack results rules prove that you hit without ever following their instructions is silly.

2.  The order of attack resolution (as outlined on p269) prevents you from invoking Holy Ardor until you already have a hit and are applying damage.  This is no different from feats such as Weapon Focus which require you to apply damage in order to use them.

The critical hit rules appear on p278 and override the damage rules.  The blurb on p276 only says you *might* score a critical and then refers you to p278 where the actual list of requirements for a critical are listed as well as the detailed instructions on what happens when you get one.  I don't know what to say if you somehow think that the rules text on requirements and benefits are not what embodies a "definition".


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 9, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> @Artoomis:  I have never disagreed that you can use Holy Ardor to grant you a critical hit.  My objection is two-fold.
> 
> 1.  If indeed Holy Ardor grants a hit then this is the first exception rule EVER that overrides a general rule by indirection --- meaning that you have to reference the attack results rules in order to prove that crit = hit.  This breaks the nature of specific vs. general override rules.  Also note that you have to reference the very rule you are overriding (attack results) which is unbelieveable.  To say that the attack results rules prove that you hit without ever following their instructions is silly.




The simple fact is that in addition to the attack results proof, the term itself is Critical *Hit*, as in a special types of *Hit*.  It's obvious on its face that a Critical Hit is a type of Hit.  Arguing over the term "definition" is really a waste of our time, especially as Holy ardor is not overruling all the attack results rule - only the method by which you get a critical hit.  A critical hit is still one of the two possible attack results - Hit or Miss, and only possible under "Hit."




CovertOps said:


> 2.  The order of attack resolution (as outlined on p269) prevents you from invoking Holy Ardor until you already have a hit and are applying damage.  This is no different from feats such as Weapon Focus which require you to apply damage in order to use them.




Incorrect.  You are preventing from applying Critical Hit until the same point at which you would invoke Automatic Hit.  The Automatic Hit rules provide the *first *exception where you roll to hit bit don't roll damage until after you check something OTHER than beating the defense score.  Holy Ardor *provides* the second.  In essence, Holy Ardor creates a new special circumstance much like an Automatic Hit where something special with the dice (doubles, for Holy Ardor) creates a special attack result (Critical Hit) that overrides the normal result.  Since the attack result is a critical hit, you apply damage per the attack result rules, as Holy Ardor does not provide any exception to applying damage from a critical hit, only an exception for how you get to score a critical hit.



CovertOps said:


> The critical hit rules appear on p278 and override the damage rules.  The blurb on p276 only says you *might* score a critical and then refers you to p278 where the actual list of requirements for a critical are listed as well as the detailed instructions on what happens when you get one.  I don't know what to say if you somehow think that the rules text on requirements and benefits are not what embodies a "definition".




What's important is that there is no way to actually score a critical hit and then still miss.  That's a logical impossibility.


----------



## keterys (Sep 9, 2009)

What's a logical implausibility is building an argument around the lack of the word can in one place when it's proven that it's missing in two places erroneously.

Here's the trick: Run it however you want in your home games. Personally, I'd suggest that unless there's a balance consideration, allow it to hit and crit.

WotC has already said they'll try and get it FAQed. That's a good thing. Move on with life.


----------



## Dan'L (Sep 9, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> The simple fact is that in addition to the attack results proof, the term itself is Critical *Hit*, as in a special types of *Hit*.



Actually, the term is "_*Critical Hit*_," and much the same way that a titmouse isn't actually a mouse, a critical hit isn't actually a hit.  Is it unfortunate that they chose this term instead of simply "critical" or "crit" or even "critical damage?"  Yes, it is, because it confuses the issue of applying the mechanic.

A critical hit is a conditional effect that is *applied* to a hit; *this* is why it appears indented under "hit" on p. 276, and not under "miss" -- because it is only applied when you achieve a hit, not on a miss.  And while the wording on p. 276 might be murky enough to argue that it isn't a conditional effect, but rather a full on hit, we have the expanded rules clarifications and definitions for a "critical hit" on p. 278.  These detail that a "critical hit" isn't something which can ignore normal hit rules simply by being a "critical hit" (Precision) and it isn't a guarantee of actually applying damage (Maximum Damage).

And also consider, relative to the application of Precision, one and only one of these statements must be true:

(1) "The Holy Ardor feature allows you to score a critical hit when you roll numbers other than 20"

(2) "The Holy Ardor feature does not allow you to score a critical hit when you roll numbers other than 20"

With (1) you apply Precision, with (2) it's moot because you couldn't have rolled the dice and gotten a critical hit without rolling a 20.

(And arguing that two 3's aren't "numbers" but uniquely "doubles," that they cannot satisfy both conditions simultaneously, is the semantic equivalent of ostriching -- i.e. sticking your head in a hole in the ground & pretending that no one can see you because you can't see them.)

-Dan'L


----------



## CovertOps (Sep 9, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> The simple fact is that in addition to the attack results proof, the term itself is Critical *Hit*, as in a special types of *Hit*.



No.  "Critical Hit" and "Hit" are separate terms with their own definitions, requirements and effects.


> It's obvious on its face that a Critical Hit is a type of Hit.



Yes.


> Arguing over the term "definition" is really a waste of our time, especially as Holy ardor is not overruling all the attack results rule - only the method by which you get a critical hit.



No.  It does not override the attack results roll in any way.  Holy Ardor is not an attack roll and cannot be used in such a fashion.   OoE IS an attack roll and can be used to resolve this step.


> A critical hit is still one of the two possible attack results - Hit or Miss, and only possible under "Hit."



No.  "Critical Hit" is not an "Attack Result".  "Hit" and "Miss" are attack results.  "Critical Hit" is something that can happen if you "Hit", but it is never an attack result.


> Incorrect.  You are preventing from applying Critical Hit until the same point at which you would invoke Automatic Hit.  The Automatic Hit rules provide the *first *exception where you roll to hit bit don't roll damage until after you check something OTHER than beating the defense score.  Holy Ardor *provides* the second.



False.  "Automatic Hit" provides an alternate way to "Hit".  Holy Ardor does not grant a "Hit", nor is it an "Attack Roll" and therefore not an exception to the "Attack results" outcome of "Hit" or "Miss".  If I were Draco I would also point out that Precision kicks in and tells you that even if you got a critical you still have to "Hit".


> In essence, Holy Ardor creates a new special circumstance much like an Automatic Hit where something special with the dice (doubles, for Holy Ardor) creates a special attack result (Critical Hit) that overrides the normal result.



Again I repeat that Holy Ardor is *NOT AN ATTACK ROLL*.  It cannot be used in such a fashion as to replace OoE to determine "Hit" or "Miss".  Your own argument some 20 pages ago claimed as much.  So which is it...an attack roll or not???


> Since the attack result is a critical hit, you apply damage per the attack result rules, as Holy Ardor does not provide any exception to applying damage from a critical hit, only an exception for how you get to score a critical hit.



There is no such "Attack Result" as "Critical Hit".  Your only choices are "Hit" and "Miss".  And if you indeed "Hit" then you can apply Holy Ardor to replace the natural 20 requirement of critical hit.


> What's important is that there is no way to actually score a critical hit and then still miss.  That's a logical impossibility.



True.  If you don't "Hit" you can never invoke Holy Ardor and therefore your "Miss" will not be a critical.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 9, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> ...There is no such "Attack Result" as "Critical Hit".  Your only choices are "Hit" and "Miss".  And if you indeed "Hit" then you can apply Holy Ardor to replace the natural 20 requirement of critical hit.
> 
> True.  If you don't "Hit" you can never invoke Holy Ardor and therefore your "Miss" will not be a critical.




I think I'd like to focus on these two for a bit.

First, if the only two choices for an attack result are Hit and Miss and you must hit before getting to the two choices under Hit, you could never get to an Automatic Hit, so that can't be right.

Second, you don't need a "Hit" to "invoke" to Holy Ardor.  You only need to roll two attacks rolls for Oath of Enmity and have them be identical (doubles).

It seems to me you keep trying to refer to rules that Holy Ardor overrides to state why Holy Ardor is not an exception, which is a fatal error in logic.

Holy Ardor is a very simple and clear rule - roll doubles and score a critical hit (if not double ones).  Because of the simple and clear way it is written, it fits into the normal rules on exceptions and overrides regular rules on how you score a critical hit.  That's all it does (though I agree that's a pretty big rule change).

According to page 276, a Critical Hit is a type of Hit, and, if you get one, you apply maximum damage plus other effects that happen on a critical hit.  It really, truly is that simple.


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 9, 2009)

WalterKovacs said:


> TIF it is necessary to have a rule explicitly stating that modifying a crit range also modifies the auto hit range ... where is the rule that says "score a critical hit" doesn't mean "hit and score a critical hit". If you do, ultimately, score a critical hit, you have also hit. [Since you need to hit in order to score a critical hit, you can't score a critical hit without also hitting].




Look.  I'm -tired- of explaining this over and over again.

So pay attention.  Watch.

Attack invisible creature.  Fail to guess which square he is in.  Fail to hit.

Okay?  You following?  Good.

It is now -proven- that Holy Ardor does not override -all- hit-related rules, because there is a hit-related rule it does not override.

For godsake this is logic 001.  Not even 101.

And if there exists a hit-related rule it does not override, than the argument that it overrides rules is *debunked.*  Completely.  End of sentance.  There is no 'it is suggested.'  There is no 'They intended.'  It is catagorically -debunked.-  -Disproven.-  *It is simply not the case.*

So, follow along here.

'The ability says you score a critical hit' is -proven- to not mean 'you score a critical hit' because there exist cases where the rules go 'Sorry, not today.'

So the question then is -which rules apply- and -which rules do not apply.-  For that, you look to see which ones Holy Ardor contradicts, and which one it doesn't.  Holy Ardor -only- contradicts the situations you can roll a critical hit in.  *However, it does not say -one damn thing- about situations you can roll a hit in.*

Now, if you've read this far enough then you've read the whole thing enough to know *'score a critical hit' is insufficient to guarantee a critical hit.*

'I don't see how it is possible' only proves you're not reading the argument are are ignoring the evidence.  So don't fall back on that.  Because you're... as someone put it... ostriching.

So, Holy Ardor doesn't contradict -any- of the hit-related rules, and you know that hit-related rules can apply, so you apply the hit-related rules.  The change in crit range can't affect hit-related rules by themselves, because Precision clarifies that the automatic hit rules do not extend to crit altering abilities.  Without that, if you wouldn't normally hit, you'd apply those rules and those rules cancel out the crit -anyways-.

It is correct that you cannot score a critical hit without scoring a hit.  This is irrefutable, we all accept this.

Which means that if -by any means- you fail to hit, you do not score that critical hit.  And without any part of the power telling you -which- failure points you do and do not use, you have no contradiction of the miss rules, and therefore you apply them all.

So let's summarize this.  Facts in evidence will be presented in green.

1- Holy Ardor tells you you score a critical hit.  Fact.
2- Abilities that say you do something do not guarantee that event successfully happens. Proven by example.  Fact.
3- There exists a case where Holy Ardor can miss -even if it would otherwise hit-. Proven by example.  Fact.
4- Holy Ardor therefore does not guarantee a successful critical hit.  Only possible conclusion of 2+3.
5- A successfull critical hit implies that you hit.  Logical implication
6- A miss is not a hit. Fact.
7- An unsuccessful hit implies an unsuccesful critical hit. Converse implication from 5
8- A miss implies an unsuccessful critical. 6+7
9- Holy Ardor contains no language that explicitly contradicts any rules dictating a miss. Fact.
10- Holy Ardor's 'score a critical hit' cannot implicitly contradict any rules dictating a miss. Only possible conclusion of 4+5+6
11- Holy Ardor does not contradict any rules dictating a miss. 9+10
12- You apply all pertinent miss rules in the absense of a contradictory rule. Fact.
13- If you fail to beat a target's defenses without a Natural 20, you miss. Fact.
14- If you fail to beat a target's defenses without a Natural 20 with Holy Ardor, you miss. 11+12+13.

QED.

It is now proven Holy Ardor does miss when it fails to hit defenses, and said proof has nothing to do with Precision.

Thank you.  This was fun.

Edit:  Of course, one could argue that 5 is not true, that a successful critical hit does not guarantee a hit.  In that case, 9 is still true, and 10 is still true, and therefore the argument still stands.  Defeating that premise does not weaken the argument... rather it simplifies it.


----------



## Flipguarder (Sep 9, 2009)

I have a new saying that applies here imo:

A specific implication does not beat a specific rule.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 9, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> ...So let's summarize this.  Facts in evidence will be presented in green.
> 
> 1- Holy Ardor tells you you score a critical hit.  Fact.
> 2- Abilities that say you do something do not guarantee that event successfully happens. Proven by example.  Fact.
> ...




Comments/Errors:

1.  True

2.  True, sort of.  The examples you've presented are not relevant expect for number 3.

3.  The only example - when attacking the wrong square.  In such a a case EVERYTHING does not hit, so nothing is actually successful, which proves nothing.

4.  Fatally flawed due to reliance upon incorrect assumptions.

5.  True. and a very strong implication indeed.

6.  True.

7.  True, in a general sense.

8.  True, in a general sense.

9.  True, but language giving you a hit does not have to also deny a miss.

10. Flawed, due to reliacne upon 4 which if fatally flawed.

11. True, but if granted a hit by caveat you don't then have to worry about a miss.

12.  True, but a rule granting as hit is a contradictory rule.

13.  True, but a rule granting a hit contradicts this.

14.  Patently false.

As is often the case in overly-complex arguments, some base assumptions are either wrong or incorrectly applied leading to the whole house of cards tumbling down.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 9, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> I have a new saying that applies here imo:
> 
> A specific implication does not beat a specific rule.




Possibly.  Holy Ardor presents a very specific rule - under the circumstances stated in Holy Ardor you score a critical hit.

That's a very specific rule that creates an exception to the normal rules on determining when you score a critical hit.


----------



## Flipguarder (Sep 9, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> Possibly.  Holy Ardor presents a very specific rule - under the circumstances stated in Holy Ardor you score a critical hit.
> 
> That's a very specific rule that creates an exception to the normal rules on determining when you score a critical hit.




No, clearly the idea that holy ardor automatically hits, because it lacks the word "can" before the phrase "score a critical hit" is a specific implication against precision.


----------



## abyssaldeath (Sep 9, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> Possibly.  Holy Ardor presents a very specific rule - under the circumstances stated in Holy Ardor you score a critical hit.
> 
> That's a very specific rule that creates an exception to the normal rules on determining when you score a critical hit.




Holy Ardor doesn't give a very specific rule. If it did this thread wouldn't be 30 pages long.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 9, 2009)

abyssaldeath said:


> Holy Ardor doesn't give a very specific rule. If it did this thread wouldn't be 30 pages long.




It sure does,

The debate comes in over what exactly does that specific rule really mean.

"Specfic" as is clearly stated vs. implied.  That's not the same as agreement over what the words actually allow.


----------



## keterys (Sep 9, 2009)

Its specific rule looks an awful lot like the rule for Steel Vanguard Veteran, which looks an awful lot like the rule for Daggermaster, which is very specifically covered.

But, hey, it's cool. Rolling doubles also affects betting in Craps, so it's clearly different from rolling an attack any other way. I'm not sure how I connected those, but I say it so, and I wish _really_ hard, and lo and behold my position is unassailable because you can't change what I feel in my heart of hearts! 

I love this thread  It's the best distraction from my day job ever. Okay, wait, now I'm just making stuff up.


----------



## CovertOps (Sep 9, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> I think I'd like to focus on these two for a bit.
> 
> First, if the only two choices for an attack result are Hit and Miss and you must hit before getting to the two choices under Hit, you could never get to an Automatic Hit, so that can't be right.



I never said any such thing.  I said the only *outcome* of attack result is "Hit" or "Miss".  Please stop making assumptions or attempting to make claims about my comments that aren't true.
Automatic Hit is an exception.  It grants you a hit when you otherwise would have missed.  It is left to the reader if it is an exception to the general miss rules or the general hit rules, but I think it makes more sense if it is overriding the "Hit" rules since that is where it is located.


> Second, you don't need a "Hit" to "invoke" to Holy Ardor.  You only need to roll two attacks rolls for Oath of Enmity and have them be identical (doubles).



[sarcasm]Fine...you go ahead and have a critical that misses and does no damage then.  While you're at it why don't you go ahead and apply damage from Weapon Focus on a miss as well.[/sarcasm]


> It seems to me you keep trying to refer to rules that Holy Ardor overrides to state why Holy Ardor is not an exception, which is a fatal error in logic.



In order to get an "attack result" you need [EDIT] one of [/EDIT] two things.  An "attack roll", or something that specifically grants you a "Hit" (ie overrides with specific text saying you "Hit" even if you did not beat the defenses of the target).  Since Holy Ardor supplies *neither* of these it's use does nothing to resolve this step of the process.  OoE on the other hand *does* give you an "attack roll" so it *can* be used here.


> Holy Ardor is a very simple and clear rule - roll doubles and score a critical hit (if not double ones).  Because of the simple and clear way it is written, it fits into the normal rules on exceptions and overrides regular rules on how you score a critical hit.  That's all it does (though I agree that's a pretty big rule change).



You are correct here.  All it does is override how you can get a "Critical Hit".  This means that you can score a critical hit without rolling a natural 20.  You have a "new mechanic" (doubles) to replace this requirement (natural 20).


> According to page 276, a Critical Hit is a type of Hit, and, if you get one, you apply maximum damage plus other effects that happen on a critical hit.  It really, truly is that simple.



This is a truism.  This is no different from "All elephants are grey, therefore my elephant is grey."  This statement does not however prove that if a power, feat, or ability grants you a critical hit that therefore you "Hit".

Look Artoomis.  We can go around and around on this forever, but answer one question first.  Is Holy Ardor an "Attack Roll" per the definition of same on p273 or p274 (can't remember at this point) or not?

If it IS an attack roll then it overrides nothing and you can use the results of said "Attack Roll" to resolve step 4 (compare attack roll to defenses).  If you hit you hit, and if you miss you miss.

If it is NOT an attack roll then it cannot be used to prove that you "Hit" or "Miss" as only an attack roll can be used to determine that outcome.  If you indeed get a hit you can then apply Holy Ardor to override the normal (natural 20) requirement of a critical hit.  Holy Ardor does indeed override a general rule, just not the one you want it to override.  And no matter how hard you wish it, the text of the rule does not change.


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 9, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> Comments/Errors:
> 
> 2.  True, sort of.  The examples you've presented are not relevant expect for number 3.




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.



> 3.  The only example - when attacking the wrong square.  In such a a case EVERYTHING does not hit, so nothing is actually successful, which proves nothing.




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.



> 4.  Fatally flawed due to reliance upon incorrect assumptions.




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.



> 9.  True, but language giving you a hit does not have to also deny a miss.




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.



> 10. Flawed, due to reliacne upon 4 which if fatally flawed.




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.



> 11. True, but if granted a hit by caveat you don't then have to worry about a miss.




But no caveat exists proving that a guaranteed hit occurs, and therefore a non-miss is not guaranteed either.



> 12.  True, but a rule granting as hit is a contradictory rule.




But that hit is not guaranteed to occur, and therefore, a non-miss is not granted by the rule.



> 13.  True, but a rule granting a hit contradicts this.




Yet again, proven that case does not exist here.



> 14.  Patently false.




That's not a counter argument.  Conclusions require counter arguments, not a statement of 'No U'



> As is often the case in overly-complex arguments, some base assumptions are either wrong or incorrectly applied leading to the whole house of cards tumbling down.




And rebuttals that state 'But if blah existed, this would be false' are not successful rebuttals when blah does not exist.


----------



## Markn (Sep 9, 2009)

<giggles>


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 9, 2009)

At this point I think I give up.

As far as I am concerned Holy Ardor has you "score a critical hit" on doubles just like it says and that means you apply critical damage.

Any other reading is, to me, strained and twisted logic.

I have no idea what RAI really is here, perhaps that will be made clear by WotC one day, or, maybe not.  

Meantime, any DM (RPGA included) is perfectly justified ruling this either way as it can be explained either way within the rules.


----------



## Obryn (Oct 7, 2009)

So wow.

We're adding an Ardent Champion tonight - and while this thread has some excellent arguments on both sides, in the words of so many college students, "I ain't readin' all that."

So ... has Customer Service spoken on this at all?  I know their record is spotty, but I'd rather claim "Customer Service said..." than "Some dude on ENWorld said..." if it should come up at the table. 

-O


----------



## Flipguarder (Oct 7, 2009)

customer service has given both points of view.... so yeah.


----------



## CovertOps (Oct 7, 2009)

Obryn said:


> So wow.
> 
> We're adding an Ardent Champion tonight - and while this thread has some excellent arguments on both sides, in the words of so many college students, "I ain't readin' all that."
> 
> ...




Quick summary is that one side claims either reading is valid by RAW.  The other side says only one is valid.  No matter which side you choose to believe you'll just have to make your own decision.  I recall two responses from CS somewhere in the thread...one for each side.  All that you really need to decide is if the Critical Hit granted by Holy Ardor is ALSO a "Hit" even if the die result is not high enough to hit the targets defense for purposes of attack resolution (see PHB pages 269-278 - and more specifically p276 where it tells you if you got a "Hit" or a "Miss").  The debate itself centered on Precision (p278 - under the Critical Hit rules) and the attack resolution sequence (p269).


----------



## Obryn (Oct 7, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> customer service has given both points of view.... so yeah.



DOH!

Well, crap!



CovertOps said:


> Quick summary is that one side claims either reading is valid by RAW.  The other side says only one is valid.  No matter which side you choose to believe you'll just have to make your own decision.  I recall two responses from CS somewhere in the thread...one for each side.  All that you really need to decide is if the Critical Hit granted by Holy Ardor is ALSO a "Hit" even if the die result is not high enough to hit the targets defense for purposes of attack resolution (see PHB pages 269-278 - and more specifically p276 where it tells you if you got a "Hit" or a "Miss").  The debate itself centered on Precision (p278 - under the Critical Hit rules) and the attack resolution sequence (p269).



Yeah, I actually really don't want to reignite what was - by all appearances - a major and intense rules debate. 

So, I'll approach this from the other direction, and ask those with a head for math...  What would be the expected mathematical difference between these two options?  Given that there's no consensus and a lot of people convinced on both sides that they're correct, I'd rather look at the results than at the rules, and pick which results I'd prefer.   A pragmatic approach, if you will.

-O


----------



## Flipguarder (Oct 7, 2009)

the results are almost negligibly different when they were posted... so yeah.  I think it was something like between a .5% and 2% extra chance to crit if you read it the more player favorable way. The discrepancy between discrepancies is based on your build.


----------



## Nifft (Oct 7, 2009)

Obryn said:


> So, I'll approach this from the other direction, and ask those with a head for math...  What would be the expected mathematical difference between these two options?  Given that there's no consensus and a lot of people convinced on both sides that they're correct, I'd rather look at the results than at the rules, and pick which results I'd prefer.   A pragmatic approach, if you will.



 Normally an Avenger crits on 19/400 results.
With the crit-on-a-2 interpretation, he crits on 37/400 results.

Normally, if an Avenger hits on an 11, he hits on 300/400 attack rolls.
With the crit-on-a-2 interpretation, he hits on 309/400 attack rolls.

Calculate expected damage as: (crit damage * chance to crit) + (regular damage * chance to hit-not-crit).

The increase in damage is small.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Obryn (Oct 7, 2009)

Nifft said:


> Normally an Avenger crits on 19/400 results.
> With the crit-on-a-2 interpretation, he crits on 37/400 results.
> 
> Normally, if an Avenger hits on an 11, he hits on 300/400 attack rolls.
> ...



Awesome   This is exactly what I needed to know.  In this case, whether the rules agree with me or not, I'll rule it more favorably towards the player.  When the math is laid out, it seems like a much weaker power than I expected, either way.  And since he's already critting on a 19 (jagged weapon), the difference is likely even smaller, since now only 2-18's are additional crits.  He'll still be critting a lot, mind you, but he's an Avenger and I'm frankly expecting that.

-O


----------



## keterys (Oct 7, 2009)

Basically I think RAW says it doesn't work, but I recommend letting it work. The player expects it to work that way and it's no big deal.


----------



## CovertOps (Oct 7, 2009)

Yeah...forgot to add that both sides seemed to agree that they INTENDED for double 2's to hit and crit.  The debate was about RAW.


----------



## N8Ball (Oct 7, 2009)

Did anyone realize that this thread was *the* most debated rules thread in the last year?  (almost twice as many as the next and near the top for all time)

And it took place in the span of only 3 weeks?  ....600+ posts.... Impressive.

Of course, I only visit the rules section so there may me some equally impressive threads elsewhere, but still....


----------



## keterys (Oct 7, 2009)

Nifft said:


> Normally an Avenger crits on 19/400 results.
> With the crit-on-a-2 interpretation, he crits on 37/400 results.
> 
> Normally, if an Avenger hits on an 11, he hits on 300/400 attack rolls.
> ...




I didn't notice this the first time, but there's an error in your calculation. You have the Avenger normally only critting on 19/400 results, which is actually _lower_ than 5% which is the crit chance for a normal person. An avenger's crit chance is actually 9.75% (5% chance per d20 rolled, two rolled, 5% chance they're both 20s) which would be 39 or 400. I don't know how far off the other results are, just figured I'd mention.


----------



## Nifft (Oct 7, 2009)

keterys said:


> I didn't notice this the first time, but there's an error in your calculation. You have the Avenger normally only critting on 19/400 results, which is actually _lower_ than 5% which is the crit chance for a normal person. An avenger's crit chance is actually 9.75% (5% chance per d20 rolled, two rolled, 5% chance they're both 20s) which would be 39 or 400. I don't know how far off the other results are, just figured I'd mention.



 You're absolutely right. It's 39/400, not 19/400. Thank you.
Correct numbers:

39/400 (9.75% chance) -> crit on 20 (normal Avenger)
58/400 (14.25% chance) -> crit on doubles or 20

Sorry about that, -- N


----------



## Flipguarder (Oct 7, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> Yeah...forgot to add that both sides seemed to agree that they INTENDED for double 2's to hit and crit.  The debate was about RAW.




I don't want to get into a thing about it, and don't really want to explain WHY I feel this way, but I don't believe they intended for double 2's to hit and crit unless they hit the targets defense.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 8, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> I don't want to get into a thing about it, and don't really want to explain WHY I feel this way, but I don't believe they intended for double 2's to hit and crit unless they hit the targets defense.




I can't see RAI that way.

RAW appears to be crit on hit.
RAI appears to be crit on 2s.

9 normal hits turned into crits out of every 400 encounters, not too impressive. It'll almost never show up in a game (once every 44 encounters or once every 4 levels).

9 extra crits and 9 normal hits turned into crits out of every 400 encounters, almost makes it worth it (once every 22 encounters or once every 2 levels).


----------



## N8Ball (Oct 8, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> I can't see RAI that way.
> 9 normal hits turned into crits out of every 400 encounters, not too impressive. It'll almost never show up in a game (once every 44 encounters or once every 4 levels).
> 
> 9 extra crits and 9 normal hits turned into crits out of every 400 encounters, almost makes it worth it (once every 22 encounters or once every 2 levels).




I agree with you, but once every 2 levels would still be pretty worthless.

However the 400 number is the number of attack rolls, not encounters, so the frequency also depends on the number of attack rolls per encounter.  
Almost all of the fights I've had till now (lvl 11) are over in way less than 10 rounds, but if we assume that (also for ease of calculation)...

...that makes the ability relevant about twice per level (9 times in 40 encounters) if you read it restrictively, 

...or about every other encounter (18 times in 40 encounters) if you read it more permissively.

Of course if your fights are quicker, you'll see it a lot less often.
Still, the point remains that it's not that strong by itself and it's advantage is only diminished by other crit-expanding items and abilities.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 8, 2009)

N8Ball said:


> However the 400 number is the number of attack rolls, not encounters, so the frequency also depends on the number of attack rolls per encounter.
> Almost all of the fights I've had till now (lvl 11) are over in way less than 10 rounds, but if we assume that (also for ease of calculation)...
> 
> ...that makes the ability relevant about twice per level (9 times in 40 encounters) if you read it restrictively,
> ...




Yeah, I screwed that calculation up.

For an Avenger, they might average using that encounter power 3 times per encounter (not every attack like in your calculations).

So, it would be one in 15 encounters and one in 7 encounters respectively, or twice per 3 levels and 4 times per 3 levels.


----------



## CovertOps (Oct 8, 2009)

Ignoring 1 and 20, doubles will come up 18/400 or 4.5%.  I'd have to argue that even given an 11 needed to hit this is more effective than a flat 5% increase in critical (19-20) because of the average damage increase.  All other critical improving abilities take what would already have been a hit and just maximize the damage.  If you let this hit on rolls lower than (11 in this case) the targets defense it takes a 0 damage miss and turns it into a max damage critical.  The harder it is to hit the target the more beneficial this becomes because as you get closer to needing a 20 just to hit the target this approaches a +5% to the auto-hit rate (19/400 or 4.75%).


----------



## N8Ball (Oct 8, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> Ignoring 1 and 20, doubles will come up 18/400 or 4.5%.  I'd have to argue that even given an 11 needed to hit this is more effective than a flat 5% increase in critical (19-20) because of the average damage increase.  All other critical improving abilities take what would already have been a hit and just maximize the damage.  If you let this hit on rolls lower than (11 in this case) the targets defense it takes a 0 damage miss and turns it into a max damage critical.  The harder it is to hit the target the more beneficial this becomes because as you get closer to needing a 20 just to hit the target this approaches a +5% to the auto-hit rate (19/400 or 4.75%).





That's true, but you also have to factor in that a expanded crit range will always applies and Holy Ardor only applies when you can use your Oath of Emnity benefit.  

Sure, an avenger should always try to get OE, but it's still not a 100% proposition.  That frequency multiplier will also reduce the numbers for Holy Ardor in relation to a standard 19-20 crit range boost.

Getting your oath target alone can be troublesome, esp at the beginning of the battle when there's still lots of enemies that are adjacent to him or still moving around.


----------



## DracoSuave (Oct 9, 2009)

N8Ball said:


> That's true, but you also have to factor in that a expanded crit range will always applies and Holy Ardor only applies when you can use your Oath of Emnity benefit.
> 
> Sure, an avenger should always try to get OE, but it's still not a 100% proposition.  That frequency multiplier will also reduce the numbers for Holy Ardor in relation to a standard 19-20 crit range boost.
> 
> Getting your oath target alone can be troublesome, esp at the beginning of the battle when there's still lots of enemies that are adjacent to him or still moving around.




Getting your oath target alone is -easy- at the beginning of the battle.

See the alone one?  Oath that guy.

Done.

Chances are it's artillery or something so it's probably the right choice tactically anyways.

I've never really seen Oath be hard to do in practice... at least with Persuit.  Ret or Unity might be different mind you.

Also.

HOW DO WE KILL THIS THREAD!  I THOUGHT IT WAS DEAD AND BURIED LONG AGO!


----------



## eamon (Oct 9, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> Ignoring 1 and 20, doubles will come up 18/400 or 4.5%.  I'd have to argue that even given an 11 needed to hit this is more effective than a flat 5% increase in critical (19-20) because of the average damage increase.  All other critical improving abilities take what would already have been a hit and just maximize the damage.  If you let this hit on rolls lower than (11 in this case) the targets defense it takes a 0 damage miss and turns it into a max damage critical.  The harder it is to hit the target the more beneficial this becomes because as you get closer to needing a 20 just to hit the target this approaches a +5% to the auto-hit rate (19/400 or 4.75%).




Avengers hit quite often and crits are quite powerful.  The additional power in the form of turning misses into hits is quite small.  Crits don't "just" maximize damage, they tend to do a lot more (a typical avenger will have a high crit, magical weapon for starters - and perhaps other crit-enhancing abilities).  The fact that a weapon mastery feat grants more crits than the ardent champion will probably have a greater impact than the approximately 9/400 extra hits this interpretation would grant.  In any case, they're certainly comparable, and a crit-optimizer would choose the mastery if he needed to choose.


----------



## Obryn (Oct 9, 2009)

DracoSuave said:
			
		

> HOW DO WE KILL THIS THREAD! I THOUGHT IT WAS DEAD AND BURIED LONG AGO!



 My fault.

But I'm really, really trying not to get the debate reignited.  I think basically every inch of ground has been covered about 50 times by now; I was just looking for info!

-O


----------



## CovertOps (Oct 9, 2009)

eamon said:


> Avengers hit quite often and crits are quite powerful.  The additional power in the form of turning misses into hits is quite small.  Crits don't "just" maximize damage, they tend to do a lot more (a typical avenger will have a high crit, magical weapon for starters - and perhaps other crit-enhancing abilities).  The fact that a weapon mastery feat grants more crits than the ardent champion will probably have a greater impact than the approximately 9/400 extra hits this interpretation would grant.  In any case, they're certainly comparable, and a crit-optimizer would choose the mastery if he needed to choose.




I was only trying to point out that statistically Holy Ardor is not a full +5% (4.5% if you use a base 11 die roll needed to hit) critical enhancing ability.  This is offset (if you give it the liberal reading) by increased damage of turning what would have been total misses into a hit/critical.


----------



## Iron Sky (Oct 10, 2009)

I think you might have ruined this thread for my Obryn.  It was on my list as the "thread that looks the most like page 1 at page 30."  Way to go.


----------



## Obryn (Oct 12, 2009)

Iron Sky said:


> I think you might have ruined this thread for my Obryn.  It was on my list as the "thread that looks the most like page 1 at page 30."  Way to go.



I aim to please. 

-O


----------



## Artoomis (Oct 13, 2009)

Obryn said:


> DOH!
> 
> Well, crap!
> 
> ...




Probability of doubles = 20/400 = 5%.  Since 1 is a miss, and 19 or 20 would be a critical anyway, the increased chance is 17/400  or 4.25%

If we assume that you must score a hit, and that will be on an 11 or greater, the increase is only 8/400 or 2%.

Thus the increase chance of a critical hit if one allowed this to happen on any doubles as oppose to any double that also hit would be about an additional 2.25%  of getting as critical hit - on what would have been a miss.

Of course, the expected damage goes up a bit more than that because 2.25% of the time you get a critical hit when you normally would have missed.

Significant, but not game-breaking by any means.


----------



## eamon (Oct 13, 2009)

CovertOps said:


> I was only trying to point out that statistically Holy Ardor is not a full +5% (4.5% if you use a base 11 die roll needed to hit) critical enhancing ability.  This is offset (if you give it the liberal reading) by increased damage of turning what would have been total misses into a hit/critical.



Ah, then I misunderstood. Indeed, that offset is helps improve the crit-on-any-double interpretation to be roughly comparable to a weapon mastery feat.  Roughly.  It's not like these 0.5% differences are going to impact game balance much anyhow ;-).


----------



## Mirtek (Nov 20, 2009)

Sorry, for ressurecting this old thread, but there seems to be new (at least I never noticed it before) FAQ for divine power: click here

So per question #4 a double roll that is not sufficient to hit the target is not turned into a hit/crit


----------



## Iron Sky (Nov 20, 2009)

Never seen that happen before; you raised a thread from the dead just so you could kill it for good!


----------



## Journeymanmage (Nov 20, 2009)

Threadromancy!!!

I'd say Zombie-thread, but ya missed Halloween by 3 weeks ...


----------



## abyssaldeath (Nov 20, 2009)

I am vindicated. Woot!


----------



## keterys (Nov 20, 2009)

Not surprised. Then again, I won't be surprised if next month's errata of Divine Power adds the relevant line to make it automatic hit.

Good find.


----------



## Mirtek (Nov 20, 2009)

keterys said:


> I won't be surprised if next month's errata



Given how long the needed for the last rules update I would be very surprised if they errata anything within the next 6 months


----------



## keterys (Nov 20, 2009)

GregB, Chief in Charge of Errata, says Divine Power is next month. I also got the impression Primal Power is as well from some other discussion. As well as a couple other things that got brought up as missed by this round.

Twitter / Greg Bilsland: @phaezen Look for Divine P ...

I will say that I do tend to assume nothing happens over the holidays, so if it slips to January, no surprise.


----------



## Kraydak (Nov 20, 2009)

Mirtek said:


> Sorry, for ressurecting this old thread, but there seems to be new (at least I never noticed it before) FAQ for divine power: click here
> 
> So per question #4 a double roll that is not sufficient to hit the target is not turned into a hit/crit




Hilariously, it left open the question of whether you could miss+crit.


----------



## Obryn (Nov 20, 2009)

I'm not surprised, either, but I will probably keep running it as I'm running it.  Over 4-5 sessions with the character, it's happened exactly once.

-O


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Dec 10, 2009)

So if I happen to roll two 20s, is that a SUPER CRIT???


----------



## keterys (Dec 10, 2009)

Yeah, you not only get a normal critical effect, but you can also shout 'I AM INWINCEABLE' when it happens.


----------



## Turtlejay (Dec 10, 2009)

And normally you win D&D, but for bringing this contentious thread back to the front page, you merely break even.  Sorry...

Jay


----------



## CovertOps (Dec 11, 2009)

May the fleas of 1000 camels infest the armpits of anyone who tries to bring this thread back again.....oh damn!


----------



## kilpatds (Dec 11, 2009)

There's a semi-official answer now... The Divine Power FAQ.  (You still have to hit to crit)


----------



## keterys (Dec 11, 2009)

If only someone had found that out sooner! Perhaps 21 days, 3 1/3 hours sooner. Give or take a minute.


----------



## CovertOps (Dec 11, 2009)

I'm gonna take a wild guess that this thread caused the FAQ entry.  I know it's really going out on a limb, but there it is.


----------

