stacktdeck's page

(I promised I searched the forums before posting this, so if there's am existing thread you want to point me to, I appreciate it).

The text for Critical success states: "If you succeed AND rolled a 20 on the die...[comma] OR if your result is equal to or greater than the DC plus 10[comma] you critically succeed." p.292

Now folks, I'm an English teacher, and this is already a huge RAW vs RAI problem. The two commas setting up a separate clause implies this interpretation:
The 2 conditions for getting a crit are as follows
1) You succeeded on your roll by rolling a nat 20+your modifier to beat the AC/DC.
2) You just rolled 10 higher than the AC/DC.

Now the problem with the structure of the original sentence is that it could also be interpreted this way:
In order to crit you must succeed at your roll, either by adding your mod to a nat 20 or getting a total result that is 10 above the AC/DC.

Now you can have your opinion on which interpretation is correct, but because of the comma usage, you cannot say 100% that the other interpretation is wrong unless you're a dev and would like to hand down a final ruling from on high. (Which I would greatly appreciate)

I promise this all comes from a place of wanting to do right by my players, so any and all responses that can help me understand what does and does not count as a crit for my players and I are greatly appreciated.

UPDATE
I found this sentence that answers another question:
"Armor Class (AC) is a special type of DC..." p.292

So we're getting ready to roll characters for the playtest, and, true to form, some of my players are already asking if they can roll evil chars. While there are specific guidelines in the Doomsday Dawn scenario regarding character creation, there is no mention of appropriate alignments. I've only banned CE chars in my own homebrew, seeing the other two evil alignments as having traits that can still allow them to function in most group settings, but my own gut says to ban all evil alignments for the purpose of the playtest, so that my players can get through the scenarios with as little in-party stressors as possible, or to keep someone's character from veering wildly off-course because of their less than heroic alignment.

But I'd love feedback from other GM's running the playtest, as well, if possible, from the Devs, regarding whether y'all have any opinions on the matter.

Ok, so first of all, the entry on Spells for the Hunter in the ACG is uber confusing. You have sentences like this:

"Like other spellcasters, a hunter can cast only a certain number of spells of each spell level per day. Her base daily spell allotment is given on the table above. In addition, she receives bonus spells per day if she has a high Wisdom score."

followed by sentences like this:

"Unlike spells per day, the number of spells a hunter knows is not affected by her Wisdom score; the numbers on the table above are fixed."

And then there is the issue of Summon Nature's Ally:

"In addition to the spells gained by hunters as they gain levels, each hunter also automatically adds all summon nature's ally spells to her list of spells known. These spells are added as soon as the hunter is capable of casting them."

Here's my dilemma. First of all, "automatically" and "in addition" to me mean that I'm not forced to substitute Summon Nature's Ally for one of the learned spells on the table. i.e. A Lvl 1 Hunter can learn 2 first level spells, but since SNA I is "in addition," he can technically learn three.

So my question:

If I rolled a Hunter with a Wis of 11, who according to Hunter rules, can only learn up to first level spells ("to learn or cast a spell, a hunter must have a Wisdom score equal to at least 10 + the spell's level"), when I level up to 4, can I still learn Summon Nature's Ally II, SNA III at Lvl 7, etc., because they are "in addition" and "automatically?"

If there is already an errata on this that I missed, please feel free to point me in that direction. This is for a vanilla hunter, not an archetype.

Muchas gracias in advance.