Scoring a critical vs confirming a critical

[carn]

I noticed that some abilities that are linked to critical hits have the wording "scoring a critical hit", while others have "confirming a critical hit".

Examples for the first:
all critical feats, magus arcana critical strike, shadow dancer lev 10 ability

Examples for the later:
Lev 10 abilities duelist, eldritch knight, lev 20 ability cavalier

The difference is of course about creatures with some or total resistance/immunity against crits.

At least with fortification the procedure is following:

Attack role-> if threat range make confirmation role-> fortification role

That effectively means that fortification does not prevent the critical from being confirmed. This is also visible from the lev 9 samurai ability:
" After a critical hit is confirmed against him, the samurai can spend one use of his resolve as an immediate action to treat that critical hit as a normal hit."

So with such critical damage avoidance abilities, the critical hit nonetheless is first confirmed, which should trigger abilities that trigger upon confirmation of a critical.

The effects of the confirmation due to duelist, eldritch knight and cavalier abilites also seem to be in addition to the effect of the critical. e.g. eldritch knight:
"he can cast a spell as a swift action. The spell must include the target of the attack as one of its targets or in its area of effect."

Its obviously not part of the critical strike damage, if one cast a spell with its effect being applied independently to the attack.

Question now of course is what about critical immunity. Are threats vs critical immune creatures confirmed or not confirmed?

Rules seem to indicate (from fragile armor description):
"Armor with the fragile quality falls apart when hit with heavy blows. If an attacker hits a creature wearing fragile armor with an attack roll of a natural 20 and confirms the critical hit (even if the creature is immune to critical hits), the armor gains the broken condition."

So critical hits can be confirmed even against critical immune creatures. Those critical immune creatures then of course ignore the crit dam and the effects from scoring a critical hit. But i cannot see a rule why they should be able to ignore the effects from confirming a critical hit.

So a lev 10 duelist wielding a scimitar (what else? feat dervish dance) with double threat range has a decent chance to reduce an adamant golems or a banshees speed by 10 feet, give him -4 to AC and/or -4 to all saves. (Bleed and ability dam do not work vs golem as far as i know.)
Correct?

Or is there any reason to ignore the difference between scoring and confirming a critical with abilites?

Its just interesting, because this would turn a high level duelist in my eyes into the most nasty close combat char, as he provides nasty debuffs to anything, as nothing is immune vs -4 to AC or saves and using a 15-20 threat range he is rather likely to succeed.

[wraithstrike]

This is a good question. I will hit the FAQ button. Even in 3.5 the devs flip-flopped on the answer a few times, IIRC.

[carn]

wraithstrike wrote:

This is a good question. I will hit the FAQ button. Even in 3.5 the devs flip-flopped on the answer a few times, IIRC.

If it would be just duelist and cavalier it could probably be ignored. But eldrich knight can cast a spell as effect from critical hit confirmation. It seems reasonable that the idea behind is that the attack was performed so well that additional time to throw a spell around is available. And if thats the idea, the immunity of the attack target should be irrelvant.

[carn]

To make things more complicated i noted the following:

"When you make an attack roll and get a natural 20 (the d20 shows 20), you hit regardless of your target's Armor Class, and you have scored a "threat," meaning the hit might be a critical hit (or "crit"). To find out if it's a critical hit, you immediately make an attempt to "confirm" the critical hit—another attack roll with all the same modifiers as the attack roll you just made."

"Concealment Miss Chance
Concealment gives the subject of a successful attack a 20% chance that the attacker missed because of the concealment. Make the attack normally—if the attacker hits, the defender must make a miss chance d% roll to avoid being struck. Multiple concealment conditions do not stack."

So first the critical hit is confirmed, then miss chance is checked.

Per word interpretation that could have the following consequences, if a lev 10 shadowdancer, lev 10 duelist, lev 10 eldritch knight and lev 20 cavalier attack one concealed target 1 (e.g. invisible) and one immune to crit target 2 :

Shadowdancer attacks 1, confirms and misses => no critical hit scored => no blindness
Shadowdancer attacks 2, confirms=> no critical hit scored due to 2 being immune => no blindness

Duelist attacks 1, confirms and misses => critical hit is confirmed => duelist cannot "apply one of the following penalties in addition to the damage dealt" as no damage is dealt
Duelist attacks 2, confirms => critical hit is confirmed => duelist can "apply one of the following penalties in addition to the damage dealt" as damage is dealt.

Eldritch Knight attacks 1, confirms and misses => critical hit is confirmed => eldritch knight can swift cast a spell which has 1 in area of effects or targets
Eldritch Knight attacks 2, confirms => critical hit is confirmed => eldritch knight can swift cast a spell which has 2 in area of effects or targets (though he can only cast 1 of these spells, as only 1 swift action per round. Horror side question eldritch knights ability just says spel as swift action, no limitation on spell, so casting a 10 minutes cast time spell as swift possible this way? Per wording, yes.)

Cavalier attacks 1, confirms and misses => critical hit is confirmed => 1 has to roll and be stunned or staggered, as effect is in addition to an improve of damage multiplier of cavalier attack and the damage multiplier is increased whether or not the attack actually connects Cavalier attacks 2 (however thats possible with mounted charge), confirms => critical hit is confirmed => 2 has to roll and be stunned or staggered

[carn]

Bumbing it up again.

[carn]

Bumping it up.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

The wording isn't entirely picky, but 'scoring' and 'confirming' refers to the timing and effect granted upon the creature you are targeting.

For a Staggering Critical, for example, the effect it gives requires that the Critical Hit to be possible upon the target (suggesting that there are creatures that cannot be critically hit).

However, for abilities that can work against targets regardless of being immune to critical hits or not, only requires that the hit be technically considered a critical strike for the purposes of applying class features/other feats, etc.

So if I am a Sword and Board Fighter with the Blinding Critical feat, and I confirm the critical, if the target is undead (or is immune to blindness, but not the point I'm making), I cannot critically hit the target, meaning that the critical hit must be able to effect the target for the feat to be utilized.

However, if you are a Samurai and an enemy critically hits you (that is, the opponent confirmed the critical), the effect of your Resolve ability would come into play once he confirms the critical, meaning before the damage is rolled, you must make the statement of using the Resolve ability or not, otherwise the damage total will be calculated as if it were a Critical Strike.

If you are immune to being critically hit, the class ability is just as worthless as a Critical Effect feat against an Undead creature. But some abilities that can be done regardless of the creature being immune to critical hits or not (requires that the character confirms the attack to be classified as legitimate circumstances for applying feats/class abilities), are specified as such so players aren't completely deprived of their class features that should trigger regardless of the creature being able to receive critical hits or not.

I hope that helps! :)

[Knight Magenta]

I think you guys are thinking about this too much. Pathfinder is not a legal document. It is written by many different authors. There are often two or more words for the same thing.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

Knight Magenta wrote:

I think you guys are thinking about this too much. Pathfinder is not a legal document. It is written by many different authors. There are often two or more words for the same thing.

RAW should be treated as a legal document for determining and perceiving how the creators want the rules to be interpreted as, no questions asked.

The thing is, the mechanics require specifics down to the T so there is no confusion as to how the ability functions with all of the other factors that are already implemented into the game.

[Knight Magenta]

The only thing worse that having vague rules, is reading vague rules as if they were precise.

Personally, I feel that RAW should be precise enough that it could be read as a legal document. However, if it was not written that way, how can you claim to be able to read it that way?

[carn]

Knight Magenta wrote:

I think you guys are thinking about this too much. Pathfinder is not a legal document. It is written by many different authors. There are often two or more words for the same thing.

Problem is eldritch knight. Authors had some idea in mind, why he should be able to swift cast a spell due to critical.

Is it that the creature was damaged so nicely that elk finds time to cast another spell?
Not precisely logic, although rules need not be logic.

Is it because he performed the attack so well, that he could include a spell casting during the attack?
Would make more sense and would mean, as RAW implies that crit immune is not relevant.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

carn wrote:

Knight Magenta wrote:

I think you guys are thinking about this too much. Pathfinder is not a legal document. It is written by many different authors. There are often two or more words for the same thing.

Problem is eldritch knight. Authors had some idea in mind, why he should be able to swift cast a spell due to critical.

Is it that the creature was damaged so nicely that elk finds time to cast another spell?
Not precisely logic, although rules need not be logic.

Is it because he performed the attack so well, that he could include a spell casting during the attack?
Would make more sense and would mean, as RAW implies that crit immune is not relevant.

The second would be the proper choice.

Performing an immediate swift-action spell due to the target receiving a critical hit doesn't make sense when the target cannot be critically hit.

Performing an immediate swift-action spell due to confirming the attack to be a critical (and should be treated as such, as the RAW states and as the conditions for the proxy are written as such) makes sense because it is stated to go off regardless of the target being immune to criticals or not.

[Knight Magenta]

I could just as easily justify the Eldritch Knight the other way. Maybe when the target is staggered by the crit, the knight has a moment where the foe is too distracted to disrupt his casting.

[Quantum Steve]

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Knight Magenta wrote:

I think you guys are thinking about this too much. Pathfinder is not a legal document. It is written by many different authors. There are often two or more words for the same thing.

RAW should be treated as a legal document for determining and perceiving how the creators want the rules to be interpreted as, no questions asked.

The thing is, the mechanics require specifics down to the T so there is no confusion as to how the ability functions with all of the other factors that are already implemented into the game.

No it shouldn't.

The problem with legal documents is you usually need a lawyer to interpret them. Read the Magic: The Gathering rules document at Wizards' site for an example of what I mean.

I do not want rules written in legalese that I can't understand half the time. I would much rather rules written in plain English that I can use common sense to discern the intent of the writers 95% of the time.

[Knight Magenta]

"Being specific" is not the same as "needing a lawyer to interpret." PF and 3.X before it suffered from the problem of using different words to mean the same thing. For example, the word "enchantment" can mean "Weapon modification, like '+1 flame'"; "a spell effect from the school of Enchantment"; "The Enchantment school itself" or "Some other effect with a long duration."

The same problem exists with "Level" vs "spell level" vs "character level" vs "caster level" vs "class level."

A good rule-book should define terms and use them precisely. This does not mean that you should have to read 30 pages of definitions, but it does mean those definitions should exist "under the hood" so to speak.

the fact of the matter is that if PF did define all of its key terms and didn't mix fluff and mechanics in the same paragraph we would not be having this argument. We'd either go to the glossary in the back of the rule book and find that both terms are defined separately or we would only ever see one of the terms and not get into the argument in the first place.

----------------------

Going on a bit of a tangent, the words "immediately" and "instantly" are the biggest offenders here. They are often used in ability descriptions to mean anything from "absolutely nothing", "with the same action" or "as an Immediate action" and the ability never tells you which one it is.

[carn]

Knight Magenta wrote:

I could just as easily justify the Eldritch Knight the other way. Maybe when the target is staggered by the crit, the knight has a moment where the foe is too distracted to disrupt his casting.

But the eldritch knight can not only cast without AOO, he can cast as swift for free. Why should the damage done to an enemy increase casting speed?

[carn]

Knight Magenta wrote:

I think you guys are thinking about this too much. Pathfinder is not a legal document. It is written by many different authors. There are often two or more words for the same thing.

You realy play PF without having your lawyer on quick dial?

Crazy idea. :)

[Glutton]

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

T

So if I am a Sword and Board Fighter with the Blinding Critical feat, and I confirm the critical, if the target is undead (or is immune to blindness, but not the point I'm making), I cannot critically hit the target, meaning that the critical hit must be able to effect the target for the feat to be utilized.

If you are immune to being critically hit, the class ability is just as worthless as a Critical Effect feat against an Undead creature.

Faq clicky'd for you,

and

Undead can be critically hit

Creatures Immune to Critical Hits

Aeons
Elementals
Incorporeal (unless using a ghost touch attack) creatures
Oozes
Proteans (50% ignore)
Swarms

[Umbranus]

Did I understand it right consensus is you can apply "confirm crit" effects to crit immune targets but not "score crit" effects, as you can't score a crit vs. someone immune to criticals?

[carn]

Umbranus wrote:

Did I understand it right consensus is you can apply "confirm crit" effects to crit immune targets but not "score crit" effects, as you can't score a crit vs. someone immune to criticals?

At least that is what i derived from various rules.

Edit: Whether its RAI, that an eldritch knight can full attack with a crossbow and have a 40-60% chance to swift cast a spell per round in addition or that he can full attack with double kukris and have a 60-80% chance to swift cast a spell per round, both independent of target, is the deeper question behind the thread. (Edit: and that would be up to lev 9 spells swift casted in addition to full attack, beating loser magus stuck with 1 handed weapon full attack and 1 lev 6 or lower spell per round)

[Bobson]

Just to make things more complicated:

Magic Weapons and Critical Hits wrote:

Some weapon qualities and some specific weapons have an extra effect on a critical hit. This special effect also functions against creatures not normally subject to critical hits. On a successful critical roll, apply the special effect, but do not multiply the weapon's regular damage.

[carn]

Bobson wrote:

Just to make things more complicated:

Magic Weapons and Critical Hits wrote:

Some weapon qualities and some specific weapons have an extra effect on a critical hit. This special effect also functions against creatures not normally subject to critical hits. On a successful critical roll, apply the special effect, but do not multiply the weapon's regular damage.

Yes, i did not cite that, as i anyway had a wall of text.

My inclination is that if "confirm a critical hit", it should work against crit immune, as there are several crit dependent things that do work against crit immune due to critical hit being confirmed. Hopefully authors had this in mind, when deciding whether to write "confirm" or "score", and therefore the distinction is RAI.

[Pathfinder Design Team]

FAQ: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qv4

Critical Hits: Is there a difference between "scoring a critical hit" and "confirming a critical hit"?

No, they mean the same thing. However, the preferred rules language is "confirming a critical hit." (Similarly, the preferred rules language for a rolling a critical threat is "threatening a critical hit").