|
1 year ago ::
Dec 29, 2011 - 6:12AM
#201
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
I'm not clear what you hope to accomplish. There are still only two possible results:
- Vorpal is evaluated on maximized damage, and the result is infinite damage.
- Vorpal is not evaluated on maximized damage, and the result is normal maximized damage plus crit dice which are affected normally by Vorpal
We can go around in circles ascribing more precision than the writers used when they wrote the rules, but that's the bottom line.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 29, 2011 - 6:15AM
#202
|
Date Joined:
Jun 29, 2011
|
I'm not clear what you hope to accomplish. There are still only two possible results:
- Vorpal is evaluated on maximized damage, and the result is infinite damage.
- Vorpal is not evaluated on maximized damage, and the result is normal maximized damage plus crit dice which are affected normally by Vorpal
We can go around in circles ascribing more precision than the writers used when they wrote the rules, but that's the bottom line.
My current argument is basically what your arguments used to be (since you don't roll dice to determine the damage, Vorpal isn't evaluated during the rolling of dice, so no Vorpal on power damage at all).
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 29, 2011 - 8:51AM
#203
|
Date Joined:
Jan 21, 2011
|
I'm not clear what you hope to accomplish. There are still only two possible results:
- Vorpal is evaluated on maximized damage, and the result is infinite damage.
- Vorpal is not evaluated on maximized damage, and the result is normal maximized damage plus crit dice which are affected normally by Vorpal
We can go around in circles ascribing more precision than the writers used when they wrote the rules, but that's the bottom line.
Okay, that's fine. But which of those two results should we use? That's what's being debated here.
My current argument is basically what your arguments used to be (since you don't roll dice to determine the damage, Vorpal isn't evaluated during the rolling of dice, so no Vorpal on power damage at all).
Question: if Vorpal really did say "whenever you physically roll", but also the crit entry said "as if the maximum result had physically been rolled", would you agree that Vorpal applies?
I am okay with you saying my argument is stupid, or commits the munchkin fallacy, or any other bad thing you want. Particularly if you give a reason/explanation for it.
However, I will ignore any post that calls me stupid, or a munchkin, or what have you. Not because it bothers me; I've just found that people only start name-calling when that's the best argument they have left.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 29, 2011 - 8:58AM
#204
|
Date Joined:
Jun 29, 2011
|
I'm not clear what you hope to accomplish. There are still only two possible results:
- Vorpal is evaluated on maximized damage, and the result is infinite damage.
- Vorpal is not evaluated on maximized damage, and the result is normal maximized damage plus crit dice which are affected normally by Vorpal
We can go around in circles ascribing more precision than the writers used when they wrote the rules, but that's the bottom line.
Okay, that's fine. But which of those two results should we use? That's what's being debated here.
My current argument is basically what your arguments used to be (since you don't roll dice to determine the damage, Vorpal isn't evaluated during the rolling of dice, so no Vorpal on power damage at all).
Question: if Vorpal really did say "whenever you physically roll", but also the crit entry said "as if the maximum result had physically been rolled", would you agree that Vorpal applies?
Damn, that's a fence buster question if I've ever seen one, and a masterful one at that. I think it's a trap question, though. Not to mention irrelevant since neither of them say that. But I'll bite:
I have to say no, it still wouldn't apply. Because you're dealing damage as if it had physically been rolled, but you still never physically rolled dice. Since you didn't roll a piece of plastic with numbers on it, and that piece of plastic didn't land with the highest number facing up, you don't add that number to the damage of the attack and then reroll it.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 29, 2011 - 9:09AM
#205
|
Date Joined:
Jun 29, 2011
|
We can go around in circles ascribing more precision than the writers used when they wrote the rules, but that's the bottom line.
You know, this line is starting to bother me. It is kind of obvious we're starting to move in to territory that even the writers didn't think about. And there are two fundamentally correct arguments here:
1) Vorpal doesn't apply since you never actually roll dice, and since you don't roll dice, a die can't land on its maximum and cause you to reroll.
2) Vorpal does apply because Critical Hit says damage is dealt as if the maximum was rolled. If the maximum was rolled, you would have rerolled it. Since the maximum was rolled for the reroll, you would have rerolled it. Repeat ad nauseum.
As I said, both arguments are fundamentally correct on the surface. It is only semantics and obscure interpretations of rules, and drawn parallels, that mark either side as invalid (and there are plenty of arguments that render both possibilities invalid, oh boy). I think I've personally argued both sides enough to understand that.
I'm starting to wonder if I should just let go of the outcome altogether. The only thing I'm 100% sure about is that this thing sure could have used some clarification when the developers wrote it down.
If you wouldn't mind, ThatWasTotallyNinja, answer me this: Even though you show conviction in all of your individual arguments fielded thus far, do you personally believe that Vorpal works this way, beyond all doubt and with one hundred per cent surety? Without even the slightest possibility it would fail?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 29, 2011 - 11:44AM
#206
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
As I said, both arguments are fundamentally correct on the surface. It is only semantics and obscure interpretations of rules, and drawn parallels, that mark either side as invalid.
Except the part where the one has instant-kill-of-anything on a critical, and the other one doesn't. Rejecting infinite damage when presented with two superficially-correct rules interpretations is not exactly a hard call, especially when it's rather clearly against RAI since if it were supposed to be infinite damage from the maximization-vorpal interaction, why bother choosing 6d12 as crit dice instead of the default 6d6?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 29, 2011 - 11:50AM
#207
|
Date Joined:
Jun 29, 2011
|
As I said, both arguments are fundamentally correct on the surface. It is only semantics and obscure interpretations of rules, and drawn parallels, that mark either side as invalid.
Except the part where the one has instant-kill-of-anything on a critical, and the other one doesn't. Rejecting infinite damage when presented with two superficially-correct rules interpretations is not exactly a hard call, especially when it's rather clearly against RAI since if it were supposed to be infinite damage from the maximization-vorpal interaction, why bother choosing 6d12 as crit dice instead of the default 6d6?
Once more you bring to the forefront the obvious and most pressing issue. Infinite damage is dumb.
Assuming both sides are fundamentally correct arguments of the meaning of the words, as they are written, one must turn to parallels in other rules, and then RAI, to determine what should be done. It's as valid as RAW when RAW is ambiguous, having multiple valid meanings. That much has been established several times in CharOp.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 29, 2011 - 1:41PM
#208
|
Date Joined:
Jan 21, 2011
|
Except the part where the one has instant-kill-of-anything on a critical, and the other one doesn't. Rejecting infinite damage when presented with two superficially-correct rules interpretations is not exactly a hard call, especially when it's rather clearly against RAI since if it were supposed to be infinite damage from the maximization-vorpal interaction, why bother choosing 6d12 as crit dice instead of the default 6d6?
Keep in mind that the question could just be asked of whether you get to apply the Carnage weapon property. In that case, there's no infinite damage to deal with...but if you rule on way on Vorpal and the other way on Carnage, then your whole interpretation is inconsistent and based on RAI instead of RAW.
Plus, there really is an option 3 that you didn't mention. Getting to roll the Vorpal dice (instead of those being auto-maximized, or not being included at all) definitely has at least a little bit of rules support to it. Is it 100% correct? I don't think so, but I don't think no-vorpal is 100% correct either, I think only the insta-kill is. So if we're going to be changing the rules based on "insta-kill isn't intended," what do we change it to?
Here's some rule-lawyering for the "option 3": rerolls are a separate roll from the actual "damage roll" part. The rerolls do modify the damage roll, but they are separate rolls from what is in the "damage dice". Hence, on a crit, you maximize everything that's part of the damage roll (thus triggering vorpal rerolls), but then the rerolls aren't subsequently maximized.
If you wouldn't mind, ThatWasTotallyNinja, answer me this: Even though you show conviction in all of your individual arguments fielded thus far, do you personally believe that Vorpal works this way, beyond all doubt and with one hundred per cent surety? Without even the slightest possibility it would fail?
Good question. 100%? Not quite. But pretty close at this point.
I started out at only like 20% (I was almost sure I was incorrect). Hence why I posted it as an afterthought in a Q&A question. I was pretty sure that there was some other rule involved that I wasn't aware of that limited this, or an FAQ ruling or something like that.
I am a pretty intelligent guy, and as such, I am fairly confident that my actual logic is valid (though I do look again whenever I hear a new argument I hadn't considered). Especially on something that I have, at this point, put so much thought into. So my main concern tends to be that I am using an incorrect premise, or there is some information that I just did not know about. As time goes on in this thread though, that gets less and less likely.
Damn, that's a fence buster question if I've ever seen one, and a masterful one at that. I think it's a trap question, though. Not to mention irrelevant since neither of them say that. But I'll bite:
I have to say no, it still wouldn't apply. Because you're dealing damage as if it had physically been rolled, but you still never physically rolled dice. Since you didn't roll a piece of plastic with numbers on it, and that piece of plastic didn't land with the highest number facing up, you don't add that number to the damage of the attack and then reroll it.
So...you can't use Dice of Auspicious Fortune or Sage of Ages to simulate a natural 20? Or, even sillier, you can't get Vorpal if you use a cell phone program to do your rolling for you? (I borrowed those arguments from clawfoot because I like them)
New question. Let's say you're a D&D writer, and you actually did intend for the critical damage to always be the literal "maximum damage possible", and for it to behave exactly in all ways 100% like you rolled maximum everything (including triggering Vorpal for infinite damage). Let's say that was your intention. How would you write it? Because from where I'm sitting, assuming you are trying to keep the language general, there is really no clearer way of writing it than what is currently in the RC.
If you can't come up with a reasonable way to write the crit entry to satisfy this, then you're probably arguing more from "I think it should work this way and thus I will interpret everything this way" as opposed to what the rules actually say. And I'll point out that I have already given the way I think it should be written if your interpretation were correct.
Oh, and keep in mind that you already ruled out changing it to "physically rolled"...you said that'd be insufficient to make my interpretation work
I am okay with you saying my argument is stupid, or commits the munchkin fallacy, or any other bad thing you want. Particularly if you give a reason/explanation for it.
However, I will ignore any post that calls me stupid, or a munchkin, or what have you. Not because it bothers me; I've just found that people only start name-calling when that's the best argument they have left.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 29, 2011 - 1:47PM
#209
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
Yes, Carnage and Vorpal should follow the same rules in the interest of system self-consistency.
One option causes Carnage to work, but Vorpal to break. The other option causes both to work. How is this a hard choice?
There is no third option. There is no justification for being granted Vorpal rolls on the auto-maximized damage that does not also result in the Vorpal dice being maximized. The Vorpal rolls are not something that only happens on a crit, so if they exist they would be maximized. There is no middle ground.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 29, 2011 - 2:42PM
#210
|
Date Joined:
Jun 29, 2011
|
Uhh. Have you read the PHB version of Critical Hit? The one that is currently listed in the compendium if you do a search right now? It doesn't use the as if wording. Pretty sure it just says add up the maximum damage the power can deal or something similar. That is how I would write Critical Hit.
"When you roll a natural 20 on an attack roll, do not make any damage rolls against the target for this attack. Instead, determine the maximum damage the power can do to the target for this attack. This is your critical damage. Then, deal this damage to the target you critically hit as if the damage was determined by a damage roll."
- my ideal Critical Hit wording. I actually believe this is how it works currently anyway, there is just far less ambiguity in terms of the fact that you don't roll dice and therefore can't proc Vorpal out to infinity. It works, includes maximising extra damage like usual, includes damage modifiers simply and efficiently, but doesn't allow for schenanegans. Working as intended.
Now, as for wording a Critical Hit that will proc Vorpal, that's easy. Look up "damage roll". When you roll dice to determine damage, Vorpal procs. There is no way to write Critical Hit to include Vorpal because the very definition and intent of Critical Hit is to ensure you DON'T make a roll, by "fixing" the result, which means it is no longer a roll of dice to determine damage (random by its very nature, randomness removed by critting), its a calculation of max possible damage followed by damage dealt as if it was a damage roll.
Since you can't possibly be arguing that Vorpal actually procs in reality, you are therefore arguing that the maximum possible damage is a theoretical number that includes Vorpal in its definition simply because it is possible for Vorpal to increase damage to potentially infinite numbers. I say maximum damage possible simply means "maximum damage possible from the power". Both answers are theoretically correct, as I have stated previously. So now we turn to RAI to determine what the RAW means. When we turn to the RAI, well.. There isn't any possibility it is intended for Vorpal to evaluate into infinite damage, so therefore it doesn't.
|
|
|
