The arguments are strong on either side but I find myself leaning towards Vorpal actually causing the attack to instakill.
My opinion is that since Vorpal says you add the additional result to the damage total, the property is just adding more damage to the attack itself. This means that the property of Vorpal is capable of increasing the maximum damage of the attack itself.
Even though Vorpal doesn't trigger, it still has the theoretical capability to increase the maximum damage possible of any given weapon attack that uses it.
If we are going to pretend that we rolled, instead of actually rolling, then we pretend that we threw the dice and they landed on maximum. That means that we are pretending that all the conditions for Vorpal were just met, and therefore in the pretend scenario, Vorpal would trigger, increasing the maximum possible damage from the attack. Since the Vorpal effect adds more damage to the attack in the form of additional damage rolls, and it doesn't specifically only add them when you crit, it means that these dice aren't specifically required to be rolled (as per the Extra Damage section of Critical Hit in the PHB). This means that we pretend that we rolled them, and that they landed on the maximum possible value, which means that we just pretended that all the required conditions of the Vorpal effect were just met, which increases the maximum possible damage of the attack.
My point is that if we're going to go in to a pretend scenario where we rolled maximum dice, there are two results from that scenario. We go in to find the maximum damage, but while we're there, all the conditions for Vorpal are met (as a side effect). But we're going to act as if this pretend scenario was what actually happened, correct? That's how we take the maximum damage from the pretend event and use it in the actual game, right? If we're going to act as if what we just pretended actually happened, then we're going to act as if all the conditions for Vorpal were met, which means by all definitions that Vorpal will now trigger.
From my understanding, unless we can clarify that it is specifically stated the only thing we take from the "pretend you rolled maximum" is the total damage, and not anything else, then Vorpal shouldn't trigger. But the way I read it, we act as if the thing we pretend happened, did happen - that is to say, ALL of what we just pretended happened - and in this case Vorpal should trigger (and then pretend to be maximised since it isn't extra critical damage, rinse repeat ad nauseum).
No clarification needed, it literally says that. You do not roll. Vorpal requires rolling. Sigh.
The arguments are strong on either side but I find myself leaning towards Vorpal actually causing the attack to instakill.
My opinion is that since Vorpal says you add the additional result to the damage total, the property is just adding more damage to the attack itself. This means that the property of Vorpal is capable of increasing the maximum damage of the attack itself.
Even though Vorpal doesn't trigger, it still has the theoretical capability to increase the maximum damage possible of any given weapon attack that uses it.
If we are going to pretend that we rolled, instead of actually rolling, then we pretend that we threw the dice and they landed on maximum. That means that we are pretending that all the conditions for Vorpal were just met, and therefore in the pretend scenario, Vorpal would trigger, increasing the maximum possible damage from the attack. Since the Vorpal effect adds more damage to the attack in the form of additional damage rolls, and it doesn't specifically only add them when you crit, it means that these dice aren't specifically required to be rolled (as per the Extra Damage section of Critical Hit in the PHB). This means that we pretend that we rolled them, and that they landed on the maximum possible value, which means that we just pretended that all the required conditions of the Vorpal effect were just met, which increases the maximum possible damage of the attack.
My point is that if we're going to go in to a pretend scenario where we rolled maximum dice, there are two results from that scenario. We go in to find the maximum damage, but while we're there, all the conditions for Vorpal are met (as a side effect). But we're going to act as if this pretend scenario was what actually happened, correct? That's how we take the maximum damage from the pretend event and use it in the actual game, right? If we're going to act as if what we just pretended actually happened, then we're going to act as if all the conditions for Vorpal were met, which means by all definitions that Vorpal will now trigger.
From my understanding, unless we can clarify that it is specifically stated the only thing we take from the "pretend you rolled maximum" is the total damage, and not anything else, then Vorpal shouldn't trigger. But the way I read it, we act as if the thing we pretend happened, did happen - that is to say, ALL of what we just pretended happened - and in this case Vorpal should trigger (and then pretend to be maximised since it isn't extra critical damage, rinse repeat ad nauseum).
In which case, they should errata out the Critical portion of the Vorpal property, since there is zero need for it, regardless if the weapon was used as a weapon or implement. Infinite +6d12 is still infinite after all, and infinite damage is certainly going to kill even enemies with infinite HP.
Until they remove the Critical portion of the Vorpal property, I'm thinking that the RAI is that you don't get an infinite loop on the Vorpal when you crit... or whenever you utilize a feature that lets you roll for maximum damage.
And honestly, we really ought to keep save-or-die-like effects out of the system whenever possible. Then again, the Vorpal enchantment is Rare and unless you're built to have a very high chance to crit you're only going to insta-kill at 10% chance maximum, so I suppose that even if it were theoretically valid to have Vorpal do insta-kill, it's very easy for a DM to reign it all in: the enchantment cannot be gained in any way other than via DM reward, so he could simply never have the group have it.
[ I suppose we're in the same barrel of monkeys as Versatile property weapons wielded two-handed, versus game features that trigger off two-handed weapons, except instead of the part where Versatile weapons are still one-handed even if you could wield them two-handed, crits would be non-rolled damage even if you treat them as rolled. Or something like that. ]
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery.
I know you don't roll. But you pretend you rolled. When you do so, you pretend that Vorpal's conditions are met. If we're going to pretend Vorpal's conditions got met, then Vorpal will trigger.
In which case, they should errata out the Critical portion of the Vorpal property, since there is zero need for it, regardless if the weapon was used as a weapon or implement. Infinite +6d12 is still infinite after all, and infinite damage is certainly going to kill even enemies with infinite HP.
Thanks for pointing out the obvious. I'm aware of the RAI implications. I'm simply stoking the fire since I think that poorly written as it is, if one were to blindly follow the wording, Vorpal would instakill on crit. Of course I don't think they MEANT to do this.
What's with everyone on these boards getting so uptight? It's all conjecture. I just want to see how it plays out, and I offered my opinion. You can sigh and look down upon the mass stupidity I'm joining in, Alcestis, like some kind of high-horsed judge and jury - and you're allowed to do that all you like - but I actually think it's fun to discuss stuff like this and explore all the possible options, one of which I have detailed above. If you think it's too tedious to argue, or if you think I'm too simple to understand, feel free to make that clear, and then leave. I will stay, and continue to discuss the possibility.
Like I said, I believe that if you pretend you rolled max damage, you're pretending that you're doing the same action that meets Vorpal's requirements. If we then act as if what we just pretended is what actually happened, then we are pretending that Vorpal's requirements are met, and then Vorpal triggers, since it's requirements are met.
No. Jesus Christ. The sentence before that says you do not roll. No rolling happens. Ever. At any point. The sentence after that, which is a sub-clause and still exists under the restriction that you do not and have not rolled, says to add up the damage as if you had rolled, bearing in that the explicit restriction that you did not actually roll. I feel like everyone who doesn't understand this is failing to understand how clauses work in English, because they are emphasizing the second sentence and ignoring the first. The two are a set. Clause. Sub-clause. That is how English (and, to a large degree, how all languages) work.
Did you roll? No. Does Vorpal require rolling? Yes. Did Vorpal trigger? Nope.
I've been following this since the Simple Questions forums. At first I was 100% behind Ninja, however, I can see the argument of the other side now too. This rules wording is very strange and unwieldy.
Of course I agree that in reality a vorpal weapon would never deal infinite damage, but in theory I can agree that this interpretation makes sense. I don't understand how you can "not roll" the dice, but still "pretend" (as if you had rolled the dice) to roll them and take some of the bonuses you get for rolling, but not others. Vorpal does not require a physical roll any more than a static bonus does, so I'm confused as to why it gets ignored in the "as if you rolled" clause. If I rolled max, then vorpal triggers. If I rolled damage, then static modifiers are applied. Why treat it as if I rolled if I am not actually rolling, except to get the benefits of things that trigger from rolling? Static modifiers apply to damage rolls, vorpal applies whenever you roll the maximum result on a damage die (roll). Both would seem to trigger IF I had rolled maximum, since I am acting as if I had, then they both trigger in my interpretation of the rules. (which is different enough from Alcestis to cause friction and irritation) I always interpreted the rule to be I calculate as if I had rolled max, so there was no need to actually roll. The new writing is a bit weird to me.
I am of the middle-ground group in this argument, personally. If I am acting "as if" I had rolled maximum damage, then I should at least get to "re-roll" the dice and add them in. I interpret the rules that a 2d10+10 vorpal crit should do 30+2d10 (re-rolling and adding maxes) because we act in all ways as if we had rolled the dice.
As a side note, the vorpal property applies to "all damage die for this weapon" and not specifically to [W] Weapon Dice, should it not apply to the crit dice or high crit dice generated by the weapon? That is how my group has been playing it and since it adds to the fun of the weapon, I doubt we will change it, but I was curious about how this is being interpreted by you guys as well.
(This should be my only post on the subject, since I can see how and why we are disagreeing. My only hope is that you are able to see the other side of the argument as well, since it's all in the interpretation. Even if the way I am interpreting it is actually wrong, it's more fun and thus, will be how I use it for my games. Hurrah! for D&D being a rules guidlines!)
No. Jesus Christ. The sentence before that says you do not roll. No rolling happens. Ever. At any point. The sentence after that, which is a sub-clause and still exists under the restriction that you do not and have not rolled, says to add up the damage as if you had rolled, bearing in that the explicit restriction that you did not actually roll. I feel like everyone who doesn't understand this is failing to understand how clauses work in English, because they are emphasizing the second sentence and ignoring the first. The two are a set. Clause. Sub-clause. That is how English (and, to a large degree, how all languages) work.
Did you roll? No. Does Vorpal require rolling? Yes. Did Vorpal trigger? Nope.
Ugh. Reading is not this hard.
Damn. I can see from your post count that you have been here - and have contributed - for a long time... But do you get this upset all the time? I'm not your enemy, I'm just trying to make sense of this for myself (and possibly for others). I think you need to calm down a little, and cut the veiled insults. Like I said if you think you're too frustrated to deal with us, you don't have to, I'm perfectly willing to discuss this with anyone else - nothing requires you to stay if you're going to continue to argue by insulting my reading comprehension. I don't appreciate it in the slightest.
Back to the point at hand, I know you don't roll. I never said you do. I said you pretend you rolled. So lets take this step by step.
Do we pretend we rolled maximum damage dice in order to find the attack's maximum damage?
Do we act as if what we just pretended is what actually happens?
Does rolling maximum damage dice proc Vorpal? (This doesn't need answering, obviously, just putting it in context)
Since we are acting as if we just rolled maximum damage dice, does that mean we are acting as if the requirements for a Vorpal proc were just met? (Since we are acting as if x, and Vorpal triggers off x, and x="rolled max damage dice", this comes down to "act as if we rolled max damage dice"="act as if we rolled max damage dice" - simple substitution)
I think yes on all counts. Since we pretend we rolled max damage, we act as if Vorpal trigger was met, and I think that means that we act as if Vorpal procs. I still don't see why not, even if no physical rolls were made.
I am okay with the "middle ground" interpretation just because I think it's neat. I think there is a strong argument to be made for infinite damage, but it's also very distasteful to me, so I am not bothering defending that particular interpretation at the moment.
What I feel strongly about, though, is that the vorpal property should definitely in some way be factored in to the crit, based on RAW. Was it intended? Probably not. Would I ever allow the infinite damage interpretation into a game? Hell no, I would houserule the crap out of that. But the argument is about whether it's RAW.
@Velkon: I think I have agreed 100% with everything you have written, including your assertion that Alcestis is starting to sound a bit...pompous.
No. Jesus Christ. The sentence before that says you do not roll. No rolling happens. Ever. At any point. The sentence after that, which is a sub-clause and still exists under the restriction that you do not and have not rolled, says to add up the damage as if you had rolled, bearing in that the explicit restriction that you did not actually roll. I feel like everyone who doesn't understand this is failing to understand how clauses work in English, because they are emphasizing the second sentence and ignoring the first. The two are a set. Clause. Sub-clause. That is how English (and, to a large degree, how all languages) work.
Did you roll? No. Does Vorpal require rolling? Yes. Did Vorpal trigger? Nope.
Ugh. Reading is not this hard.
I was gonna raise some objections to your tone, but Velkon beat me to it. I'm a pretty new member here, but I've been reading the boards without comments for a while, and I know that you are considered Kind Of A Big Deal around this board. But you're being rude, not just in terms of the tone (I actually don't mind that), but the way that you are dismissing people's arguments.
I have repeatedly raised very specific objections to things you've said, and then written out really detailed arguments for my own perspective. I put a lot of thought and also time into every post I've written. However, when you respond, you rarely actually address any of the specific points; most of your replies are just repeating your previous reply, with the same wording, without even touching the objections made by everyone else.
I've tried changing things around, making high-level arguments, low-level arguments, arguments by comparison to other game elements, arguments by directly analyzing the text...you've ignored almost all of them. I'm not going to ask you to go back and reread them, because at this point there've been so many, and going back now would clearly take up a lot of your time. So instead, I will make one new argument. It will be long, and it will be detailed, but that is so that I never skip any steps or hide any assumptions. I will spend a lot of effort on this one argument. Please do me the courtesy of, instead of just repeating yourself and ignoring all of what I wrote, actually telling me the specific place where my argument breaks down - I know you already disagree with my conclusion, but please actually address this particular argument.
Here we go:
I will argue, again, that vorpal should be treated the same way as a bonus to damage rolls. This does not actually establish that vorpal affects crits, but instead I'll try to show that "if you accept damage roll bonuses as part of a crit's base damage, then you must also accept vorpal"...I think for most people that would be sufficient to show that vorpal applies.
Contentions: 1) the trigger for a bonus to damage rolls to apply is as follows: you make a damage roll. This is actually never formally specified, and as such I go with the extremely obvious English understanding of it, which is that a bonus to damage rolls applies if and only if a damage roll is being made.
2) the trigger for the vorpal property is this: you roll damage AND the damage is from the weapon AND you get the maximum result
Now, we can simplify the vorpal property's trigger for our purposes, because the last two clauses seem to be agreed on. Clearly, the damage is from the weapon, and clearly you have the maximum result (since that's the exact phrase RC 217 uses in the Maximum Damage entry). Let me know if you disagree, but I think everyone is on board that those two parts of it are taken care of in this situation.
So now we have two triggers: 1) for a bonus to damage rolls: you make a damage roll 2) for the vorpal property: you roll your damage
At this point, I can see a couple perspectives. One perspective, is that these two triggers are equivalent: making a damage roll and rolling damage are synonymous. Therefore, either both of them trigger, or neither one does.
The other perspective is that, technically, the wording is slightly different. 1 refers to a "damage roll," which is a noun, and is a specific game element with a specific meaning; 2, on the other hand, uses "rolling" as a verb and as such requires actual rolling of dice, because you are using that verb.
This second perspective is actually more backwards. The wording of Maximum Damage is "Don't make a damage roll [the noun version]. Instead, the target takes damage as if the maximum result had been rolled [the verb version] for damage." So in fact, using that second, stricter perspective, vorpal *does* count whereas bonuses to damage rolls *don't*. Because it specifically forbids the noun version, and specifically says that the verb version does happen (or rather, you pretend it happened for purposes of the damage calculation, but whatever).
I can't see any other reasonable interpretations of what's written. If I missed some relevant passage, or made some crazy logical leap, or whatever else, please let me know. Specifically. Not just that I'm wrong because I came to a different conclusion than you.
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.
I got heat from Alcestis myself In any case, I do see why there is conflict with regards to the interpretations on the Vorpal property, and why one side insists that, at least from a theoretical perspective, that the Vorpal property should auto-kill a target.
Compare the PHB version, where the Vorpal property was first published:
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.)
To the RC version:
When an attack scores a critical hit against a target, the target takes the maximum damage possible from the attack. Don't make a damage roll. Instead, the target takes damage as if the maximum result had been rolled for damage. However, attacks that don't deal damage still don't deal damage on a critical hit.
And to the Vorpal property itself:
Whenever you roll the maximum result on any damage die for this weapon, roll that die again and add the additional result to the damage total. If a reroll results in another maximum damage result, roll it again and keep adding.
Frankly, I'm thinking that the issue here is context: The Vorpal property has so far been updated in terms only of Rarity; apparently the ones in charge of either RC or errata had forgotten to double check the implications of the new wording, which apparently had inadvertently allowed for an infinite Vorpal damage interpretation.
If you look at the Vorpal property within the context of the original wording of the said entry, I'm not so sure you could go for the interpretations as laid out by ThatWasTotallyNinja, because
1. Your critical damage is the maximum damage you could can get, without actually rolling 2. Vorpal requires you roll (for the maximum result before you could get the extra die roll)
At least, that's how I'm seeing it *shrugs*
EDIT: For the most part, the RC is technically clearer in delineating the general concept, although in the case of the Vorpal property it's easy to see why the infinite damage loop could exist if you look at the RC entry without looking at the PHB entry.
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery.
... but the consensus is apparently still the same, regardless of how much you shout "BUT IT'S RAW! IT'S RAW!": No, you don't get infinite damage because of the "maximum damage possible".
Sorry, I didn't actually get around to checking that thread out till now. I'd say that the PotG feature is a lot less clear than the RC wording on crits. "You deal maximum damage" is pretty vague...I actually still think the instakill still applies, but it is not anywhere near as clear-cut, because of the vague wording.
The RC wording, on the other hand, is different. In fact, if you look at the second page of the thread you linked me to, ChaosMage makes a statement that if the wording were like what it says in the RC, then it would be an instakill. So the two threads aren't really discussing the same question.
As for the PHB wording, again, it's too vague to be as sure what to do. But regardless, the wording in the RC is meant to replace that one, so it takes precedence in every way.
Still, as far as I can see, your position is that RAW probably falls on my side but every reasonable way of thinking of what they *meant* to write says that it's not an instakill, right? If that's your position then you and I don't really disagree on anything.
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.
In any case, I do see why there is conflict with regards to the interpretations on the Vorpal property, and why one side insists that, at least from a theoretical perspective, that the Vorpal property should auto-kill a target.