|
1 year ago ::
Dec 17, 2011 - 2:09AM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2007
|
Let's look at this question from another angle. Genasi with the Embersoul Manifestation have an ability called Firedeath. It's used when they take damage. The effect is "all damage dice rolled for the triggering attack are considered to have a result of 1".
Alright. So, if you're attacked by a monster whose attack inflicts 2d6+4 damage, then Firedeath causes you to take 6 damage. That's pretty easy.
But what if the monster crits you? Do you A) take full damage because damage isn't actually rolled on a crit or B) take 6 damage as if the minimum possible damage was rolled.
If you say A, then it certainly follows that vorpal does not trigger on a critical hit. But wait! There's more!
Certain monsters have something very like the brutal quality with their attacks. The Gnoll Mockery Priest, for example, re-rolls any result of '1' for the damage of their Pain Khopesh attack. If the Priest attacks, and Firedeath is used in reply to the attack, what happens now? All damage dice are considered to have rolled '1', but you reroll ones until they come up as 2 or higher. This either creates an infinite loop, or you have to accept that 'considered to have rolled' is not the same as 'actually rolling dice'. In other words, Firedeath wins, because you didn't actually roll anything; you replace the result of the roll with X, which in this case is the minimum possible damage.
Vorpal triggers when you are fortunate enough to physically roll the maximum result on a damage die. If you are told to replace a die roll with a set amount of damage, be it maximum or minimum, Vorpal doesn't trigger.
To use the 2d10+10 example, if you attack and roll damage, any d10 that rolls a 10 can 'explode' for additional damage. But if I tell you "no, replace your damage roll with X" (no matter what the result of X is), that isn't the same as if you physically rolled the dice.
"You can always judge a man by the quality of his enemies." -The Doctor, Remembrance of the Daleks
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 17, 2011 - 3:19AM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Jan 21, 2011
|
Let's look at this question from another angle. Genasi with the Embersoul Manifestation have an ability called Firedeath. It's used when they take damage. The effect is "all damage dice rolled for the triggering attack are considered to have a result of 1".
Alright. So, if you're attacked by a monster whose attack inflicts 2d6+4 damage, then Firedeath causes you to take 6 damage. That's pretty easy.
But what if the monster crits you? Do you A) take full damage because damage isn't actually rolled on a crit or B) take 6 damage as if the minimum possible damage was rolled.
If you say A, then it certainly follows that vorpal does not trigger on a critical hit. But wait! There's more!
Certain monsters have something very like the brutal quality with their attacks. The Gnoll Mockery Priest, for example, re-rolls any result of '1' for the damage of their Pain Khopesh attack. If the Priest attacks, and Firedeath is used in reply to the attack, what happens now? All damage dice are considered to have rolled '1', but you reroll ones until they come up as 2 or higher. This either creates an infinite loop, or you have to accept that 'considered to have rolled' is not the same as 'actually rolling dice'. In other words, Firedeath wins, because you didn't actually roll anything; you replace the result of the roll with X, which in this case is the minimum possible damage.
Vorpal triggers when you are fortunate enough to physically roll the maximum result on a damage die. If you are told to replace a die roll with a set amount of damage, be it maximum or minimum, Vorpal doesn't trigger.
To use the 2d10+10 example, if you attack and roll damage, any d10 that rolls a 10 can 'explode' for additional damage. But if I tell you "no, replace your damage roll with X" (no matter what the result of X is), that isn't the same as if you physically rolled the dice.
If you said to replace a die roll with it's maximum damage, I agree, that doesn't trigger vorpal. If you said to treat the die roll as if the maximum result was rolled, that might sound the same at first, but it is not. That version (which is what is said in Ancient Forebears' Rage, for example) would trigger vorpal. This is actually something that the forum generally agrees on (lots of builds using that power I named for crazy damage)...obviously the fact that the forum agrees doesn't make it correct automatically, but it does suggest that you should look more closely at the argument just in case.
In regard to your Firedeath+brutal example, the answer is again a detail in the wording. Firedeath doesn't say, "act as though you rolled a 1". It says that the result of that die roll is a 1. It might seem nitpicky, but it's different. As it is written, here's what happens: you roll the dice. Maybe you even reroll some of them because of brutal. You have a bunch of dice with different numbers on them, all greater than 1. Now, you ignore every one of those numbers, and use "1" instead. That's what it means for the result of the die roll to be "1"...in the end, it is a 1.
And then again, I say A for your hypothetical, but it's not inconsistent. Like I've written earlier in this thread: vorpal does not actually trigger. But when you calculate damage for the attack, you do so as if vorpal triggered, so you still get to add in that effect...but vorpal never genuinely triggered. You are calculating your damage *as if* you made a damage roll; you're not rolling any damage dice.
Firedeath's damage reduction does not trigger because the timing is different. It shows up after damage was already calculated, and says "all the dice you rolled in that calculation are a 1" (we didn't roll any dice). Vorpal is in effect when you are calculating the damage in the first place.
If Firedeath was instead an effect on the creature, like "until the end of your next turn, all damage dice you roll are considered to have a result of 1", then I actually think it would affect crits, because the crit language refers to the maximum result you could get, and at that moment because of this effect you are under, the maximum result is different than normal (the maximum result is 1 on each die, because that is the only result you can get according to the effect). But this is getting kind of off-topic.
...I had to think about that last one for a minute. Good point.
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 17, 2011 - 3:21AM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Oct 30, 2011
|
As a side note because comparing vorpal damage to static damage has been addressed in this thread. I don't know what the rewritten rule states, but a damage roll specifically states that damage from a feat, racial, and enhancement damage is included in a damage roll. So when you take maximum damage on a crit you are taking the value of a maximum damage roll, which RAW states includes all the static damage. As has been pointed out a vorpal weapon would have no reason to include a +1d12 per plus on a critical hit if RAW was meant to mean a vorpal crit was instakill. Instead the crit line of the vorpal weapon would just state instakill instead of providing bonus damage. Now I can definately see the argument for a houserule or RAI or maybe even RAW that a vorpal weapon making a critical hit would also be able to roll an additional die for each die that would have been rolled for maximum damage as well as the 6d12 bonus damage. So the most a vorpal weapon user at my table would be able to possibly argue that they can do is take max base damage say 3(w) + str with a 1d12 weapon, they would at best be able to argue they get 36 + str + 9d12 + however many of those are 12s + how ever many of those are 12s + etc. It isn't like a vorpal weapon is going to come cheap or handed to everyone or even that a vorpal weapon is going to crit every encounter. I would never allow it to be ruled as instakill no matter how compelling the argument. If it became ruled as instakill somehow at my table I would have it stolen and no other vorpal blade would ever show up in one of my campaigns ever again. All you need to do is have a campaign build up to fighting a god and have that vorpal weapon crit in the first round to ruin all the fun for the night.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 17, 2011 - 4:42AM
#34
|
|
|
Hmm, that Embersoul thingy sure is something  I just hope he doesn't have to deal with an enemy that has a brutal 1 weapon... [ Not really part of the topic, just noticed it :P ]
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 17, 2011 - 6:25AM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Sep 13, 2007
|
Allow me to throw a monkey wrench into the works. The arguement is that you didn't actually roll damage, therefore Vorpal doesn't trigger. If this position is true, then a lot of other things become broken. The phrasing below is "the target takes damage as if the maximum results had been rolled".
You need the first sentence. First sentence: You do not roll. Then "as if". The as if sentence is modifying the sentence that says you do not actually roll, instead you pretend that you rolled. The example is not applicable because those say "as if" without any restrictions. In this case there is a restriction. So you get to pretend you rolled in all ways except that you didn't actually roll. That is how a clause and sub-clause work.
There is no difference between the following:
Effect: Heal as if you had spent a healing surge.
Effect: Do not spend a healing surge. Instead, heal as if you had spent a healing surge.
Why you ask? Because "Do not spend a healing surge" is implied in the first wording. It's not explicitly called out, but I'm pretty sure we all agree that you don't actually spend a surge even though it's not written. Therefore, the only difference I see in those two lines is the absence (or presence) of the explicit text. How you can read that as a "restriction" is beyond me.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 17, 2011 - 4:08PM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Jun 29, 2011
|
*snip*
Why you ask? Because "Do not spend a healing surge" is implied in the first wording. It's not explicitly called out, but I'm pretty sure we all agree that you don't actually spend a surge even though it's not written. Therefore, the only difference I see in those two lines is the absence (or presence) of the explicit text. How you can read that as a "restriction" is beyond me.
This is my understanding exactly.
As a side note because comparing vorpal damage to static damage has been addressed in this thread. I don't know what the rewritten rule states, but a damage roll specifically states that damage from a feat, racial, and enhancement damage is included in a damage roll. So when you take maximum damage on a crit you are taking the value of a maximum damage roll, which RAW states includes all the static damage.
Exactly. Damage Roll requires static mods. But you're not rolling, which is the argument made against Vorpal triggering. Since you aren't rolling, they aren't added. By this logic, if you aren't rolling, you don't get static mods either, since nothing in the Crit entry says to add static mods.
EDIT: Just wanted to add that even if this argument works against Vorpal triggering, we aren't even arguing that Vorpal actually triggers at all. We're arguing that we're being told to act as if Vorpal had triggered. Subtle difference.
As has been pointed out a vorpal weapon would have no reason to include a +1d12 per plus on a critical hit if RAW was meant to mean a vorpal crit was instakill. Instead the crit line of the vorpal weapon would just state instakill instead of providing bonus damage. Now I can definately see the argument for a houserule or RAI or maybe even RAW that a vorpal weapon making a critical hit would also be able to roll an additional die for each die that would have been rolled for maximum damage as well as the 6d12 bonus damage. So the most a vorpal weapon user at my table would be able to possibly argue that they can do is take max base damage say 3(w) + str with a 1d12 weapon, they would at best be able to argue they get 36 + str + 9d12 + however many of those are 12s + how ever many of those are 12s + etc. It isn't like a vorpal weapon is going to come cheap or handed to everyone or even that a vorpal weapon is going to crit every encounter. I would never allow it to be ruled as instakill no matter how compelling the argument. If it became ruled as instakill somehow at my table I would have it stolen and no other vorpal blade would ever show up in one of my campaigns ever again. All you need to do is have a campaign build up to fighting a god and have that vorpal weapon crit in the first round to ruin all the fun for the night.
This is, again, my understanding exactly. The RAI is pretty clear - especially when compared to the PHB version of a crit, since it doesn't say "as if you rolled". If we were using the PHB version of critical hit, there would be no doubt. It is absolutely clear to all parties involved that we are discussing the minutae of RAW and that none of us really intend to apply "one crit one kill" to the Vorpal weapon. I personally don't really plan on picking up a Vorpal weapon anyway, seems overrated. I've got other ways to kill Gods.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 18, 2011 - 5:48AM
#37
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2009
|
The Vorpal Property never trigger on a Crit because it specifically require that you roll, something you never do when you Crit because the target takes damage as if the maximum had been rolled. Whenever you roll cannot trigger when you don't roll, even when pretending as if maximum result has been rolled, because the Vorpal require to roll in the first place. Otherwise the Vorpal would have been in the Handbook of Broken a long time ago.  Property: 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. Critical Hit: 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.
Yan
Montréal, Canada
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 18, 2011 - 8:19AM
#38
|
Date Joined:
Jun 29, 2011
|
So why do static mods apply to a crit, when you do not make a damage roll? I'm sure there's probably something, but I can't find it - all I see is that Vorpal triggers when you roll, and you add static mods when you roll.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 18, 2011 - 9:22AM
#39
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2009
|
Because a damage roll doesn't necessarly have to be systematically rolled for all modifiers to apply to it.
In a Hit: 2d10+10, the +10 (damage modifier) is already factored in wether the 2d10 are rolled or the target take damage as if the maximum had been rolled for them.
Yan
Montréal, Canada
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 18, 2011 - 11:15AM
#40
|
Date Joined:
Sep 13, 2007
|
Because a damage roll doesn't necessarly have to be systematically rolled for all modifiers to apply to it.
In a Hit: 2d10+10, the +10 (damage modifier) is already factored in wether the 2d10 are rolled or the target take damage as if the maximum had been rolled for them.
Plague, since Alcestis seems to have given up on this debate and you seem to agree with his position, could you kindly address my point. Mind you I'm not arguing that infinite damage is possible, but I don't see how Vorpal doesn't trigger (at least once - RAW) on a crit based on my analogy to surges. And really I'm not interested in debating if it should or shouldn't be infinite, because no DM is going to allow that RAW or otherwise.
|
|
|
