Vorpal Uber Weapons?!?

[Hypersmurf]

Actually, hyp... you missed the fact that those inconsistancies only result when applying your logic to them.

Hmm?

How can "A [W] in a damage expression stands for your weapon's damage dice" not be inconsistent, given the existence of 1dx weapons?

The longsword has a singular concept - [W] - with a singular physical representation - a d8.

The falchion has a singular concept - [W] - with a plural physical representation - two d4s.

So for the longsword, it makes sense to use 'die' when you're talking about [W], and it makes sense to use 'dice' when you're talking about 2[W]. It never makes sense to use 'dice' when you're talking about [W], because both concept and physical representation are singular.

So regardless of what you consider 'damage die' to refer to, p276 doesn't make sense.

-Hyp.

 

[DracoSuave]

Here is your logic, presented to you in plain form.

On a page in the book, it refers to an object using a noun of the singular inflection.
That object must therefore be a singular object, even tho it is a collection of objects.

That is your logic. Convert to logic using variables.

According to reference, in regards to situations of type S, whenever an object, A, is refered to with an inflection of a noun with quality B, then it must contain quality B without any possibility of variance.

Type S is where weapon damage dice are refered to
object A is in this case, a weapon with 2dx as its listed damage
quality B is in this case, speaking of 2dx as tho it were a single die and not two.

Now, no one is disagreeing that S is the situation refered to, or that object A does not exist, or that it was not refered to as 'damage die.'

However....

This argument fails due to invalid form. Proof by counter example.

Let quality B be instead 'speaking of 2dx as tho it were plural dice'

This changes the argument to this:

On a page in the book, it refers to an object using a noun of the plural inflection.
That object must therefore be a plurality of objects, even tho it is a collection of objects.


Now, seperating both arguments into premises and conclusion is rather simple.

Here are the premises:

On a page in the book, it refers to an object using a noun of the singular inflection.
On a page in the book, it refers to an object using a noun of the plural inflection.

Both premises share the same truth value, so the argument should come out with a true result no matter what, if your logic is correct.

Now compare the conclusions:

That object must therefore be a singular object, even tho it is a collection of objects.
That object must therefore be a plurality of objects, even tho it is a collection of objects.

singular means that the cardinality of objects is equal to exactly 1.
plurality means that the cardinality of objects is greater than 1 or equal to 0.

The cardinality of objects cannot both be 1 and 0, and the cardinality of objects cannot both be 1 and greater than 1.

Ergo, the argument comes out with two completely different conclusions that are mutually exclusive, despite the introduction of premises with verified valid truth values.

Therefore, the argument form is invalid. Therefore the argument is invalid. Therefore the logic is false and contradictory.

Proof by Contradiction. Critical Thinking 001.

Now, here's my argument given back to you.

I roll with multiple dice. Therefore, there are multiple dice.

Let's substitute into this other qualities to see if the argument form works.

I roll with my homeys. Therefore, there are homeys.

I roll with the [metaphorical] punches. Therefore, there are [metaphorical] punches.

I roll with a cigarette roller. Therefore, there is a cigarette roller.


Hard to argue against a tautology.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I roll with multiple dice. Therefore, there are multiple dice.

There are certainly multiple dice. Those multiple dice can constitute multiple damage dice (for example, 2[W]), or a single damage die (for example, the 2d4 [W] of a falchion).

The Vorpal power acts on a damage die, and there is no definition of 'damage die' on p276; however, there is a definition of 'damage die' on p219, and for a falchion, it's 2d4. For the falchion, one damage die involves rolling multiple dice. And if the result of that damage die - the multiple dice - is the maximum possible, the Vorpal power lets you roll that damage die - the multiple dice - again.

p276 is of no help to us, because it does not tell us what a damage die is. It does, fortunately, refer us to p218-219, wherein we can find that definition.

-Hyp.

 

[Shabe]

Is this a case of people taking preconceptions of other systems to prove RAW wrong?

I'm agreeing with the smurf and jabba in reading and applying RAW but in my game i'll be breaking RAW and ruling the otherway ie, you explode every single plastic polyhedral that turns up max.

 

[Trebor62]

So then you think it is logical that a vorpal hand ax will go vorpal six times as often as a vorpal large great axe. hand ax 1 in 6, large great axe 1 in 36. Or consider by your logic a human great axe will vorpal three times as often as large size great axe. RAW the vorpal hand ax and large great ax would both have 1 in six.

Consider your position a Halfing with a vorpal hand ax will vorpal a troll with a troll sized vorpal great ax six times more often assuming equal chances to hit. RAW the two ax's would preform equally in terms of vorpaling.

 

[DracoSuave]

There are certainly multiple dice. Those multiple dice can constitute multiple damage dice (for example, 2[W]), or a single damage die (for example, the 2d4 [W] of a falchion).

The Vorpal power acts on a damage die, and there is no definition of 'damage die' on p276; however, there is a definition of 'damage die' on p219, and for a falchion, it's 2d4. For the falchion, one damage die involves rolling multiple dice. And if the result of that damage die - the multiple dice - is the maximum possible, the Vorpal power lets you roll that damage die - the multiple dice - again.

p276 is of no help to us, because it does not tell us what a damage die is. It does, fortunately, refer us to p218-219, wherein we can find that definition.

-Hyp.

This brings up the final problem.

That page 219 does use a plural -and- the singular to refer to the same quality. Which implies it could be -either- singular or plural. That is, the weapon damage dice quality could have 1 die, or more dice.

I'm serious here. Your interpretation is weak.

Not to mention....

At no point does Vorpal even -refer- to 'weapon damage dice' OR 'weapon damage die'. So mention or use of the game term 'weapon damage die' or '...... dice' is sophistry. The term used is 'damage dice' period.

If you want to get -technical-, that is.

And seeing as your argument is based on a technicality based on one (flawed) interpretation of the english language.... and not the only -possible- interpretation of that language, a technical argument also defeats you.

You're absolutely convinced of this fact, without taking into account the fact that entire -philosophies- behind the game design -also- run counter to your claim.

The game is designed around simplicity and elegance, with game mechanics designed efficiency, and with definate purpose. Every aspect of the game design is designed to be simple and easily grokkable.

And you're trying to tell me that in the midst of this elegant well tuned machine, that they'd decide to make a multi-die weapon damage a 'singular die' for all purposes of rerolls... for no apparent reason.... without actually spelling it out or explaining why in any of the books?


That isn't -rational.-

 

[Puggins]

Mechanically, re-rolling every singular die (ie, every d4 that comes up 4 on a falchion) gives an advantage to that weapon. It's substantial, but it's not jaw-dropping.

A vorpal falchion's average damage on its normal dice goes up from 5 to 6.75, a 35% improvement.

A vorpal longsword's average damage on its normal dice goes up from 4.5 to 5.2, a 16% improvement.

On a 7[w] attack, a falcion's damage improves from 35 to 47. A longsword's damage will improve from 31 to 36.

In terms of balance, I'd pull for the "8 on 2d4" angle. It screw falchions, unfortunately, but it doesn't catapult the maul (2d6) any further into the lead as the best weapon of 4e, and in fact brings it a bit down comparatively, which is a good thing.

 

[GoLu]

By definition.
-Hyp.

Odd as it might sound to you, I disagree here. RAW nearly always contains typos or examples based on the way rules worked several revisions ago or sloppy language or things that are just plain poorly explained. We can't always know RAI, but... well, by definition, the game is intended to be played using the RAI and not the RAW.

As a quick example, on page 276 the damage type example has someone using a thundering longsword's encounter power to do 10 thunder damage and push 1. There is no encounter power in the thundering weapon description on page 236. In this case, the RAW is wrong.

I suspect that "damage die" and "damage dice" (since both the singular and plural are used, apparently regardless of how many dice you actually roll) are examples of sloppy language used in an attempt to explain what [W] means. And since rolling all your d4s in pairs in order to track which set of 2d4 rolled an 8 is too much of a pain in the butt to be believed, I'm finding it hard to accept that the vorpal power would be intended to work like that.

Plus, I've noticed that official game terms are often capitalized. Thus, halflings are Small and the items that prestidigitation can turn invisible are merely small. I don't see damage die/dice being capitalized. Although certainly not every game term is capitalized, so I'm basically guessing here, and my guess is that you are reading too much into it and treating relatively loose game terms as if they were strictly defined.

(That said, your reading of the rules isn't inaccurate. All the definitions of 'damage die' and 'damage dice' and even the weapon scaling rules on page 220 back you up on that. I'm just doubting that the vorpal rules are an intentional reference to that definition.)

One more thought:

If the vorpal weapon only lets you reroll maxed damage dice, and if damage dice are, quite specifically, [W]s... Does that mean that only the [W] part of an attack can be rerolled? No rerolling crit bonus damage because those are "dice of damage" (page 225) and not "damage dice"?

 

[hamishspence]

typos

That is indeed a good example of a typo: on P276 for encounter read daily, and for 10 thunder damge, read 1d8 thunder damage.

That was what I initially thought: that only high crit vorpal weapons got serious vorpalization. but most people have said that the daily power and the critical dice also count.

For maxing on a critical, high crit and critical dice dont count, from what I can tell.

 

[ST]

All I know is, when it comes to a fistful of dice scenario, I am *not* going to try to keep track of which die was for what. I read vorpal as "You roll damage using exploding dice",which is a lot simpler to do.

I totally understand that exploding dice mechanics have small dice explode more often than big ones, I've seen that mechanic in games before. It makes the math a bit wonky but it doesn't really bother me, and it sounds like it doesn't really make much of a difference balance-wise if you do it one way or the other.