# Vorpal Uber Weapons?!?



## Jabba Von Hutt (Jun 25, 2008)

So let me get this straight I just rolled 7 on a weapon that does 2-8 pts damage. And somehow I get to roll another d4 due to it being vorpal. You guys can't be serious? That comes off as so cheesy it's not even funny. As this been FAQed somewhere because I would laugh any player off my table without seeing it in writing.

If you're looking for numbers see post #39


----------



## hamishspence (Jun 25, 2008)

*you only get extra dice if the roll is the maximum you can roll*

And vorpal items are 30th level, you'd expect nice properties at high level.


----------



## DLichen (Jun 25, 2008)

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1044906

According to the last post on this thread, custserv says yes.

I know it's not the actual quoted response, but I don't see a reason for the poster to lie.


----------



## Jabba Von Hutt (Jun 25, 2008)

And if I roll a total of 8 then I will roll another 2d4 but not 1d4 per 4.


----------



## Jabba Von Hutt (Jun 25, 2008)

Problem with CustServ that I have experienced on numerous occasions dealing with GW rules is you get different answers depending on which rep you ask. So I certainly will not take their word for it here either.


----------



## baberg (Jun 25, 2008)

You wanna see it in writing?  PHB p.236.



> 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. If a reroll results in another maximum damage result, roll it again and keep adding.



Your 2-8 rolling indicates you're rolling 2d4 for damage.  One of the dice came up a 4 (maximum result on that damage die) so you roll it again and add.

I don't see where the confusion comes in.  It's all pretty straightforward.


----------



## DLichen (Jun 25, 2008)

Well, according to my link, any 4 would on a 1d4 would mean a reroll, no matter if you're rolling 2d4 or 14d4.

And a 8 would mean a 8+2d4, and a 7 from a 3,4 on 2d4 would mean 7+1d4.

You are free to disbelieve however.


----------



## Jabba Von Hutt (Jun 25, 2008)

baberg said:
			
		

> You wanna see it in writing?  PHB p.236.
> 
> Your 2-8 rolling indicates you're rolling 2d4 for damage.  One of the dice came up a 4 (maximum result on that damage die) so you roll it again and add.
> 
> I don't see where the confusion comes in.  It's all pretty straightforward.




Max damage is 8 for the weapon rules lawyering it won't change that fact.


----------



## DLichen (Jun 25, 2008)

baberg said:
			
		

> You wanna see it in writing?  PHB p.236.
> 
> Your 2-8 rolling indicates you're rolling 2d4 for damage.  One of the dice came up a 4 (maximum result on that damage die) so you roll it again and add.
> 
> I don't see where the confusion comes in.  It's all pretty straightforward.




The confusion stems that damage die leads to weapon damage die on the back of the PHB.

IE [2d4] as a whole.

You can interpret damage die as any die that the vorpal weapon gives you, including the d12s, or weapon damage die only. The rules are iffy on that.


----------



## med stud (Jun 25, 2008)

Considering that previous vorpal swords were insta-kill on criticals, this one is weaker. I can't see the problem here.


----------



## baberg (Jun 25, 2008)

Jabba Von Hutt said:
			
		

> Max damage is 8 for the weapon rules lawyering it won't change that fact.



I don't care what max damage for the weapon is, and neither does the Vorpal Property.  It doesn't say "Whenever you roll the maximum possible amount for this weapon" it says "Whenever you roll the maximum result *on any damage die* for this weapon"

It's not rules lawyering.  It's the rule, period.  You're misreading it.


----------



## Jabba Von Hutt (Jun 25, 2008)

med stud said:
			
		

> Considering that previous vorpal swords were insta-kill on criticals, this one is weaker. I can't see the problem here.




Really the only saving grace on Vorpal is the high level because if it was in the lower 20's I wouldn't be surprised to see a remarkable coincidence of players with vorpal on xd4 weapons.


----------



## Jabba Von Hutt (Jun 25, 2008)

baberg said:
			
		

> I don't care what max damage for the weapon is, and neither does the Vorpal Property.  It doesn't say "Whenever you roll the maximum possible amount for this weapon" it says "Whenever you roll the maximum result *on any damage die* for this weapon"
> 
> It's not rules lawyering.  It's the rule, period.  You're misreading it.




Bahahahahahahahahahaha!

Sorry it took a while to stop laughing. The fact that 95% of the weapons in the PHB use a SINGLE die for damage doesn't lead you think that maybe just maybe they meant max damage from the die or 5% of time dice. 

I guess not, this is why we need 1000 page rule books. sigh


----------



## bganon (Jun 25, 2008)

I don't quite get why it's so bad/overpowering.  I've run simulations: a vorpal falchion averages about 46 points of damage on a 6[W] attack, versus 36 points for a vanilla +6 falchion.  Meanwhile, the vanilla +6 greateaxe is doing 45 points.  This does ignore crits (and the whole argument about whether to explode the maximized dice), which is where vorpal weapons do tend to shine, but even that's as much because of the +6d12 on crit than the exploding dice.

Vorpals get a nice damage increase but it doesn't strike me as especially overpowering, especially since you pay for it with +4 levels, essentially.  Calculating damage is kind of a pain in the ass, though.


----------



## robertliguori (Jun 25, 2008)

Jabba Von Hutt said:
			
		

> Bahahahahahahahahahaha!
> 
> Sorry it took a while to stop laughing. The fact that 95% of the weapons in the PHB use a SINGLE die for damage doesn't lead you think that maybe just maybe they meant max damage from the die or 5% of time dice.
> 
> I guess not, this is why we need 1000 page rule books. sigh




A tip for those interested in civil discussion: "This is what the rule actually says." and "This is what (it is obvious to me) that the rule actually means." are not logically equivalent statements.  If you say the first while meaning the second, it is recommended that you add the Humpty-Dumpty quote to your signature, so that those of us who use words and expect consistent meaning will be forewarned.

That being said, were I to game 4E, I would change vorpal weapons so that each die of the weapon damage was rerolled.  If you roll 2d4 and get a 4 and a 3, you reroll the 1d4 that came up 4 and just that 1d4.  It would also explicitly only apply to the [W] damage dice.

This is not what the rule says.  Because the rule does not say what I want it to say, I am changing it to say what I want to say.


----------



## DLichen (Jun 25, 2008)

I agree with robertligouri 100%.

Also helpful if you note when you're doing something because you prefer it. That way we don't argue with you over it when it's completely meaningless.


----------



## Jabba Von Hutt (Jun 25, 2008)

bganon said:
			
		

> I don't quite get why it's so bad/overpowering.  I've run simulations: a vorpal falchion averages about 46 points of damage on a 6[W] attack, versus 36 points for a vanilla +6 falchion.  Meanwhile, the vanilla +6 greateaxe is doing 45 points.  This does ignore crits (and the whole argument about whether to explode the maximized dice), which is where vorpal weapons do tend to shine, but even that's as much because of the +6d12 on crit than the exploding dice.
> 
> Vorpals get a nice damage increase but it doesn't strike me as especially overpowering, especially since you pay for it with +4 levels, essentially.  Calculating damage is kind of a pain in the ass, though.




I have no idea why you're comparing a vorpal falchion to a vanilla greataxe. 

Let me put it this way, the inherent power equalizer for a vorpal weapon is, the greater the damage a weapon does the less frequently you will get that vorpal boost. So a 1d6 weapon will get the vorpal effect 2x as much as a 1d12 weapon. But the the 1d12 will score greater damage when it does proc (to steal a wow term). But now because you are rolling 2d4 you will proc a 1d4 die extra damage half the time. So your base damage of 2-8 which is better than say 1d6 damage weapon now also procs more times than a 1d6 damage weapon which breaks the equalization.

You honestly believe that was the designers intent?


----------



## kerbarian (Jun 25, 2008)

Honestly, while the vorpal weapon damage looks potentially huge, it doesn't work out that way if you do the math.  In the best possible case -- using a vorpal falchion (2d4) with gauntlets of destruction (reroll all 1's) -- you raise the average [W] damage from 5 to 9.  Just using a weapon with 2d6 base damage would give you average [W] damage of 7.  It's still a good combo, but it doesn't seem overpowered for what you're spending.

Math on the 5 -> 9 [W] damage:

A basic falchion is 2d4, with an average of 2.5 per d4, so 5 average damage total.

Rerolling all 1's means that your possible results are 2,3,4 on each die, and that gives vorpal a 1/3 chance of granting an extra roll, then a 1/3 chance of granting an extra roll on the extra roll, etc.  That works out to 1 / (1 - 1/3) = 1.5 rolls per die on average.  With possible results of 2,3,4, the average damage per die is 3, and the rerolls boost that to 4.5.  A falchion starts at 2d4, so that's a total of 9 average damage.

If you're using a vorpal falchion without the gauntlets, the average [W] damage is 6.67, which is less than a non-vorpal 2d6 weapon.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 25, 2008)

Jabba Von Hutt said:
			
		

> Let me put it this way, the inherent power equalizer for a vorpal weapon is, the greater the damage a weapon does the less frequently you will get that vorpal boost. So a 1d6 weapon will get the vorpal effect 2x as much as a 1d12 weapon. But the the 1d12 will score greater damage when it does proc (to steal a wow term). But now because you are rolling 2d4 you will proc a 1d4 die extra damage half the time. So your base damage of 2-8 which is better than say 1d6 damage weapon now also procs more times than a 1d6 damage weapon which breaks the equalization.
> 
> You honestly believe that was the designers intent?




Let's say you only get the Vorpal damage when you roll two 4s.

Your base damage with a 1d12 weapon is better than a 2d4 weapon, but the 1d12 weapon "procs" more often than the 2d4 weapon (1 in 12 instead of 1 in 16), which breaks the equalisation.

... do you honestly believe that was the designers' intent?

-Hyp.


----------



## Jabba Von Hutt (Jun 25, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Let's say you only get the Vorpal damage when you roll two 4s.
> 
> Your base damage with a 1d12 weapon is better than a 2d4 weapon, but the 1d12 weapon "procs" more often than the 2d4 weapon (1 in 12 instead of 1 in 16), which breaks the equalisation.
> 
> ...




True enough, 8.33% is greater than 6.25%. But still allot closer than 50%.

I don't have my 4e PHB handy so I'm not sure about the glossary there. But I'm pretty sure I remember from 3e them saying to treat die=dice when talking about weapon damage. ie pretend you have a single die that has 2-8 on it as opposed to rolling two separate dice and adding the results.

Anyway its been my experience to read beyond the RAW when dealing with these issues and I've been more right than wrong when the FAQ came out. By all means, if you can convince your DMs have at it. I wouldn't bite and I've heard no argument besides RAW. So like I said this is why rulebooks need to be 1000 pages to cover every single permutation and combination.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 26, 2008)

Jabba Von Hutt said:
			
		

> True enough, 8.33% is greater than 6.25%. But still allot closer than 50%.




But whether you consider the maximum per-d4 or per-2d4, either way, there's a break in the average-damage/reroll-frequency progression.  Which suggests that there is, in fact, no average-damage/reroll-frequency progression, and that arguing for _either_ interpretation based on the non-existent average-damage/reroll-frequency progression is invalid.

Similarly:


> The fact that 95% of the weapons in the PHB use a SINGLE die for damage doesn't lead you think that maybe just maybe they meant max damage from the die or 5% of time dice.




This can be expressed either way as well.

95% of weapons use a single die, thus in 95% of cases it's clear that each die's maximum is considered individually.  For the other 5%, why would we stop considering each die individually?

or

95% of weapons use a single die, thus in 95% of cases it's clear that the weapon's base damage in considered a single unit.  For the other 5%, why would we stop considering the base damage as a single unit?

The argument works either way, so again, it's meaningless.

The only definition that's important to resolving the question is "What is a damage die?"  

If any die used to calculate damage is a damage die, each d4 is considered separately, and so are dice involved in sneak attack, criticals, etc.

If any die that is part of a [W] is considered a damage die, then each d4 is considered separately, but sneak attack, criticals etc are not.

If a damage die means [W], then 2d4 is considered as a unit, but sneak attack, criticals etc are excluded.

-Hyp.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 26, 2008)

If you go with each individual die being considered, than 2d weapons (like glaives and mauls) benefit from Vorpal more often, but to a lesser degree than comparable large-die weapons, like greatswords and greataxes.   If you consider the two dice as a unit, then the weapons benefit much less from vorpal, and to about the same degree.

For instance, the chance of rolling at least one 6 on 2d6 is about 20%, but you only get 1d6 extra damage, while the chance, while the chance of rolling 12 on a d12 is only a little more than 8%, but you're rolling a d12.  The chance of rolling two sixes, OTOH, is less than 3%.   On a single die weapon, Vorpal adds a little over 1/2 a point of damage, on average - it's very swingy, more so the larger the die, but that's about the average, with smaller dice doing better (.625 for d4 to .54 for d12).  On a 2d6 weapon, counting each die sepparately adds about 1 point on average, while counting them together adds about 1/5th of a point on average.  

So, the question is, should the 2d6 weapon be about twice as good, or less than half as good?  Because 'about the same' doesn't seem to be an option.


----------



## DLichen (Jun 26, 2008)

TWICE AS GOOD, if only because Falchions need the boost and 2d6 twohanded is a maul that can't be vorpal.


----------



## Jabba Von Hutt (Jun 26, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> But whether you consider the maximum per-d4 or per-2d4, either way, there's a break in the average-damage/reroll-frequency progression.  Which suggests that there is, in fact, no average-damage/reroll-frequency progression, and that arguing for _either_ interpretation based on the non-existent average-damage/reroll-frequency progression is invalid.
> 
> Similarly:
> 
> ...




You didn't even address the second part of my argument but I guess I know why.

In no iteration of D&D do I ever recall treating each die of weapon damage separately. Nor do I see anything in 4e to indicate otherwise. Show me any official posting from any edition saying otherwise and I will say your argument has merit. I really don't understand why people try to read more into stuff.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 26, 2008)

DLichen said:
			
		

> TWICE AS GOOD, if only because Falchions need the boost and 2d6 twohanded is a maul that can't be vorpal.



OK, there is that.

D&D has generally rated 2d4 and d10 about the same on weapons.  2d4 does 5 average damage per hit, Vorpal, considering only the re-rolling, it'd do 6.25.  1d10 does 5.5 on average, Vorpal, it'd be 6.05.  I suppose you could see vorpal as a 'great equalizer' between 2d4 and 1d10 weapons.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 26, 2008)

Jabba Von Hutt said:
			
		

> In no iteration of D&D do I ever recall treating each die of weapon damage separately. Nor do I see anything in 4e to indicate otherwise.




How do you treat Gauntlets of Destruction when used with a Falchion?

"When rolling damage with a melee attack, reroll all 1s".

Can I roll any 1s with a Falchion?  Or, since I'm rolling 2d4, is the lowest I can roll a 2, and thus unaffected by the Gauntlets even those both d4 are showing "1"?

-Hyp.


----------



## Andur (Jun 26, 2008)

DLichen said:
			
		

> Well, according to my link, any 4 would on a 1d4 would mean a reroll, no matter if you're rolling 2d4 or 14d4.
> 
> And a 8 would mean a 8+2d4, and a 7 from a 3,4 on 2d4 would mean 7+1d4.
> 
> You are free to disbelieve however.




The end is nigh, Dlichen and I agree totally on this subject. 

The problem with the OP's position is what happens when you roll 10d4, you need to roll a 40 in order for vorpal to kick in?  Them are pretty slim odds.

A damage die is a singular entity, 2d4 are damage dice.  Each die has a maximum value, if that value is hit then it triggers Vorpal.


----------



## IanB (Jun 26, 2008)

Does the math actually result in a significant average damage advantage for the 2d4 weapon, or are we just speculating here?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 26, 2008)

Andur said:
			
		

> The problem with the OP's position is what happens when you roll 10d4, you need to roll a 40 in order for vorpal to kick in?  Them are pretty slim odds.




Is the 10d4 made up of 5[W], each 2d4?

In which case, no, any particular [W] that came up (4,4) would trigger the Vorpal.

The problem being that you can no longer roll 10d4; you have to roll 2d4 five times... or, at least, have five different-coloured 2d4 pairs.

-Hyp.


----------



## Andur (Jun 26, 2008)

HS, exactly, nobody does that, they roll XdY all at once, the only time when they roll less is when they don't have enough dice.  Under the OP's ruling do I have to roll by 10d4 in five pairs or can I just roll them all at once?  If I roll them all at once do I get to pair them up or does the DM, or do we roll to to see which rolls are paired up?

The answer, everytime a 4 appears on a d4 or a 6 on a d6 or an 8 on a d8, a 10 on a d10 or a 12 on a d12 you reroll that die.

And page 8 sidebar clears up the whole damage die thing, smae thing was in 3.0 and 3.5 in similiar areas.


----------



## Jabba Von Hutt (Jun 26, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> How do you treat Gauntlets of Destruction when used with a Falchion?
> 
> "When rolling damage with a melee attack, reroll all 1s".
> 
> ...




I'll be honest here and say I have no clue because of precedence. I can't remember anything that let you reroll damage. My gut says they probably meant min. damage (total) you get to reroll. But maybe not and if so it makes 2d4 weapons even more unbalancing as opposed anything else when combined with Vorpal. 

I like to use the "Err.. What?!?" rule. Any rule or combination of rules that makes a DM go "Err... What?!?" I generally look beyond them and see what do I think the designers had in mind. Now sometimes as in 3e even doing that, you still ended up with broken rules or combos. But stuff like this is pretty easy to detect that it abuses the intent when compared to the rest. I thought 4e was about balance afterall. Seriously, if your interpretation is correct why wouldn't every fighter wield a vorpal falchion with those gauntlets?


----------



## DLichen (Jun 26, 2008)

Because a vorpal axe or non-vorpal hammer can still do more damage and vorpal is only there at level 30?

Not to mention completely different feats and stat array to take advantage of heavyblades.


----------



## IanB (Jun 26, 2008)

Jabba Von Hutt said:
			
		

> I'll be honest here and say I have no clue because of precedence. I can't remember anything that let you reroll damage. My gut says they probably meant min. damage (total) you get to reroll. But maybe not and if so it makes 2d4 weapons even more unbalancing as opposed anything else when combined with Vorpal.
> 
> I like to use the "Err.. What?!?" rule. Any rule or combination of rules that makes a DM go "Err... What?!?" I generally look beyond them and see what do I think the designers had in mind. Now sometimes as in 3e even doing that, you still ended up with broken rules or combos. But stuff like this is pretty easy to detect that it abuses the intent when compared to the rest. I thought 4e was about balance afterall. Seriously, if your interpretation is correct why wouldn't every fighter wield a vorpal falchion with those gauntlets?




I think you need to prove there's an actual mechanical imbalance here before your contention that the falchion is broken will get any traction.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 26, 2008)

Jabba Von Hutt said:
			
		

> Seriously, if your interpretation is correct why wouldn't every fighter wield a vorpal falchion with those gauntlets?



Maybe, if the player had a tetrahedron fetish.  Conversely, if we go with your interpretation, Vorpal falchions will be shunned in favor of single-die weapons, and no one wearing those guantlets would ever touch a falchion, glaive, or Maul.  

Re-rolls basically give you a per-die bonus.  Per-die bonuses aren't anything new (1e had them, though they were rare), it's just a different way of assigning them.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 26, 2008)

BTW, my first set of numbers on the last page were a little simplistic, I only took into account one re-roll, not an open-ended one.  I didn't actually do the calculus, but a little spreadsheet mojo and:

A d4 gains 0.833 points of averaged damage from being vorpal.  
A d12 only gains 0.591 points of average damage from being vorpal.  

If you roll more dice, you get more benefit.  It's not just that a falchion benefits more than a greataxe, a dagger also benefits more than a greataxe.

But, once you consider the total, it's really not that scary:

d4:  3.33 average damage w/Vorpal
d6:  4.2
d8:  5.14
d10: 6.11
d12: 7.09
2d4: 6.66
2d6: 7.7


In contrast:

2d4 (max only): 5.33
2d6: 7.2


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 26, 2008)

Jabba Von Hutt said:
			
		

> Seriously, if your interpretation is correct why wouldn't every fighter wield a vorpal falchion with those gauntlets?




I wasn't aware I'd laid claim to an interpretation.

I've said that when the Vorpal property triggers on a falchion depends on the definition of 'damage die'.  I've asked how you'd treat Gauntlets of Destruction with a falchion.

-Hyp.


----------



## dervish (Jun 26, 2008)

> In addition, field plate armor has the ability to absorb damage. For every die of damage that would be inflicted upon the wearer, physical or magical, the armor will absorb 1 point of that damage. (On a damage die roll of 1, the wearer would take no damage.) For example, the armor would absorb 1 point of damage from the strike of a long sword, and the damage from an ice storm (3-30, or 3d10) would be reduced by 3 points...




That's from the 1st edition Unearthed Arcana. Weapons had individual dice back then at least.

An exploding 2d4 would end up at about 6.6 damage while an exploding 1d10 would be about 6.1. The damage increase is about 30% compared to about 10%. Quite a difference, actually. In a perfect world where all die rolling was automatic and instantaneous, I would recommend having only the first d4 explode, which would yield an increase of about 15% which is more in line with the 10% of the d10.

That said, I'm not sure that this is a problem. It's a bit of a kick in the groin for the greataxe and bastard sword, and as those weapons are the best around, I think they can take it. 

Intrestingly, it seems that there is more to weapon selection than what you might first think.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 26, 2008)

dervish said:
			
		

> That's from the 1st edition Unearthed Arcana. Weapons had individual dice back then at least.




Full Plate absorbed 2 per die, right?  Does it say if there's a difference between 3d10 dealing 6 damage if it's (2,2,2) vs (1,1,4)?

In other words, do you subtract 6 damage from the total (yielding 0 in both cases), or do you subtract 2 from each die, minimum 0 (yielding 0 in the first case, but 2 points of damage in the second)?

-Hyp.


----------



## Jabba Von Hutt (Jun 27, 2008)

All right here are some numbers that I worked out only taking the Vorpal rules into effect. I'm seeing if I can get a version with the the gauntlets factored in from a math friend of mine. Apparently not to easy to calculate but he agreed That the 2d4 and 2d6 weapons would get the most benefit for that as well. 


```
%
Damage                          Average Bonus       Average Roll     Increase in
Die/Dice      Average Roll      from Vorpal          with Vorpal        Damage
1D4            2.5                0.625                 3.125          25
1D6            3.5                0.583                 4.083          16.657
1D8            4.5                0.5625               5.0625         12.5
2D4            5                   0.3125               5.3125          6.25
1D10          5.5                 0.55                  6.05            10
1D12          6.5                 0.5417               7.0417          8.334
2D6            7                   0.1944               7.1944          2.777
Alternate Application of Vorpal effect
2D4            5                   1.25                  6.25            25
2D6            7                   1.069                 8.069          15.271
```

So applying Vorpal as RAW the 2d4 and 2d6 gets 2x the bonus in % that a 1D8 or 1d12 would get. But everywhere else the higher the average roll the lower % increase in damage you get from Vorpal. Again I haven't even factored in the gauntlets but again the 2d weapons would get a bigger % boost from them.

Now apply the Vorpal effect the way I believe they intended it and the 2d weapons are more in line with the rest. Yes sligthy subpar but don't forget you accepted the fact that by rolling 2d4 instead of a d8 your avg. damage is superior as well as more consistent but you will not hit the highs or lows as often. 

Now I will concede the point that it would be a pain to roll damage in the X[W] era this way but it is more balanced. I'm gonna guess that designers will probably say that they didn't fully look at it in this context. Again I'm gonna guess they'll say it should be applied the way I suggest but for convenience sake (gameplay speed) go with RAW.

But it is unbalanced.


----------



## DemonLord57 (Jun 27, 2008)

A few points here:
1) Do you honestly believe that they examined the system well enough math-wise to warrant a claim of intention? The fact that Careful Attack and Twin Strike are both "options" for the Ranger destroys any credibility to that argument.

2) You claim to look into the rules and divine the "intent" of the designers, especially on "easy" issues like this. You cannot claim to be able to know what the designers intended. Especially in situations like this. Just because you think it is "broken" doesn't mean "the designers intent" was different from what the rules truly are. Don't claim you know what they intended based on your evaluation of how "broken" it is, do it by showing us textual evidence of intent. Designer intent is not retroactive based on how it happens to work within the game, nor how you think it will be "broken" in a game.

3) Beyond that, does this supposed "intent" of the designers you claim to know even matter?  If you want to houserule it, that's perfectly fine. Just don't yell at the rest of us for talking about the RAW, what is _actually written_.


----------



## Jabba Von Hutt (Jun 27, 2008)

DemonLord57 said:


> A few points here:
> 1) Do you honestly believe that they examined the system well enough math-wise to warrant a claim of intention? The fact that Careful Attack and Twin Strike are both "options" for the Ranger destroys any credibility to that argument.
> 
> 2) You claim to look into the rules and divine the "intent" of the designers, especially on "easy" issues like this. You cannot claim to be able to know what the designers intended. Especially in situations like this. Just because you think it is "broken" doesn't mean "the designers intent" was different from what the rules truly are. Don't claim you know what they intended based on your evaluation of how "broken" it is, do it by showing us textual evidence of intent. Designer intent is not retroactive based on how it happens to work within the game, nor how you think it will be "broken" in a game.
> ...




Are questioning my numbers? Because I believe I've adequately shown that that 2d weapons do get an unfair advantage as opposed to their 1d counterparts. I've also gone into some reasoning why my reading into the way it should be played is probably what the designers intended.

So instead giving me reasons why the 2d weapons should gain the advantage you would rather quote the "RAW" defense. When in other threads in here its been demonstrated the "RAW" was not what the developers intended.


----------



## Mike000 (Jun 27, 2008)

And here I thought the big issue with vorpal weapons was that, on a crit, since the damage is automatically maximized (i.e. no rolls involved) you can't (by the RAW) get the vorpal effect to kick in, and thus have high odds of doing sigificantly less damage than a weapon that has a +xDy effect on a crit.


----------



## randian (Jun 27, 2008)

Jabba Von Hutt said:


> Are questioning my numbers? Because I believe I've adequately shown that that 2d weapons do get an unfair advantage as opposed to their 1d counterparts.



Adequately? Read your table again. 2d4 (6.25%) gets less as a % than 1d10 (10%) does, not more. Even if 2d4 got more, so what? According to your table the difference amounts to 1/2 a point of damage per hit, trivial at anything beyond 1st or 2nd level. It's not even worth computing at Epic, when you actually get Vorpal. Also, if single-die weapons were advantaged over two-die weapons, would we even be having this discussion? It seems to me that vorpal makes otherwise sub-par weapons useful, which is a good thing, otherwise nobody would touch a falchion.


----------



## Jabba Von Hutt (Jun 27, 2008)

DemonLord57 said:


> A few points here:
> 1) Do you honestly believe that they examined the system well enough math-wise to warrant a claim of intention? The fact that Careful Attack and Twin Strike are both "options" for the Ranger destroys any credibility to that argument.
> [/I].




I'm not sure what your upset about these 2 powers? 1 gives you (+2) to hit. The other allows you 2 attacks against either 1 or  2 targets.


----------



## DemonLord57 (Jun 27, 2008)

Jabba Von Hutt said:


> I'm not sure what your upset about these 2 powers? 1 gives you (+2) to hit. The other allows you 2 attacks against either 1 or  2 targets.




Er... my point is that Twin Strike is _strictly_ better than Sure Strike except very, very situational circumstances. That would be: You need either a 19, 20, or 21 to hit with Twin Strike _and_ you don't care about damage whatsoever. If either of those is untrue, Twin Strike is better. Usually ridiculously so. If they examined it even slightly using statistics, this would be immediately evident.


----------



## Jabba Von Hutt (Jun 27, 2008)

randian said:


> Adequately? Read your table again. 2d4 (6.25%) gets less as a % than 1d10 (10%) does, not more. Even if 2d4 got more, so what? According to your table the difference amounts to 1/2 a point of damage per hit, trivial at anything beyond 1st or 2nd level. It's not even worth computing at Epic, when you actually get Vorpal. Also, if single-die weapons were advantaged over two-die weapons, would we even be having this discussion? It seems to me that vorpal makes otherwise sub-par weapons useful, which is a good thing, otherwise nobody would touch a falchion.




The boost for "RAW" version is the bottom 2, so its 25%. And did you disregard or ignore this part?



> Now apply the Vorpal effect the way I believe they intended it and the 2d weapons are more in line with the rest. Yes sligthy subpar but don't forget you accepted the fact that by rolling 2d4 instead of a d8 your avg. damage is superior as well as more consistent but you will not hit the highs or lows as often.




At low levels I agree with you the actual damage is minimal but at high levels when you're rolling multiple [W] the actual damage is noticeable.

How is a Falchion a sub-par weapon?


----------



## Ibixat (Jun 27, 2008)

Jabba Von Hutt said:


> Are questioning my numbers? Because I believe I've adequately shown that that 2d weapons do get an unfair advantage as opposed to their 1d counterparts. I've also gone into some reasoning why my reading into the way it should be played is probably what the designers intended.
> 
> So instead giving me reasons why the 2d weapons should gain the advantage you would rather quote the "RAW" defense. When in other threads in here its been demonstrated the "RAW" was not what the developers intended.




I guess my question here is who says various weapon enchantments have to be perfectly the same across every weapon they can be put on?  what's wrong with a particular weapon being a better vorpal weapon than a different one?  Most of them are, this one is just a little different.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 27, 2008)

Jabba Von Hutt said:


> So applying Vorpal as RAW the 2d4 and 2d6 gets 2x the bonus in % that a 1D8 or 1d12 would get. But everywhere else the higher the average roll the lower % increase in damage you get from Vorpal.



Your numbers are very close to the one I got, but I think you're missing something.  It's not the number of dice, it's the die type.  d4s get a bigger proportional benefit whether you're rolling 1, 2, or 10 of them, d12s get a substantially smaller benefit.

There's no way to 'fix' that.  

The variation you propose doesn't fix a disparity, it just reverses it.  Instead of 2d4 gaining twice the benefit of d8 it gets half the benefit.  That's not making it more 'balanced' it's just tilting the 'imbalance' from one to the other.  And, your variation is even harsher for a 2d6 weapon.  I can't recall the weapon scaling chart off hand, but it would become positively laughable if there are two- or multiple-die larger-die weapons that might exist.  

I understand that the mechanic is not perfectly even-handed, and that can seem 'unfair' or 'imbalanced' but it's a simple mechanic that can play out in a fun way for a certain (dice-happy) kind of player.  While the damage increase may seem dramatic, for the level of magic item in question, it's really rather meager.

Finally, 2d weapons already behave statistically differently from other weapons.  A longsword or greatsword has a linear damage distribution, it's as likely to roll 1 or maximum as to roll either side of average.   A falchion, OTOH, is more likely to roll exactly average (5), than to roll maximum, and never rolls a 1.  That makes it a more consistent damage-dealer, which is desireable to some, and undesireable to others.  On average, it'll deliver more damage when Vorpal, because Vorpal will come up a lot more often, but, when it does, it won't add a whole lot more damage.  Vorpal on a long or bastard sword, OTOH, won't come up as often, but when it does it will sometimes do dramatically more damage in a single hit.   If you're trying to punch through a monster with high DR against your vorpal weapon, the latter may actually do more damage, and it's also more likely to dramatically finish off or one shot an enemy.  If you're grinding through a high-hp/low AC monster, without DR, OTOH, the 2d weapon will whittle it down faster.

In 3e, monster-vs-player balance was such that PCs could expect to win most fights 'on average,' so more consistent weapons, like the 2d6 (19-20x/2) greatsword, were generally better for PCs than swingier ones, like the 1d12 (20/x3) greataxe.  In 4e, monsters seem to hit more consistently, and players less so, so I'm not sure if the same will hold true - the advantage that PCs have seems mainly to be healing, and, of course, thier greater variety of powers.


----------



## randian (Jun 27, 2008)

Against an opponent with DR, you always want the highest variance weapon. If you look at two weapons with approximately the same average damage the higher variance one does much more net damage after subtracting DR. For those of you who have played a Hero System game, that's why killing damage is generally better than normal damage.


----------



## Jabba Von Hutt (Jun 27, 2008)

DemonLord57 said:


> Er... my point is that Twin Strike is _strictly_ better than Sure Strike except very, very situational circumstances. That would be: You need either a 19, 20, or 21 to hit with Twin Strike _and_ you don't care about damage whatsoever. If either of those is untrue, Twin Strike is better. Usually ridiculously so. If they examined it even slightly using statistics, this would be immediately evident.




I agree that not all powers are created equal but that isn't quite the same as the discussion here. I guess if you wanted something more inline in strength with Sure Strike. They should have said when used against 1 target you only get 1 roll to hit for 2[W]. Therefore Sure Strike hits more often but Twin Strike hits for more damage so its more of a choice.


----------



## DemonLord57 (Jun 27, 2008)

Jabba Von Hutt said:


> I agree that not all powers are created equal but that isn't quite the same as the discussion here. I guess if you wanted something more inline in strength with Sure Strike. They should have said when used against 1 target you only get 1 roll to hit for 2[W]. Therefore Sure Strike hits more often but Twin Strike hits for more damage so its more of a choice.



You are missing my point. I am not saying that this is something that needs to be "fixed". I am saying that this provides substantial evidence that the designers did _not_ think through these abilities to the degree you seem to think that they did. My point is that you don't _know_ what they intended, and they probably didn't make this system with a statistical mind. They made what they thought looked and sounded cool. This can often lead to the unfortunate side effect that yes, there are certain options that are just *better* than the others. This isn't bad, IMO. It's all part of the game, and it's fun to find out what's a good choice and what isn't.


----------



## IanB (Jun 27, 2008)

Jabba Von Hutt said:


> But it is unbalanced.




The weapons having non-identical results does not make this unbalanced. There's nothing in the numbers you posted that is going to break the game.


----------



## Jabba Von Hutt (Jun 27, 2008)

Tony Vargas said:


> While the damage increase may seem dramatic, for the level of magic item in question, it's really rather meager.




Tony I agree with much that you said except for the above. You're correct that 2d weapons perform on a bell as opposed to a fixed percent for 1d weapons. The difference isn't that meager when you're dealing with powers that deal 4+[W] damage. 

And don't forget when we throw the in gauntlets again the 2d weapons get a bigger bang from it.



> You are missing my point. I am not saying that this is something that needs to be "fixed". I am saying that this provides substantial evidence that the designers did not think through these abilities to the degree you seem to think that they did. My point is that you don't know what they intended, and they probably didn't make this system with a statistical mind. They made what they thought looked and sounded cool. This can often lead to the unfortunate side effect that yes, there are certain options that are just better than the others. This isn't bad, IMO. It's all part of the game, and it's fun to find out what's a good choice and what isn't.




I completely agree with you but you can also see that they may have meant "die/dice" when talking maximum damage and missed it in the editing.

Another question, when someone asks "what's the max damage of a falchion?" Is the reply "8" or "4" and "4"? On a basic hit from a falchion does it do 1 wound of "8" or 2 of "4"?


----------



## Obryn (Jun 27, 2008)

I always find it interesting which unusual corner-cases will be seized upon as a crucial rules failure to people.

This is one I didn't expect to see.  The differences are so small, and so non-game-breaking, I'm a little interested in why the OP thinks it's a critical failure in the game.

-O


----------



## Jabba Von Hutt (Jun 27, 2008)

Obryn said:


> I always find it interesting which unusual corner-cases will be seized upon as a crucial rules failure to people.
> 
> This is one I didn't expect to see.  The differences are so small, and so non-game-breaking, I'm a little interested in why the OP thinks it's a critical failure in the game.
> 
> -O



I never said "game breaking" but the application of Vorpal and/or Gauntlets of Destruction across 2d weapons are unbalanced compared to 1d weapons. Period. 

Just curious what makes you think the differences are so small?

So if its so imperceptible how come on the 1st page of the Vorpal crit thread you already had posts doing the "nudge nudge wink wink" routine about this combo.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 27, 2008)

Jabba Von Hutt said:


> I never said "game breaking" but the application of Vorpal and/or Gauntlets of Destruction across 2d weapons are unbalanced compared to 1d weapons. Period.
> 
> Just curious what makes you think the differences are so small?
> 
> So if its so imperceptible how come on the 1st page of the Vorpal crit thread you already had posts doing the "nudge nudge wink wink" routine about this combo.



No, it's just that the falchion is pretty woefully underpowered compared to all other 2-handed weapons.  It doesn't really surprise me that, when Vorpal, they actually turn out to have a use.

It's a small difference because ... well, you don't have vorpal weapons until high level, and even when you get them, the difference is very small compared to, say, a d12.

-O


----------



## DemonLord57 (Jun 27, 2008)

Jabba Von Hutt said:


> I never said "game breaking" but the application of Vorpal and/or Gauntlets of Destruction across 2d weapons are unbalanced compared to 1d weapons. Period.
> 
> Just curious what makes you think the differences are so small?
> 
> So if its so imperceptible how come on the 1st page of the Vorpal crit thread you already had posts doing the "nudge nudge wink wink" routine about this combo.




"nudge nudge wink wink" routine? I'm confused...


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 27, 2008)

Jabba Von Hutt said:


> Tony I agree with much that you said except for the above. You're correct that 2d weapons perform on a bell as opposed to a fixed percent for 1d weapons. The difference isn't that meager when you're dealing with powers that deal 4+[W] damage.



 The effect of vorpal, itself, is what I was characterizing as 'meager.'  Increasing a die size - like the Rogue does with Shuriken, for instance - brings it up a full point, and is actually a bit more significant. 

Yes, 2d weapons get twice the benefit, but, as you acknowleged, they're already statistically different from 1d weapons in other ways.  If you go the other way, and penalize 2d weapons, they get only a fraction of the benefit.  You're not getting parity either way.  And, even among 1d weapons, you don't have parity by any measure.

It's just not the kind of mechanic where how balanced it is aplied to certain types of weapons is a big deal.  Yes, you get the most bang in terms of average damage from a 2d4 weapon - if there was a 3d4 weapon, even better - but, even from those weapons, the effect of Vorpal isn't overpowering.  On average, wielding a +6 vorpal falchion dishes out slightly less average damage than a +6 Maul.  NBD.




> I completely agree with you but you can also see that they may have meant "die/dice" when talking maximum damage and missed it in the editing.



 Honeatly, no.  'Per die' seems like it should mean 'per die.'  D&D has used per-die modifiers before, as did other old T$R games, and it's always meant 'per die.'


----------



## Jabba Von Hutt (Jun 27, 2008)

Obryn said:


> No, it's just that the falchion is pretty woefully underpowered compared to all other 2-handed weapons.  It doesn't really surprise me that, when Vorpal, they actually turn out to have a use.
> 
> It's a small difference because ... well, you don't have vorpal weapons until high level, and even when you get them, the difference is very small compared to, say, a d12.
> 
> -O




Woefully underpowered how please? It's avg. damage is 5 compared to 5.5  for a d10 weapon or 6.5 d12 weapon. All brackets have their lowest/highest damage dealers, what's wrong with comparing it to a longsword also with a top end of 8.


----------



## Jabba Von Hutt (Jun 27, 2008)

Tony Vargas said:


> The effect of vorpal, itself, is what I was characterizing as 'meager.'  Increasing a die size - like the Rogue does with Shuriken, for instance - brings it up a full point, and is actually a bit more significant.
> 
> Yes, 2d weapons get twice the benefit, but, as you acknowleged, they're already statistically different from 1d weapons in other ways.  If you go the other way, and penalize 2d weapons, they get only a fraction of the benefit.  You're not getting parity either way.  And, even among 1d weapons, you don't have parity by any measure.
> 
> ...




Let's throw in the gauntlets to your test and assume a 4[W] power.

+6 Maul = 8d6 (2-6/die) = 4 avg/per * 8 + 6 = 38

+6 Vorpal Falchion = 8d4 
                            2 rolls of "4" giving +2d4
                            2 rolls of "1"'s giving a 66% of +1d4 on rerolls
                            the 3d4 have a 99% of 1d4

So 8d4 just became 11-12d4 (2-4/die) 3 avg/per * 11.5 + 6 = 40.5

So the Vorpal falchion is now superior to the Maul. So a weapon that started out with a top end of "8" damage is better than a weapon that started with a top end of "12".

Couple of points. I don't really like comparing a non Vorpal to a Vorpal but since you used it I figured to go with it. Also you can probably give the maul a enhancement that gives it extra damage so it would probably do a bit more.


----------



## gnfnrf (Jun 27, 2008)

Jabba Von Hutt said:


> Let's throw in the gauntlets to your test and assume a 4[W] power.
> 
> +6 Maul = 8d6 (2-6/die) = 4 avg/per * 8 + 6 = 38
> 
> ...




So, under near ideal circumstances (Gauntlets of Destruction, 4[W] attack) and with a demonstrably better weapon (vorpal vs. nonvorpal), the falchion, which started 2 points behind on average damage, has snuck out to 2.5 points ahead.

I'm not concerned.

--
gnfnrf


----------



## IanB (Jun 27, 2008)

gnfnrf said:


> So, under near ideal circumstances (Gauntlets of Destruction, 4[W] attack) and with a demonstrably better weapon (vorpal vs. nonvorpal), the falchion, which started 2 points behind on average damage, has snuck out to 2.5 points ahead.
> 
> I'm not concerned.
> 
> ...




Yeah I'm not really seeing the issue here. A vanilla +6 weapon is worse than a +6 vorpal one? Stop the presses. And remember, the vorpal weapon is *3 times as expensive* as the vanilla one.

Heck we can probably just wait until the Adventurer's Vault book comes out, and when we can have a +6 maul of thunderbolts or whatever, it will all work out.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 28, 2008)

Jabba Von Hutt said:


> Let's throw in the gauntlets to your test and assume a 4[W] power.



Throwing the gauntlets in changes things, obviously.

Without the guantlets, a Maul delivers and average 28+bonuses damage on a 4[W], while a vorpal falchion would deliver an average 26.64.  Like I said, slightly less.

The Gauntlets, IIRC, allow a single re-roll, not a re-roll until you don't get a one or anything, so they substitute average damage for a roll of 1, thus average damage on a d6 while wearing those gauntlets is 3.9166.  With a d4, 2.875.  Assuming the guantlets don't affect the Vorpal re-rolls, that's 3.708 for a vorpal d4, still not as good as the non-vorpal d6.  Now, if the gauntlets /do/ affect the vorpal re-roll dice, it becomes about 3.9133, making the vorpal falchion about equal to the non-vorpal maul, when both get the guantlets.

Again, considering the level of Vorpal and the fact that the falchion represents the /best/ you can do with it, that's not even impressive, let alone imbalancing.

But, rolling that big handfull of dice, then re-rolling some of them is a lot of fun for certain types of players, plus, the vorpal will occassionally 'explode' and do huge damage, so it's worth it even though, on average, it's not all that.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 28, 2008)

Jabba Von Hutt said:


> Woefully underpowered how please? It's avg. damage is 5 compared to 5.5  for a d10 weapon or 6.5 d12 weapon. All brackets have their lowest/highest damage dealers, what's wrong with comparing it to a longsword also with a top end of 8.



Why would you compare a 2-handed falchion to a 1-handed longsword?

-O


----------



## Rith the Wanderer (Jun 28, 2008)

Tony Vargas said:


> Throwing the gauntlets in changes things, obviously.
> 
> Without the guantlets, a Maul delivers and average 28+bonuses damage on a 4[W], while a vorpal falchion would deliver an average 26.64.  Like I said, slightly less.
> 
> ...




The gauntlets do require rerolling until no more one's come up. Does that affect the math a great deal?


----------



## DemonLord57 (Jun 28, 2008)

Rith the Wanderer said:


> The gauntlets do require rerolling until no more one's come up. Does that affect the math a great deal?




Yes, it does. The average damage for a 1d4 with both Vorpal and the Gauntlets of Destruction is... 4.5. Yes, the average damage is higher than the max damage. Fun 

I don't understand what all of the fuss is about, though. I mean, yes, it increases your damage, but not ridiculously so. Much of your damage comes from your modifiers, enhancement bonuses, and bonuses to damage rolls. I'd say that people should complain about class balance issues before this. Like why the Ranger is so ridiculously powerful in terms of damage dealing. Multiple attacks + bonuses to damage rolls = Ow.


----------



## Mirtek (Jun 28, 2008)

Jabba Von Hutt said:


> Max damage is 8 for the weapon rules lawyering it won't change that fact.



Rules lawyering doesn't even need to try to dispute this fact, because this fact is 100% irrelevant.

The vorpal enchantment doesn't mention max weapon damage at all, max weapon damage is 100% irrelevant to the vorpal enchantment







Jabba Von Hutt said:


> Sorry it took a while to stop laughing. The fact that 95% of the weapons in the PHB use a SINGLE die for damage doesn't lead you think that maybe just maybe they meant max damage from the die or 5% of time dice.



Since the explicitly continued with _ roll *that* die _ they meant to reroll single dies out of severalm dice


----------



## Ibixat (Jun 28, 2008)

DemonLord57 said:


> Yes, it does. The average damage for a 1d4 with both Vorpal and the Gauntlets of Destruction is... 4.5. Yes, the average damage is higher than the max damage. Fun






DemonLord57 said:


> I don't understand what all of the fuss is about, though. I mean, yes, it increases your damage, but not ridiculously so. Much of your damage comes from your modifiers, enhancement bonuses, and bonuses to damage rolls. I'd say that people should complain about class balance issues before this. Like why the Ranger is so ridiculously powerful in terms of damage dealing. Multiple attacks + bonuses to damage rolls = Ow.






hmm ranger issue is probably because without doing more damage it's just a fighter with crappier defense, wouldn't really fit a striker role at that point.


----------



## Andur (Jun 28, 2008)

Jabba, die is singular, always and forever, as soon as you roll more than one it becomes dice.  It really is that simple, 100% of the time die refers to a singular object, doesn't matter what the breakdown of the weapon damage is.


----------



## Sceadeau (Jun 28, 2008)

Jabba Von Hutt said:


> Let's throw in the gauntlets to your test and assume a 4[W] power.
> 
> +6 Maul = 8d6 (2-6/die) = 4 avg/per * 8 + 6 = 38
> 
> ...




Jabba,

Your math is speculative.  That's not how math works.  Guessing + math = making things up.

The actual math states that a vorpal fachion is only better than a vorpal greataxe when you add the gloves of rerolling 1s.  And even then, only by a couple of points.  Without those gloves, the d12 is always better than the d4. 


Using the actual math, let's compare a +6 greataxe vs +6 falchion, using your 4[W] scenario.

Without Vorpal:

Greataxe: 32
Falcion: 26


Both Vorpal:

Greataxe: 34.36
Facion: 32.66


Both Vorpal + Gloves of rerolling 1s:

Greataxe: 36.8
Falction: 42

You can find the math needed to do these calculations on: http://www.rpg.net/columns/rollthebones/rollthebones2.phtml


----------



## jaelis (Jun 28, 2008)

FWIW, when I read it I assumed "die" meant each individual die, and it didn't even cross my mind to wonder if they really meant [W].


----------



## Ingolf (Jun 28, 2008)

jaelis said:


> FWIW, when I read it I assumed "die" meant each individual die, and it didn't even cross my mind to wonder if they really meant [W].




There is no D&D rule, no matter how plainly and explicitly stated, that someone will not find a way to misinterpret.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 28, 2008)

Andur said:


> Jabba, die is singular, always and forever, as soon as you roll more than one it becomes dice.  It really is that simple, 100% of the time die refers to a singular object, doesn't matter what the breakdown of the weapon damage is.




PHB p219: "For example, a falchion (which has a damage die of 2d4) deals 8d4 damage when used with a power that deals 4[W] on a hit."

What is the damage die of a falchion?  2d4.

-Hyp.


----------



## sukael (Jun 28, 2008)

Mike000 said:


> And here I thought the big issue with vorpal weapons was that, on a crit, since the damage is automatically maximized (i.e. no rolls involved) you can't (by the RAW) get the vorpal effect to kick in, and thus have high odds of doing sigificantly less damage than a weapon that has a +xDy effect on a crit.




Except that vorpal weapons also deal +(bonus)d12 damage on a crit.


----------



## beverson (Jun 28, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> PHB p219: "For example, a falchion (which has a damage die of 2d4) deals 8d4 damage when used with a power that deals 4[W] on a hit."
> 
> What is the damage die of a falchion?  2d4.
> 
> -Hyp.




Hyp, why you gotta go and muddy the water like that?  

That statement honestly seems to me to be a case of poor language choice by the writer.  Anyone who's ever seen the "exploding die" mechanic in any RPG will tell you that it's clear the intent was for the vorpal to kick in on any single die rolling max.

But after the above quote, the only way we're going to know for sure is for the designers to chime in and let us know what they intended.


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (Jun 29, 2008)

med stud said:


> Considering that previous vorpal swords were insta-kill on criticals, this one is weaker. I can't see the problem here.




Exactly... a vorpal sword on any D&D game should be a near-artifact due to its sheer usefulness, and the 4E version delivers!

Everybody say it with me:  Snicker-Snack!!


----------



## Jabba Von Hutt (Jun 30, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> PHB p219: "For example, a falchion (which has a damage die of 2d4) deals 8d4 damage when used with a power that deals 4[W] on a hit."
> 
> What is the damage die of a falchion?  2d4.
> 
> -Hyp.




Thank you Hypersmurf. I know this won't go far with people on the other side of the argument. But, at least I know I'm not completely senile with my reading.


----------



## Terwox (Jun 30, 2008)

Jabba Von Hutt said:


> I'm not sure what your upset about these 2 powers? 1 gives you (+2) to hit. The other allows you 2 attacks against either 1 or  2 targets.




 

Anyway.  Custserv already answered and said you can reroll the individual rolls on a 2d4 falchion roll.  You can see this on the following link, which was also provided earlier.

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1044906

Designer intent was pretty clearly to make it so that greatswords were no longer the "best" weapon, and there would be choices between weapons.  Here is a reason to take a falchion.  It is hardly the "best weapon in the game."  Obviously not everything ends up mechanically equal, but nothing is largely out of line, given the 4W examples provided above.  A vorpal falchion with gauntlets of destruction is nice, but it's nothing remotely comparable to a hulking hurler.


----------



## Jabba Von Hutt (Jun 30, 2008)

Terwox said:


> Anyway.  Custserv already answered and said you can reroll the individual rolls on a 2d4 falchion roll.  You can see this on the following link, which was also provided earlier.
> 
> http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1044906
> 
> Designer intent was pretty clearly to make it so that greatswords were no longer the "best" weapon, and there would be choices between weapons.  Here is a reason to take a falchion.  It is hardly the "best weapon in the game."  Obviously not everything ends up mechanically equal, but nothing is largely out of line, given the 4W examples provided above.  A vorpal falchion with gauntlets of destruction is nice, but it's nothing remotely comparable to a hulking hurler.




I've already given my answer concerning the treatment of answers from custserv as gospel.

As too "Obviously not everything ends up mechanically equal, but nothing is largely out of line, given the 4W examples provided above." Well according Sceadeau above whose numbers appear correct, a weapon doing 2d4 somehow out performs a weapon doing 1d12 with the same enchantments whereas under normal circumstances it would be impossible to do so.


----------



## DemonLord57 (Jun 30, 2008)

Jabba Von Hutt said:


> I've already given my answer concerning the treatment of answers from custserv as gospel.
> 
> As too "Obviously not everything ends up mechanically equal, but nothing is largely out of line, given the 4W examples provided above." Well according Sceadeau above whose numbers appear correct, a weapon doing 2d4 somehow out performs a weapon doing 1d12 with the same enchantments whereas under normal circumstances it would be impossible to do so.



And what is wrong with that. Again, wasn't it the intent of the designers to make it so that the clear progression of quality of weapons isn't actually so clear? And besides that, this is rather focused on getting maximum worth out of that 2d4, and requires a 30th level item. I don't see any reason to say, "no, 2d4 weapons _should_ be worse than 1d12 weapons."


----------



## Jabba Von Hutt (Jun 30, 2008)

DemonLord57 said:


> And what is wrong with that. Again, wasn't it the intent of the designers to make it so that the clear progression of quality of weapons isn't actually so clear?




I believe they (designers) were talking about initial choice where weapon characteristics (ie high crit, versitile etc), prof. bonuses and weapon damage itself make the choice of weapon more difficult. 



DemonLord57 said:


> And besides that, this is rather focused on getting maximum worth out of that 2d4, and requires a 30th level item. I don't see any reason to say, "no, 2d4 weapons _should_ be worse than 1d12 weapons."




Well by definition of damage done a 2d4 is worse than a 1d12 weapon. Now if you factor in other different weapon properties, than maybe a 2d4 can be better than a 1d12. But if you give them both the same properties by damage alone a 1d12 should be better than 2d4.


----------



## DracoSuave (Jun 30, 2008)

If you're level 30, even for a weapon that deals a single die of damage... you never roll a single die of damage.

Never.

Unless you kept one of the -really- early level powers.

Even Basic Melee Attack does 2[W] starting at level 21.

So saying that 'most weapons only do a single die' is misinformed when you're dealing with items that -start- at level 30.

It says 'any damage die' at a level when -all your powers- do at -minimum- 2 dice of damage, in a game where you get varying amounts of dice for your damage at lower levels.

It's per individual die rolled, not when maximum damage is rolled.

As for precident for a power refering to rolls of an individual die for damage, look no further than staff of fiery wrath, which allows you to reroll individual dice of damage, rather than the whole thing.  It -also- refers to damage by the die.

Vorpal IS that powerful.  It's level 30.  It's a drop in the bucket.


----------



## IanB (Jun 30, 2008)

Jabba Von Hutt said:


> I've already given my answer concerning the treatment of answers from custserv as gospel.
> 
> As too "Obviously not everything ends up mechanically equal, but nothing is largely out of line, given the 4W examples provided above." Well according Sceadeau above whose numbers appear correct, a weapon doing 2d4 somehow out performs a weapon doing 1d12 with the same enchantments whereas under normal circumstances it would be impossible to do so.




Why is that a problem?


----------



## Jabba Von Hutt (Jun 30, 2008)

IanB said:


> Why is that a problem?




Are you just trolling?


----------



## GoLu (Jun 30, 2008)

DracoSuave said:


> Vorpal IS that powerful.  It's level 30.  It's a drop in the bucket.




The funny thing about this (to me, at least) is that I'm coming to 4th edition from Savage Worlds, a game where every damage die is effectively vorpal.  It's easy to focus on the potentially infinite damage and forget that most rolls aren't actually going to be all that much bigger than normal.


----------



## DracoSuave (Jun 30, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> PHB p219: "For example, a falchion (which has a damage die of 2d4) deals 8d4 damage when used with a power that deals 4[W] on a hit."
> 
> What is the damage die of a falchion?  2d4.
> 
> -Hyp.





Actually the correct term for that property of a weapon, used in the PHB is 'weapon damage' not 'damage die.'

You're misinformed or misinforming.


And as for those who figure the average damage for a singular die that explodes is equal to the size of the die?

You're correct, the algebra supports you on that.

This means that a 2d4 vorpal weapon does an average damage of 8 damage, and a 1d12 vorpal weapon does an average damage of 12.

No, the 2d4 weapon does not out perform a 1d12 damage weapon.  Stop saying it does, the math does not support you on this.


----------



## Jabba Von Hutt (Jun 30, 2008)

DracoSuave said:


> If you're level 30, even for a weapon that deals a single die of damage... you never roll a single die of damage.
> 
> Never.
> 
> ...




So by some miracle the basic melee damage of every longsword does 2d8 after you hit level 21 but every time you give those weapons to your lvl 1 footman he only does 1d8 damage with them. You should get a refund from that blacksmith. You see where I'm going here. The longsword only ever did 1d8 the fact that after level 21 a character does 2d8 is because of "skill". He wields the blade better it's not the blade becomes better. 

And yes I do know that magic weapons perform better. The discussion here is that fact that applying the same effect(s) (Vorpal, GoD) on different weapons has an unbalanced effect in terms of damage on some of those weapons whereas I believe they should not nor as anyone given me a reason why they should. Yes, Yes I know "RAW".


----------



## RefinedBean (Jun 30, 2008)

*Mine's Bigger*

I suppose, in a level 30 party where two players have two different kinds of vorpal weapons, and are crazy immature, maybe this might become an issue.

But otherwise, a certain magical property affecting various weapons slightly differently is not rocking my world.  By that point, I should be too busy...I don't know, trying to dethrone Orcus, or thrust the Nine Hells into the Pure Gateway of Blessed Light, or something.


----------



## Jabba Von Hutt (Jun 30, 2008)

DracoSuave said:


> Actually the correct term for that property of a weapon, used in the PHB is 'weapon damage' not 'damage die.'
> 
> You're misinformed or misinforming.




Really his quote seems to imply that it is called damage die.



DracoSuave said:


> And as for those who figure the average damage for a singular die that explodes is equal to the size of the die?
> 
> You're correct, the algebra supports you on that.
> 
> ...




Do you mind showing us the math behind this because the post above by Sceadeau certainly shows it.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 30, 2008)

DracoSuave said:


> Actually the correct term for that property of a weapon, used in the PHB is 'weapon damage' not 'damage die.'
> 
> You're misinformed or misinforming.




If I'm misinformed, I'm misinformed _by the PHB_, since the quote "a falchion (which has a damage die of 2d4)" comes from the PHB.

-Hyp.


----------



## DracoSuave (Jun 30, 2008)

Jabba Von Hutt said:


> So by some miracle the basic melee damage of every longsword does 2d8 after you hit level 21 but every time you give those weapons to your lvl 1 footman he only does 1d8 damage with them. You should get a refund from that blacksmith. You see where I'm going here. The longsword only ever did 1d8 the fact that after level 21 a character does 2d8 is because of "skill". He wields the blade better it's not the blade becomes better.




Yes but the weapon damage rolled goes up.  In the end, that's what we're concerned with is multiple dice being involved with damage, which comes up -often- at epic tier.

Often enough you -could- call it 'every single damage roll'.



> And yes I do know that magic weapons perform better. The discussion here is that fact that applying the same effect(s) (Vorpal, GoD) on different weapons has an unbalanced effect in terms of damage on some of those weapons whereas I believe they should not nor as anyone given me a reason why they should. Yes, Yes I know "RAW".





I just did the algebra on the average weapon damage for individual die rolls that don't explode vs. die rolls that do explode.

Like right now.

Let d = the number of sides on that die.

Average die roll for a singular die that does not explode on a max roll is 1+d/2.

Average die roll for a singular die that -does- explode on a max roll is d.

The increase in damage then is equal to d - 1+d/2 = d - 1/2 - d/2 = d/2 - 1/2.

So... the increase in damage from vorpal on a single die is d/2 - 1/2.

What does this mean?  This means that the larger the die size, the greater the advantage from vorpal.

For a 1d12 weapon, this turns out to be 12/2 - 1/2 = 5.5 extra damage per die.

For a 2d4 weapon, each die is individually exploding, so you get 2 X (4/2 - 1/2) = 2 X (1.5) = 3 average damage difference.

To -truly- compare, a 1d8 damage weapon's difference is (8/2 - 1/2) = (4 - 1/2) = 3.5 average damage difference.

Seems that this mysterious fear of exploding d4 damage becoming out of hand is completely unfounded based on the math.


----------



## DracoSuave (Jun 30, 2008)

To truly understand why this works, let's look at a roll of 7 on a 1d12.

7 or more damage occurs 1/2th of the time when rolling a d12, or half.

With an exploding d4, however, you -can- get 7 damage by rolling a 4 and then rolling a 3.

This is an event that occurs 1/4 of the time X 1/2 of the time = 1/8th of the time.

And not to mention, if the d12 is exploding, the d12 is exploding with -another- d12 of damage.  the d4, once it hits 12 damage (an event with only 1/64 chance of occurance) will only explode with 1d4 exploding more damage.


----------



## PrecociousApprentice (Jun 30, 2008)

I like that it favors some weapons over others. Variety and all. Gives players meaningful choices instead of choices between a bunch of things that suck and one that doesn't. Good for the game. 

On top of that, if you have a problem with a game element that is intended to be used by characters of maximum level, and that even by any variation of the math demonstrated in this post (wrong, right, or irrelevant) is relatively insignificant compared to other elements, then something has gone wrong n your game. By this time characters can become Gods! Potential infinite damage is cool, even if statistically it is rather a meager addition, but there are many other game elements that cause more wobble in game balance than this one.


----------



## DemonLord57 (Jun 30, 2008)

I still don't understand in the slightest why this is a problem... maybe it's just me, but I don't see why you don't start a thread about Divine Miracle or something. Divine Miracle _is_ overpowered. It has a large number of ways of being abused, most of which can kill Orcus in a few rounds short time. So you complain about the Vorpal weapon property, and how it is unbalanced... I don't get that at all... This is what I've been trying to say the entire time: Why do you complain about this, but not everything else that creates even the smallest imbalance. This isn't even unbalanced, IMO, but there are plenty of things that are. So why do you even care about this? 

(I'm seriously looking for an answer here, btw. Is it that you don't know about those exploits?)

edit: ninja'ed


PrecociousApprentice said:


> I like that it favors some weapons over others. Variety and all. Gives players meaningful choices instead of choices between a bunch of things that suck and one that doesn't. Good for the game.
> 
> On top of that, if you have a problem with a game element that is intended to be used by characters of maximum level, and that even by any variation of the math demonstrated in this post (wrong, right, or irrelevant) is relatively insignificant compared to other elements, then something has gone wrong n your game. By this time characters can become Gods! Potential infinite damage is cool, even if statistically it is rather a meager addition, but there are many other game elements that cause more wobble in game balance than this one.



This.


----------



## PrecociousApprentice (Jun 30, 2008)

The only thing better than being quoted in a positive light is being quoted as a Ninja!


----------



## DemonLord57 (Jun 30, 2008)

PrecociousApprentice said:


> The only thing better than being quoted in a positive light is being quoted as a Ninja!



lol, sigged.


----------



## Jabba Von Hutt (Jun 30, 2008)

DemonLord57 said:


> I still don't understand in the slightest why this is a problem... maybe it's just me, but I don't see why you don't start a thread about Divine Miracle or something. Divine Miracle _is_ overpowered. It has a large number of ways of being abused, most of which can kill Orcus in a few rounds short time. So you complain about the Vorpal weapon property, and how it is unbalanced... I don't get that at all... This is what I've been trying to say the entire time: Why do you complain about this, but not everything else that creates even the smallest imbalance. This isn't even unbalanced, IMO, but there are plenty of things that are. So why do you even care about this?
> 
> (I'm seriously looking for an answer here, btw. Is it that you don't know about those exploits?)
> 
> ...




I drew the Vorpal lot. Why I chose to raise this issue over any other has no relevancy over the topic. I could just as easily ask you why do you care to keep replying if it of no concern for you?


----------



## Kishin (Jun 30, 2008)

I predict a minimum of eight pages for this one, even though someone posted the relevant quote from PHB pg. 236 on the first page, which the OP has just chosen to disbelieve. I mean, it even says damage -dice-.


----------



## DracoSuave (Jun 30, 2008)

The term, -straight- from the PHB, is 'weapon damage dice.'

Not damage die.  Damage dice.

p276.

'Weapon Damage Dice:  A [W] in a damage expression stands for your weapon's damage dice.'

The term, as used in the books, refers to [W] using the plural.  The term in the weapon chart uses the term 'weapon damage.'

Nowhere in there does it say 'damage die' to describe a specific weapon characteristic.

So yes, misinformation.

Vorpal does not even refer to 'weapon damage'.  It refers to damage, period.  That means it includes sneak attack, hunter's quarry, it's own daily power, and it's own critical damage dice.  So even an argument about weapon die vs. dice is irrelevant to this discussion.

As for my algebra:

Let the average die roll for an exploding die be _A_, and the number of sides of the die be _d_.

1/_d_ of the time, the die will come up with a roll of _d_ and you re-roll and add more damage, using the same exploding rule.  This extra roll is a distinct event, and itself has an average roll of _A_.  As an example with a d4, 1/4th of the time you're going to roll another d4, and that d4 has the same average die roll as the original, because it works -exactly the same-.  The total when this event happens is equal to the original die roll (you still get the 4 you rolled on a d4) plus any additional dice.

_d-1/d_ of the time, dice work just as they normally do.  The average damage for this is simple to calculate.  You take the minimum damage, plus the maximum damage, and divide that by 2.  It's pretty much the same as if you rolled a (_d-1)_ sided die.

Converting this to an equation you get:


```
A = (average damage of dice when not exploding X probability of not exploding) + (average damage of dice when exploding X probability of exploding)

A = [(1+d-1)/2  X  (d-1)/d] + (d + A)/d

A = [d/2 X (d-1)/d] + [1 X (d + A)/d]

A = [d(d-1)/2d] + [2/2 X (d + A)/d]

A = [d(d-1)/2d] + [2(d+A)/2d]

A = [(d^2 - d)/ 2d] + [(2d + 2A)/ 2d]

A = (d^2 - d + 2d + 2A) / 2d

2dA = d^2 + d + 2A

2dA - 2A = d^2 + d

A = [d^2 + d]/[2d-2]
```

My initial calculations were wrong, sadly.  Flipped a negative sign.

And I admit my mistake there.

This is how the average damage of an exploding weapon turns out:

1d4 = 10 damage
1d6 = 10.5
1d8 = 12
1d10 = 13.75
1d12 = 15.6

I'm willing to say then that the average damage for a vorpal 2d4 weapon is more than the average damage for a vorpal 1d12 damage weapon by 4.4 damage per [W].

However... is this intentional that a high crit weapon will do more damage vorpally than a non-high crit weapon, not taking crit effects into consideration?  It just might be.



Regardless, the vorpal property does not refer to weapon damage dice, or weapon damage die, but 'any damage die'.

That's the operative word.  -ANY- damage die.

Bonus dice from Sneak attack?  That's damage dice.
Bonus dice from Vorpal's power?  Damage dice.
Bonus dice from critting with it?  Damage dice.
Bonus dice from critting with it if it were a high crit weapon?  Damage dice.
Bonus dice from -any- source?  Damage dice.

The [W] portion of the weapon's damage is therefore irrelevant to this discussion entirely.

Another use of damage dice in a power:

Staff of Fiery Might.

Are you saying that if a minotaur uses a clerical power with it that has the Fire Keyword and the Weapon keyword, say Avenging Flame (does 2[W] fire damage)... that with a +1 Staff of Fiery Might, he'd get to reroll whichever 2 dice displeased him?  Or that he has to roll his dice in bursts, each individually?

In order for Vorpal to work the way you claim it does, you'd have to roll each 2d4 for the falchion seperately, otherwise the player'd just mix and match dice willy nilly to get the same benefit as if you didn't allow each die to explode.

In other words... the power cannot feasibly work in execution the way you want it to.  Therefore it -must- work in the way it is worded.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 30, 2008)

DracoSuave said:


> Nowhere in there does it say 'damage die' to describe a specific weapon characteristic.
> 
> So yes, misinformation.




So what is your explanation for the p219 quote?  Is p219 incorrect?



> Regardless, the vorpal property does not refer to weapon damage dice, or weapon damage die, but 'any damage die'.
> 
> That's the operative word.  -ANY- damage die.




Right.  And according to p219, for a falchion, 2d4 is a damage die.

Vorpal property refers to "any damage die", and in the case of the falchion, 2d4 _is_ a damage die, so 2d4 falls under the "any damage die" description.



> In order for Vorpal to work the way you claim it does, you'd have to roll each 2d4 for the falchion seperately...




Sounds like a plan to me.  Since we have a solution, why do you consider this a problem?

-Hyp.


----------



## GoLu (Jun 30, 2008)

DracoSuave said:


> A = [d^2 + d]/[2d-2]
> 
> This is how the average damage of an exploding weapon turns out:
> 
> ...



I can't find any fault in your average damage formula, but am curious how 1d4 averages 10 damage when (with d=4):
A = [4^2 + 4]/[2*4-2]
A = [16+4]/[8-2]
A = [20]/[6] = 20/6, which is a little over 3.33

Am I totally misunderstanding something here?


----------



## DracoSuave (Jun 30, 2008)

GoLu said:


> I can't find any fault in your average damage formula, but am curious how 1d4 averages 10 damage when (with d=4):
> A = [4^2 + 4]/[2*4-2]
> A = [16+4]/[8-2]
> A = [20]/[6] = 20/6, which is a little over 3.33
> ...




Not at all.  I failed at Excel Spreadsheet.

Corrected (again):

4: 3.33
6:  4.2
8:  5.14
10: 6.11
12: 7.09

So... 2d4 exploding's average damage comes out to 6.67, vs 1d10's 6.11, which is about right.  d12 does clearly more damage with exploding dice than a 2d4.












And, Hypersmurf... when you're at a level where you're typically rolling fistfuls of dice for your damage, and where you get abilities that let you pick and chose and reroll dice after you've seen the entirety of damage.... that's a lot of time-suck that is completely unnecessary just because you fear the effects of a vorpal weapon that does... oh... just under 1 point of additional damage per die.

Drop in the bucket, compared to the four digit hp numbers you're up against.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 30, 2008)

DracoSuave said:


> And, Hypersmurf... when you're at a level where you're typically rolling fistfuls of dice for your damage, and where you get abilities that let you pick and chose and reroll dice after you've seen the entirety of damage.... that's a lot of time-suck that is completely unnecessary just because you fear the effects of a vorpal weapon that does... oh... just under 1 point of additional damage per die.
> 
> Drop in the bucket, compared to the four digit hp numbers you're up against.




I don't fear the effects of the vorpal weapon; I'm looking at the power that says it operates on a damage die, and the PHB saying that 2d4 is the damage die of the falchion.

I'm not making any argument about balance or usability or damage progressions.  All I'm doing is pointing to the paragraph on p219 that says "a falchion (which has a damage die of 2d4)".

I don't care if the vorpal falchion deals more or less damage than the vorpal greataxe.  I care that the PHB tells me that 2d4 is the damage die.

-Hyp.


----------



## DracoSuave (Jul 1, 2008)

Unfortunately, the description of how attack powers work for damage goes differently.  And the very quote you mention uses that as an example of when multiple dice are listed as 'the damage die'.  It even uses the phrase 'multiple dice.'  You're taking it out of context and trying to say 'this is a rule' when, in fact, it's a summary of a rule that applies to that weapon characteristic that appears on a different page.

And you're doing it for no gain to either you, nor the game.

It's only making things needlessly complex in a game designed around making things needfully simpler.

Do you understand, then, how your interpretation runs completely counter to common sense, and only makes things harder for everyone concerned, and fails to add fun to the game?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 1, 2008)

DracoSuave said:


> And the very quote you mention uses that as an example of when multiple dice are listed as 'the damage die'.  It even uses the phrase 'multiple dice.'




Right.  Multiple dice can be expressed as "the damage die".

So when the Vorpal power refers to a damage die, any given damage die might in fact consist of multiple dice.

-Hyp.


----------



## DracoSuave (Jul 1, 2008)

You've taken my statement out of context, ironicly, being the rest of the statement is about taking things out of context, for no gain.

Rebut the -entire- statement, not just a single snippet, especially because the -entire- statement has the content and point, please.

I'll sum it up for you.

Your interpretation runs counter to common sense and immediate grokability of how dice and the english language work.  
You've added in context to support your argument where it does not exist.  
You are arguing a point that garners no benefit in fun, or playability, or game balance.  
Your point involves in it a self-contradiction, a paradox where multiple dice can mean a singular die when NO RULE in the book says -explicitly- that it can.
You've interpreted this as the rule when there's NO example proving you right, simply because a little blurb on a weapons table uses a singular, when -every example- in the -actual- rule involving how [W] works does not.

There are multiple problems with your argument, that need to be addressed.


----------



## jaelis (Jul 1, 2008)

Hyp, the PHB uses the word "die" in both senses.  (See the sidebar on pg 8, for instance.)  To me, the qualifier "any" in the vorpal description makes it sounds like the reference is to a single polyhedron, but maybe to someone else it doesn't.  I think everyone should accept that the rules don't, in fact, resolve the question.  So DMs should just play it as they think best.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 1, 2008)

DracoSuave said:


> Your point involves in it a self-contradiction, a paradox where multiple dice can mean a singular die when NO RULE in the book says -explicitly- that it can.




If the term 'damage die' refers to a game concept rather than a literal English description of a piece of molded plastic, there's no paradox.

If we define the damage die of a longsword as 1d8, and the damage die of a falchion as 2d4, then we can have multiple pieces of molded plastic described by a singular game concept - multiple dice described as "damage die" - without a problem.



> You've interpreted this as the rule when there's NO example proving you right, simply because a little blurb on a weapons table uses a singular, when -every example- in the -actual- rule involving how [W] works does not.




The line I'm quoting _is_ an example.  The clue is how it begins with "For example..."

"For example, a falchion (which has a damage die of 2d4) deals 8d4 damage when used with a power that deals 4[W] on a hit."

What is the damage die of a falchion?  2d4.  Can the term "damage die" refer to multiple pieces of molded plastic?  According to this example, it can.

So since we know that the term "damage die" can refer to the 2d4 making up the [W] of a falchion, and we know that the Vorpal power triggers when you roll the maximum on a damage die, what is the requirement to trigger the Vorpal power on the [W] of a falchion?  To roll the maximum on the damage die... which is stated, in the example, to be 2d4.

-Hyp.



jaelis said:


> Hyp, the PHB uses the word "die" in both senses.




Sure.  But in what sense does it use the word when it's describing the damage die of a falchion?

-Hyp.


----------



## jaelis (Jul 1, 2008)

> Sure.  But in what sense does it use the word when it's describing the damage die of a falchion?



The [w] sense.  But the topic at hand is how it is being used in the vorpal description.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 1, 2008)

jaelis said:


> The [w] sense.  But the topic at hand is how it is being used in the vorpal description.




If I'm using a Vorpal Falchion, and I make a list of each damage die that makes up my damage roll, does the damage die of the falchion not appear on that list one or more times?

-Hyp.


----------



## Trebor62 (Jul 1, 2008)

the RAW is correct. To say that it means the maximum damage as opposed to RAW max die would have the vorpal power kick in for much less often for the Falcion or other 2d? weapons as opposed to 1d? weapons. The exact probably would be 1/?^2 verses 1/? respectively where ? is the damage die. And the multiple [w] powers would make the vorpal power engaging a rare event if applied to the whole damage roll.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 1, 2008)

Trebor62 said:


> the RAW is correct.




By definition.



> To say that it means the maximum damage as opposed to RAW max die...




I'm not saying it means maximum damage.  I'm saying it means maximum damage on a given damage die, and that for a falchion, each damage die is 2d4.

-Hyp.


----------



## Trebor62 (Jul 1, 2008)

I understand what you are saying. What you are saying is the vorpal power would function 1 in 16 times for the falchion, as opposed to 1 in 8 times for say a long sword. By your interpertation the vorpal power would engage twice as often for the long sword as it would for the falchion even though the there is little difference in the average damage. falchion average vorpal damage 13, longsword 12.5 for 2d4 verses 1d8. I am ignoring vorpal damage on vorpal damage as this would just favor the long sword and would occur 1 in 256 for the falchion and 1 in 64 for the longsword.


----------



## Klaus (Jul 1, 2008)

Jabba Von Hutt said:


> So let me get this straight I just rolled 7 on a weapon that does 2-8 pts damage. And somehow I get to roll another d4 due to it being vorpal. You guys can't be serious? That comes off as so cheesy it's not even funny. As this been FAQed somewhere because I would laugh any player off my table without seeing it in writing.
> 
> If you're looking for numbers see post #39



A vorpal is, at minimum, a +6 weapon.

A +6 vorpal glaive deals 2d4+6+Str modifier damage on a basic attack. On a critical hit, it deals 8+6+6d12+Str modifier.

If you attack with a vorpal using, say, Brute Strike (Level 29 Fighter exploit, 7[W]+Str damage), you'll be rolling 14d4+6+Str modifier damage. If any of those d4 come up "4", you add them and reroll them, and keep rerolling and adding as long as they turn up "4".

So you roll 14d4+6+Str. 1 in 4 of those d4 should come up "4", so you'll be rolling around 3 extra d4, maybe 4. And if it is a critical hit, you'll deal 56+6+Str+6d12.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 1, 2008)

Trebor62 said:


> By your interpertation the vorpal power would engage twice as often for the long sword as it would for the falchion even though the there is little difference in the average damage.




Right.

By yours, the vorpal power engages four times as often for the falchion as it would for the longsword even though there is little difference in the average damage.

Conclusion?  Comparing average damage is not helpful when determining how often the vorpal power 'should' come into play with 2dx weapons.

Which is why I look, instead, at what the damage die of the falchion is, since rolling the maximum on the damage die is the trigger.

-Hyp.


----------



## jaelis (Jul 1, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> If I'm using a Vorpal Falchion, and I make a list of each damage die that makes up my damage roll, does the damage die of the falchion not appear on that list one or more times?



Sure.  But yet, each d4 that you roll is a damage die as well, and could thus also be entered in that list.


----------



## Trebor62 (Jul 1, 2008)

No RAW it is twice as often 1 in 4 for 2d4 versus 1 in 8 for 1d8, but the d4 bonus is only ~55% that of d8 bonus. The average damage is what needs to be compared because it represents the frequency times the effect. The frequency cannot meaningfully be considered in isolation of the damage rendered, because it is the damage that has the game effect.

Also how would you treat the critical d12's? Would all 6 need to be a 12 (~1 in 3 million chance) or would they be treated individally? RAW they would be considered individually.


----------



## DracoSuave (Jul 1, 2008)

Where Hyp goes wrong is quoting the example as gospel but ignoring the rule the example comes from.

The rule itself mentions dice plural for what plugs into [W], and the rule -itself- is not ambivalent in that regard.

Weapon Damage Dice: A [W] in a damage expression stands for your weapon’s damage dice. (The weapon tables on pages 218–219 show damage dice for all weapons.) The number before the [W] indicates the number of times you roll your weapon dice. If a power’s damage is “2[W] + Strength modifier” and you use a dagger (1d4 damage), roll 2d4, then add your Strength modifier. If you use a heavy flail (2d6 damage) with the same power, roll 4d6, then add your Strength modifier.


So, according to Hyp's logic, the heavy flail -clearly- does 'damage dice' while the falchion's 2d4 is a singular damage die, because the example mentions heavy flail using the term in a plurality, and the falchion in a term in singularity.

Also, 1d4 is obviously damage dice -plural- so you can only reroll part of it when that part comes up maxed, if vorpal.  (assuming daggers could be vorpal)


Common sense, logic, elegance, and everything else seem to point against plural dice being a singular damage 'die', and if that -were- the case....

.... you'd think they might lay it out explicitly somewhere hmmmmmm?!?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 1, 2008)

Trebor62 said:


> No RAW it is twice as often 1 in 4 for 2d4 versus 1 in 8 for 1d8...




Hmm?  Of the 16 possible combinations on 2d4, seven of them involve a 4, and one of those involves two 4s.  

So if you roll a d8 sixteen times, you can expect to roll two 8s.  If you roll 2d4 sixteen times, you can expect to roll eight 4s.  You roll a 4 four times as often as you roll an 8.



> Also how would you treat the critical d12's? Would all 6 need to be a 12 (~1 in 3 million chance) or would they be treated individally? RAW they would be considered individually.




Certainly.  You roll one critical die per point of enhancement bonus.  There are six of them.  Each d12 can trigger a reroll.

You roll your weapon damage die once per [W].  The damage die of a falchion is 2d4.  Each 2d4 can trigger a reroll.



DracoSuave said:


> The rule itself mentions dice plural for what plugs into [W], and the rule -itself- is not ambivalent in that regard.
> 
> Weapon Damage Dice: A [W] in a damage expression stands for your weapon’s damage dice.




I'd say the definition of Weapon Damage Die comes from p219, rather than p276, given that it's the Weapons page.  

_Damage: The weapon's damage gie.  When a power deals a number of weapon damage dice (such as 4[W], you roll the number of dice indicated by this entry.  If the weapon's damage die is an expression of multiple dice, roll that number of dice the indicated number of times.  For example, a falchion (which has a damage die of 2d4) deals 8d4 damage when used with a power that deals 4[W] on a hit._

This seems to use the terms very consistently.  "Damage die" refers to what appears in the column on the table, whether it's 1d8 or 2d4.  "Number of weapon damage dice" refers to a plural of [W], not a plural of dX.  "Multiple dice" refers to more than one polyhedron.

So the 'damage die' can refer to one physical die, or to multiple physical dice.  There's no inconsistency of terminology on p219.

As you yourself point out, p276 is internally inconsistent.  It refers to a single [W] as damage dice, yet we know that a single [W] can be singular in both concept and physical representation (1d8, for example, is one [W] and one polyhedron), so using the plural makes no sense.  When p276 says "A [W] in a damage expression stands for your weapon's damage dice", it is misquoting p219.

-Hyp.


----------



## DracoSuave (Jul 1, 2008)

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

The implication being that the problem is not what is read, but your logic.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 1, 2008)

DracoSuave said:


> 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 (Jul 1, 2008)

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 (Jul 1, 2008)

DracoSuave said:


> 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 (Jul 1, 2008)

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 (Jul 1, 2008)

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 (Jul 1, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> 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.
> 
> ...





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 (Jul 1, 2008)

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 (Jul 1, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> 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 (Jul 1, 2008)

*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 (Jul 1, 2008)

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.


----------



## Ibixat (Jul 1, 2008)

For those who insist 2d4 = one die and want to sort them out, more power to you, those who don't, I agree with you.


BUT if you want to simplify the tracking of 2d4 for those who insist on doing it the hard way, just grab some blank D16's off the interwebs, grab your sharpee marker and label them 2 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 8 and only re-roll them on an 8.

 And if you can't find the stuff to make it, design it yourself and sell the design to a company like chessex and roll in the dough instead of the multiple d4's.


----------



## Trebor62 (Jul 1, 2008)

Puggins said:


> 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.
> 
> ...





Dont forget those ratio's will tighten up when you add in str and fixed damage bonuses. 

Technically Vorpal would not apply to Mauls, its only for Axes and heavy blades. However I would allow it anyway.



Hypersmurf said:


> Hmm? Of the 16 possible combinations on 2d4, seven of them involve a 4, and one of those involves two 4s.
> 
> So if you roll a d8 sixteen times, you can expect to roll two 8s. If you roll 2d4 sixteen times, you can expect to roll eight 4s. You roll a 4 four times as often as you roll an 8.
> 
> ...




Yes but you are compairing apples to oranges which is not a meaningful comparsion. 2d4 is about equal to 1d8 in terms of effect hence you really have 4 2d4 results against 2 1d8 results, which is twice as often in terms of net effect. The damage effect is what matters, the probablity is only a component of that.


----------



## DracoSuave (Jul 1, 2008)

hamishspence said:


> 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.




Vorpal's quality doesn't isolate weapon damage dice, but it just says damage dice in general.  High-crit is certainly damage by the weapon (it's the weapon's property), and critical dice are also a property of the weapon (d12s according to the very magic item description we're using.)


----------



## IanB (Jul 1, 2008)

Jabba Von Hutt said:


> Are you just trolling?




No, I'm not. I'm honestly trying to figure out why you think this is an issue or that something is broken. To me it just looks like a feature. How exactly will the game suffer in actual play for falchions being good at being vorpal? Throughout this entire thread, you've never really articulated why this is actually a  *problem*.

"Under certain circumstances, a 2d4 damage weapon can do more average damage than a d12 weapon" is not necessarily a bug in the system - and if it doesn't break the game (which it does not appear to do) in any significant way, what is the issue?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 1, 2008)

DracoSuave said:


> 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.




In fact, the term used is 'damage die'.

And it's exactly the same term used on p219: "a falchion (which has a damage die of 2d4)".

Not "weapon damage dice" or "weapon damage die" or "...... dice"; Vorpal says "damage die", falchion says "damage die".



Trebor62 said:


> Yes but you are compairing apples to oranges which is not a meaningful comparsion. 2d4 is about equal to 1d8 in terms of effect hence you really have 4 2d4 results against 2 1d8 results, which is twice as often in terms of net effect. The damage effect is what matters, the probablity is only a component of that.




If you like.

In which case your argument is "It's illogical that a 2d4 weapon, which is about equivalent to a 1d8 weapon, should gain half as much use from Vorpal as the 1d8 weapon!  It's far more logical that a 1d8 weapon, which is about equivalent to a 2d4 weapon, should gain half as much use from Vorpal as the 2d4 weapon!"

... did I follow that correctly?

-Hyp.


----------



## erik_the_guy (Jul 1, 2008)

When you roll 2d4 with a vorpal weapon and you roll...
no 4s: re-roll no dice
one 4: re-roll 1 die
two 4s: re-roll 2 dice

The average damage with a vorpal falchion is not broken. In fact, each 2d4 you roll with a vorpal weapon turns up an average of about 6.66 damage. This is only 1.66 damage higher than the normal average of 5 on 2d4. It's not a big deal. Vorpal weapons are great for powers with high [W] though.


----------



## PrecociousApprentice (Jul 2, 2008)

Not that custserve ever gets any credit here, and not that I really like the ruling that they gave for illusions, at least from a game design consistency point of view, but that ruling could enlighten us a little here. 

They basically said that when an example contradicts a rule, especially a specific rule, then the example should be ignored. The ruling meant that the illusion powers don't get the psychic keyword, despite doing psychic damage. While this is a contradiction to the example on page 55 of the PHB that discusses poison damage and poison keywords going together, the illusion powers are not wrong. This is because the illusions are examples of specific rules, and the rule about damage and keywords always going together is both an example, and meant to be more general than the specifics of the illusion powers. 

This type of ruling can be extrapolated here to mean that the example of the falchion and the reference to damage die is an example, and a general all at the same time. The vorpal weapon gives a specific that contradicts this by using dice not as [w], but as little plastic polyhedrons with numbers. This seems especially important when the example is for a defined game concept that is not even used in the example (weapon damage die=[w]). It is not spelled out explicitly like this, but the precedent of the illusion powers can still shed some light on this subject. While the wording is the same in the example as in the vorpal weapon description, they are not necessarily defined game terms, they are just expressions. A game term would be defined and then used in an example. Weapon damage die is defined as [w]. Damage die is not a defined term, and hence was a sloppy addition (or more accurately a sloppy omission of 'weapon') to the example. Better editing would have caught this.

Sorry Hyp, I think that your example, which is the only thing refuting the contrarian point, falls into the precedent of this custserve ruling, and thus is refuted.

The inclusion of "any" in the vorpal weapon description I think adds to this. "The damage die" would make this a little murkier, but I think "any" implies that there will be more than one, and you address them all with this ability.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 2, 2008)

PrecociousApprentice said:


> The inclusion of "any" in the vorpal weapon description I think adds to this. "The damage die" would make this a little murkier, but I think "any" implies that there will be more than one, and you address them all with this ability.




The 'any damage die' tells us that it's not only a weapon damage die that counts.

If I deal a d6 through a class feature, that's a damage die.  If I deal a d12 from a critical hit, that's a damage die.  If I deal 2d4 as the [W] of the falchion, that's a damage die.  Any damage die can be rerolled if it rolls max... so if I roll a 6 on the d6, or a 12 on the d12, or an 8 on the 2d4, that damage die can be rerolled.

-Hyp.


----------



## PrecociousApprentice (Jul 2, 2008)

That is not an unreasonable interpretation of the rule Hyp. I still will go with following the example of set by custserve with the illusion powers. An example is not rules text per se, and any rules text that contradicts an example trumps the example. Since the conclusions that you draw are based on a single example, which is contradicted in other areas by rules text, I would say that your example is trumped. But you do make a good point about including all the other damage dice as well.


----------



## Trebor62 (Jul 2, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> In fact, the term used is 'damage die'.
> 
> And it's exactly the same term used on p219: "a falchion (which has a damage die of 2d4)".
> 
> ...




Not at all, while I said about if you wish to be precise 2d4 is superior to 1d8 and it would be strange to turn that small advantage in to a disadvantage by adding Vorpal to the weapons in question. The RAW simple extend that advantage, where as your interpretation would reverse it.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 2, 2008)

Trebor62 said:


> Not at all, while I said about if you wish to be precise 2d4 is superior to 1d8 and it would be strange to turn that small advantage in to a disadvantage by adding Vorpal to the weapons in question. The RAW simple extend that advantage, where as your interpretation would reverse it.




So what about 2d4 compared to 1d10 or 1d12?

Doesn't your interpretation take the small advantage the 1d10 has over 2d4, and turn it into a disadvantage?  After all, the average roll on 2d4 is 5, and on 1d10 is 5.5 (advantage 1d10), but if we permit rerolls if either d4 comes up 4, or if the d10 comes up 10, the average roll becomes 6.67 for the 2d4, but only 6.11 for the d10 (advantage 2d4).

Rather than simply extending the d10's advantage, your interpretation reverses it!  Wouldn't that be... 'strange'?

-Hyp.


----------



## Jhulae (Jul 2, 2008)

Unfortunately, the Page 219 example has two explanations.  1) That's indeed what they meant, and the Falchion's 'Damage Die' is '2d4' and 2) bad editing as it seems to conflict with examples given elsewhere.

Until that's settled, there's no really good way of answering that except via DM decision. 

Of course, for me personally, I'd let the Falchion use the Vorpal power if either die rolled a 4 (which, as Hyp points out) makes it better than the 1d8 Longsword.  The rationale I have for that is the Longsword is One-Handed and the Falchion is Two-Handed, so it makes sense to me that it should benefit more from Vorpal than the Longsword.  YMMV.


----------



## Trebor62 (Jul 2, 2008)

Yup. The problem is neither of us is comparing apples to apples, but apple to oranges or pears etc. The Falchion  or the oversized weapons use 2d? which is a bell curve verses the straight distribution of the 1d? weapons. Actually WOTC has mixed them together.


But here is a another thought, compare a human sized 1d12 great axe to a Gargantuan 2d10 great axe. Using the max dice criteria the human axe would Vorpal better than eight times more often than the Garganuan axe 1 in 12 verses 1 in 100. Using max die it would be 1 in 12 verses about 1 in 10; yes I am pairing up the 20 d10's to 10 2d10 results with the 1 in 10 to keep things equivant in terms of doing starting damage i.e. d12 verses 2d10.

So while the Falchion is a little strange at the bottom of the scale, things are even worse at the top using the max damage. Granted the gargantuan vorpal great axe may never even be seen in a typical campaign.

Any way its late here and we are going away tommorrow, *but its been a lot of fun batting this back and forth with you Hyp thanks! *

ps what do you make of bastard sword verses the great sword in game terms? I suspect the Falchion and bastard swords were either late additions or shoe horned in.


----------



## AtomicPope (Jul 2, 2008)

When I saw the Vorpal Weapon I wasn't miffed.  It was when I saw Gauntlets of Destruction level 18 item that my eyebrow raised.  Really, this is the culprit.  The gauntlets are not a magic weapon but a weapon adder.  Consider that Rogues and Rangers can use Close Blasts or Bursts.  In every "game breaking" Vorpal combo the Gauntlets are employed.  This is not by accident.  Without the Gauntlets the Vorpal weapon wouldn't look so over-the-top.

The easy fix is to remove Gauntlets of Destruction from the Magic Item list.


----------



## ryryguy (Jul 2, 2008)

sukael said:


> Except that vorpal weapons also deal +(bonus)d12 damage on a crit.




So do those bonus critical dice also explode? I'm not sure that's clear from the rules as written...

(edit)  I see other posts interpreting the crit dice as "any damage die" that triggers the vorpal power.  That makes sense to me.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jul 2, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> If I deal a d6 through a class feature, that's a damage die.




But it's not a damage die *for the weapon.* It's a damage die for a class feature.


----------



## silentounce (Jul 2, 2008)

Just because no one's done it yet in one post.

Here are the average results using the proper math as given here under the Open Ended Rolls heading: http://www.rpg.net/columns/rollthebones/rollthebones2.phtml

Base averages
d4    2.5
d6    3.5
d8    4.5
2d4   5
d10   5.5
d12   6.5
2d6   7

Vorpal average and % increase over base average damage
d4    3.33   33%
d6    4.2     20%
d8    5.14   14%
2d4   5.33   7%  rerolling only an 8
2d4   6.66   33%  rerolling each 4 individually
d10   6.11   11%
d12   7.09   9%
2d6   8.4    20%

So, interpreting 2d4 as a die and only rerolling on an 8 keeps the 2d4 more in line with d12, but it brings it further from everything else because the d12 has the smallest increase.  However, rerolling all the 4s makes 2d4 superior to every other die type.

Let's use the +6 weapon example.
Nonvorpal
4[W] = 26
Rerolling only on an 8
4[W] = 27.33 damage
Rerolling each 4 individually
4[W] = 32.66

Personally, I think an extra 1.33 damage per attack not accounting for the extra crit damage is a pretty weak boost to go from a level 26 weapon to a level 30.  The basic +6 gives you an average 21 extra on a crit, the vorpal gives an average 33 extra.  That doesn't account for how to adjucate crit damage with the rerolling property.  And then there's also the daily power.

One more thing, no one has really commented on the bell curve aspect of the 2d4.  People have mentoined it, but not really gone in depth.  I'm sure we all know that rolling more dice gives a staggered distribution of possible outcomes with a higher probability of values in the middle than at the ends.  Well, let's look at a weapon with exploding dice.

The odds that a d12 exploding weapon will give a result of 21 or higher is 1 in 36.  That's 1/12 x 1/3, or 2.78%.  Now, looking at 2d4, percentage chance of getting 21 or higher on one roll, when exploding both dice is .83%.

Correct me if I'm wrong please.  I don't have a PhD in mathematics or statistics, but I know enough to figure the above out.

This just shows that average damage is only one means of comparing weapons.   The likelihood of scoring a lot of damage on a single attack is far greater when rolling a single large die.  We've known this for a long time and it still applies here.


----------



## DracoSuave (Jul 2, 2008)

silentounce said:


> Just because no one's done it yet in one post.
> 
> Here are the average results using the proper math as given here under the Open Ended Rolls heading: http://www.rpg.net/columns/rollthebones/rollthebones2.phtml
> 
> ...




Actually, 2d4 once vorpal'd is superior to d10, but not to d12 nor 2d6  It gets the largest % increase, but given that it started with less damage than other weapons in its class, that's a misleading figure.

This is what is important:

2d4 does less than a 1d12 weapon without vorpal.  2d4 does less than a 1d12 weapon with vorpal.


----------



## AtomicPope (Jul 2, 2008)

DracoSuave said:


> Actually, 2d4 once vorpal'd is superior to d10, but not to d12 nor 2d6 It gets the largest % increase, but given that it started with less damage than other weapons in its class, that's a misleading figure.
> 
> This is what is important:
> 
> 2d4 does less than a 1d12 weapon without vorpal. 2d4 does less than a 1d12 weapon with vorpal.



True.

The problem isn't Vorpal, it's Gauntlets of Desctruction + Vorpal. The benefit of rerolling 1's on a D4 until no 1's appear with exploding Vorpal dice is what creates the radical value shift.

The solution is outlaw Gauntlets of Destruction (which BTW can be made at 18th level instead of 30th level).


----------



## silentounce (Jul 2, 2008)

AtomicPope said:


> True.
> 
> The problem isn't Vorpal, it's Gauntlets of Desctruction + Vorpal. The benefit of rerolling 1's on a D4 until no 1's appear with exploding Vorpal dice is what creates the radical value shift.
> 
> The solution is outlaw Gauntlets of Destruction (which BTW can be made at 18th level instead of 30th level).




Well, since you basically asked for it...

Vorpal plus GD average damages:

d4    4.5
d6    5
d8    5.83
2d4  5.33  exploding only when 8 is rolled on 2dice and no rerolling of 1s, because 2 is the lowest possible result of 2dice
2d4  5.57  exploding only when 8 is rolled on 2dice and rerolling only when 2 is rolled on 2dice
2d4  6.75  exploding only when 8 is rolled on 2dice but rerolling any 1 rolled in a given set of two dice
2d4  9    exploding every 4 rolled and rerolling every 1
d10  6.75
d12  7.7
2d6  10

Pick your poison.


----------



## IanB (Jul 2, 2008)

AtomicPope said:


> True.
> 
> The problem isn't Vorpal, it's Gauntlets of Desctruction + Vorpal. The benefit of rerolling 1's on a D4 until no 1's appear with exploding Vorpal dice is what creates the radical value shift.
> 
> The solution is outlaw Gauntlets of Destruction (which BTW can be made at 18th level instead of 30th level).




What are we solving by doing that? Can you actually demonstrate that the game is harmed in balance terms by allowing them?

So far I still feel like we're in the realm of "this violates my sense of symmetry" rather than "there is a real mechanical imbalance".


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 2, 2008)

DracoSuave said:


> Actually, 2d4 once vorpal'd is superior to d10, but not to d12 nor 2d6 It gets the largest % increase, but given that it started with less damage than other weapons in its class, that's a misleading figure.
> 
> This is what is important:
> 
> 2d4 does less than a 1d12 weapon without vorpal.  2d4 does less than a 1d12 weapon with vorpal.




So "2d4 does less than a 1d12 weapon without vorpal.  2d4 does less than a 1d12 weapon with vorpal" is _important_, but "2d4 does less than a 1d10 weapon without vorpal.  2d4 does more than a 1d10 weapon with vorpal" can be glossed over?

Either the progression is meaningful and must be maintained, in which case the reversal of the 2d4 and d10 is a crime against the system that must be remedied, or else the progression is a point of trivia that has no relationship to the rules.

Since there's no interpretation which actually maintains the progression both with and without vorpal, it appears the second is true, and examination of the progression gives no insight as to how the rules apply.

-Hyp.


----------



## PrecociousApprentice (Jul 2, 2008)

True enough Hyp, I just fall into the camp that says it is not a crime, and that it is OK for the vorpal falchion to be better than it "should" some times. Meaningful choices and all.


----------



## tweinst (Jul 2, 2008)

Given that Vorpal is limited to level 30 weapons, I think it's important to look at how this would be used in play. Even basic attack at epic tier is 2[W], so you're always going to be rolling a handful of dice. Do you want to roll pairs of dice one at a time to see if vorpal triggers, or would you rather just roll a handful of dice and reroll the 4s?

Personally, I'd rather err on the side of simplicity.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 2, 2008)

PrecociousApprentice said:


> True enough Hyp, I just fall into the camp that says it is not a crime, and that it is OK for the vorpal falchion to be better than it "should" some times. Meaningful choices and all.




I agree completely.  It's not a crime, and it's fine for a weapon to fall outside the progression.

But I also think that p219 tells us that the damage die of a falchion is 2d4.



tweinst said:


> Do you want to roll pairs of dice one at a time to see if vorpal triggers, or would you rather just roll a handful of dice and reroll the 4s?




I don't think the answer to that has an effect on how the Vorpal rules actually play out.

If I have an attack that deals 4d6 damage, it might be _simpler_ to just rule that I deal 14 damage every time.  Certainly involves rolling fewer dice!  But 'simpler' doesn't automatically mean 'correct'.

-Hyp.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 2, 2008)

(humor)

  Improved Vorpal Sword:  2d4 (reroll 3s and 4s)
  Greater Vorpal Sword:  2d4 (reroll 2s, 3s, and 4s)
  True Vorpal Sword:  2d4 (keep rerolling unless both rolls are 1s)

  And ...

  Uber Vorpal Sword:  2d4 (keep rerolling until you get two consecutive rolls of double 1s)


----------



## silentounce (Jul 2, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> So "2d4 does less than a 1d12 weapon without vorpal.  2d4 does less than a 1d12 weapon with vorpal" is _important_, but "2d4 does less than a 1d10 weapon without vorpal.  2d4 does more than a 1d10 weapon with vorpal" can be glossed over?
> 
> Either the progression is meaningful and must be maintained, in which case the reversal of the 2d4 and d10 is a crime against the system that must be remedied, or else the progression is a point of trivia that has no relationship to the rules.
> 
> ...




Dang it, I just wrote a long post that explained everything really well.  And then it got messed up somehow.  a;djfk;ladsjfj23rerwjfoiafj

Ok, let me try to recreate.  I found an explanation that character maintains the relationship between all weapon die types as far as > and < at base, with GD, with Vorpal, and with both.

For weapon die entries like 2d4 or 2d6.  You only explode on the highest possible result, max damage die, an 8 or a 12.  With GD, you reroll each one rolled, but this only leads to explosion if the result is max.  So for 2d4 with GD and Vorpal, you only explode if you roll (4,4), (1,4) and the 1 rerolls to a 4, or (1,1) and both reroll to 4s.  If you take this interpretation, then all weapon die types are consistent as far as > or < except for two exceptions.  When you use GD, the average result for 2d4 and d10 are identical, however d10 has a higher max damage.

But when you use GD and Vorpal, 2d4 and d10 are still identical, but there is no such thing as max damage.  Although, it is less probable for 2d4 to result in a very high damage number than it is for a d10.  With GD and vorpal, both types will explode 1/9 of the time if you only reroll on an 8 for the 2d4, but each time the d10 explodes it adds its new roll to 10 damage, while 2d4 adds to 8.  Yeah, potential damage is infinite for both, but there is a greater probability for a high number of non-infinite damage for the d10.  Take this for example.  For 2d4, 72/81 of all rolls will result in 4-7 damage, 8/81 will result in 9-15 damage, and 1/81 will result in 16+ damage.  For a d10, 72/81 of all rolls will result in 2-9 damage, 8/81 will result in 11-19 damage, and 1/81 will result in 21+.  This can be extrapolated infinitely.  So I don't really see a problem.

Damage probabilities for 2d4 and d10 with GD and Vorpal:
89%
2d4     4-7
d10     2-9

9.8%
2d4     9-15
d10     11-19

1.2%
2d4     16+
d10     21+

So, on average, these two types of weapon die will do the same damage, but it is more likely that the d10 will do a large amount.


FINAL TABLES:

Base average
d4 2.5
d6 3.5
d8 4.5
2d4 5
d10 5.5
d12 6.5
2d6 7

GD average
d4 3
d6 4
d8 5
2d4 6 rerolling all 1s
d10 6
d12 7
2d6 8 rerolling all 1s

Vorpal average
d4 3.33
d6 4.2
d8 5.14
2d4 5.33 rerolling only an 8
d10 6.11
d12 7.09
2d6 7.2 rerolling only a 12

Average with Vorpal and GD
d4 4.5
d6 5
d8 5.83
2d4 6.75 exploding only when a 8 is rolled on 2dice but rerolling all 1s
d10 6.75
d12 7.7
2d6 8.33 exploding only when 12 is rolled on 2dice but rerolling all 1s

So, there is an interpretation which actually maintains the progression both with and without vorpal.  The progression is meaningful and can be maintained as I said above.  _Regardless of whether or not you like this interpretation or think it is correct_, it is the only one that maintains the continuum of average damages for each case: d4<d6<d8<2d4<d10<d12<2d6.  It is important to note that because 2d4 and 2d6 are considered a weapon die each set must be kept together when rolling multiple [W]s and they can only explode when an 8 or a 12 is rolled.

In summary, any and all 1s can be rerolled when using the GD, this does not break the weapon damage die progression.  GD are not the problem.  Rerolling every 4 or 6 when rolling 2d4 or 2d6 damage does break the progression both with Vorpal alone, and with Vorpal and GD.  Rerolling 2d4 and 2d6 only when an 8 or a 12 results does not break the progression.  Therefore, if you feel that this progression is an important system structure that needs to be maintained, the previous is the only rules interpretation that is valid.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 3, 2008)

silentounce said:


> Rerolling 2d4 and 2d6 only when an 8 or a 12 results does not break the progression.




Ha... you know, I never actually did the expected damage calculation for 2d4, reroll on 8?  I accepted the argument that "It only explodes half as often as 1d8!" without realising that it still has a higher expected damage.

So I agree... as well as fitting the 219 text (the damage die of a falchion is 2d4, therefore the Vorpal reroll triggers when the damage die - 2d4 - rolls maximum), it also maintains the 'feels right' factor of the damage progression.

-Hyp.


----------



## ShaggySpellsword (Jul 3, 2008)

I find it funny that, in all of these damage calculations, people are looking at the vorpalness of d4s and 2d6s when there are no weapons that can do Vorpal damage with those die sizes (dice sizes?).

Also, I can tell you definitively that Sneak Attack Dice are NOT rerolled with Vorpal...because Crossbows, Light Blades, and Shuriken can't have the Vorpal Property placed on them.

That said, reading this thread feels like banging my head between two walls.

I see lots of value in what both sides are saying.

Using plain English interpretations of words and common-sense die-rolling practices, the RAW appear to indicate that each individual piece of plastic is rerolled on a max number.

Using mathematical models of expected damage output and assumptions that 2-die weapons are exceptions to the single-die weapon rule (those exceptions being the game design theory behind 4ed) it seems that 2d4 counts as a single "die" of damage for a Falchion when it is part of the [W] damage the weapon is doing.

Strong arguments can and have been made either way.

Way 1 does give a decidedly bigger bonus to Falchions than Great-Axes, but not so big as to make the Falchion the best 2-hander ever and to obsolete the Great Axe.

Way 2 is hard to practically roll and enforce without lots of matched-set d4s.

I guess Way 1 is how most will run it, as it is table-top practical and I want strema-lined ease at my table (also a 4ed design goal); but I suspect Way 2 was the intent.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 3, 2008)

ShaggySpellsword said:


> I find it funny that, in all of these damage calculations, people are looking at the vorpalness of d4s and 2d6s when there are no weapons that can do Vorpal damage with those die sizes (dice sizes?).




A greataxe sized for a Large creature is a 2d6 Axe.

-Hyp.


----------



## silentounce (Jul 3, 2008)

ShaggySpellsword said:


> I find it funny that, in all of these damage calculations, people are looking at the vorpalness of d4s and 2d6s when there are no weapons that can do Vorpal damage with those die sizes (dice sizes?).
> 
> Also, I can tell you definitively that Sneak Attack Dice are NOT rerolled with Vorpal...because Crossbows, Light Blades, and Shuriken can't have the Vorpal Property placed on them.
> 
> ...




Good points.

Btw, I included the d4 and 2d6 for completeness.  And as hyp just mentioned, 2d6 is a valid large weapon.  Future supplements may also include small sized weapons, like a small handaxe that would do d4.  I'm also houseruling small weapons for small characters, too.  I've got a thread in the houserule's forum on it.  So, it was relevant to me.


----------



## Trebor62 (Jul 4, 2008)

silentounce said:


> Dang it, I just wrote a wrong post that explained everything really well. And then it got messed up somehow. a;djfk;ladsjfj23rerwjfoiafj
> 
> Ok, let me try to recreate. I found an explanation that character maintains the relationship between all weapon die types as far as > and < at base, with GD, with Vorpal, and with both.
> 
> ...





What this is showing is that the Vorpal power is a deminishing power for the 2d? weapons when rerolling only on Max damage. Extend this out for 2d8, and 2d10 weapons and it should be appearant. These would be large, huge, and gargantuan weapons. Also look at the probablity that the Vorpal power would engage, 1 in 64 and 1 in 100, both are likely not even to occur in a typical battle.  This is already showing in the 2d6 data, why would you spend 3125000 Gp for a enchatment that would raise your average damage .2 or less than 3%. This is less than one third the benifit of that a d12 weapon gains. 


I have also thought of a simple solution for the GD problem and that is to not reroll any 1's due to Vorpal exploding die rolls and to not reroll any max die results due to GD rerolls. This would decouple the two powers and I think address a lot of the concerns.


----------



## ShaggySpellsword (Jul 4, 2008)

Whatever the solution here, I think it should be consistent.

If we think the intent is that 2d4 is a single die, then GoD should reroll only if you roll a 2 for each pair of dice, and Vorpal should only explode when you hit 8.

However, if we think the intent is ease of play, the GoD should reroll if the individual dice come up 1s, and Vorpal should explode on each 4.

Way 1: Sucks for Vorpal Fachions and Glaives.

Way 2:  Rocks very hard for Vorpal Falchions and Halbards.  Too hard?  I'm not sure.


----------



## Trebor62 (Jul 5, 2008)

Here's another option. Roll two different colored dice for the two die damage weapons but only reroll dice of one color for Vorpal damage. This would convert the Vorpal property for the two die weapons from a bell curve to a straight distrubution. Like wise this could also be done for the GoD.


----------



## silentounce (Jul 5, 2008)

These are good fixes that people are coming up with.  But that still doesn't solve the problem of how it is supposed to be done according to the rules.


----------



## Tellerve (Jul 5, 2008)

PHB p219

"Damage: The weapon's damage die... If the weapon's damage die is an expression of multiple dice, roll that number of dice the indicated number of times.  For example, a falchion (which has a damage die of 2d4) deals 8d4 damage when used with a power that deals 4[W] on a hit."

So, would appear that settles it, the falchion's damage die of 2d4.  

EDIT: Drat, I took too long to write this up and people already found the same quote.

Tellerve


----------



## silentounce (Jul 5, 2008)

Tellerve said:


> PHB p219
> 
> "Damage: The weapon's damage die... If the weapon's damage die is an expression of multiple dice, roll that number of dice the indicated number of times.  For example, a falchion (which has a damage die of 2d4) deals 8d4 damage when used with a power that deals 4[W] on a hit."
> 
> ...




It took you several days to write that up?  Or are you trying to make some kind of joke?


----------

