TRPG General Chat

6:07 PM

This moonblade question is a tough one.

@NautArch I would think that "functions as a vorpal sword" refers not to the attack/damage bonus but rather the "decapitate on crit" feature.

NautArch

@Yuuki That's my thought on the intent, but not sure how/if you can prove it

Yuuki

Well, isn't the only vorpal weapon in 5e actually a vorpal greatsword?

Probably doesn't change anything.

NautArch

@Yuuki Weapon (any sword that deals slashing damage)

I think it's more that there appears to be a hard limit on magic items of +3

but that's not written anywhere...it just is.

@Rubiksmoose You went way more in depth than I :)

have an updoot

Rubiksmoose

@NautArch daww thanks :) Yeah I guess I'm just in an answering mood today for whatever reason. I've barely written any answers the last couple of months actually.

Adam

6:23 PM

@NautArch DMG page 285 details a process for creating a custom magic item. There is a table on that page which lists the maximum bonus for an item by rarity. +4 is actually the cap in that table. Specifically for legendary items

NautArch

@Rubiksmoose I didn't even consider adding in the obvious rule on attunement. That's the 2nd time I've missed the obvious :/

@Adam Hmm, that doesn't help :)

It's a good question they posited.

Rubiksmoose

@NautArch Hey at least you read the question correctly lol. I read it as a completely different question at first. (you can see the first edit history for that lol)

Adam

@NautArch It might not help in answering the question. I was just pointing out that it in fact is written somewhere. It's in the DMG

It's also in the 5e conversion rules: media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/DnD_Conversions_1.0.pdf

NautArch

@Adam Heh :) good to know, though. I'm fairly certain I know what the answer should be, just have no idea how to prove it.

@Adam Went to sageadvice.eu to do a moonblade search, but this was waiting for me.

Adam

Brings back memories of better days...

Star Wars IV: A new hope - Binary Sunset (Force Theme)

►

GreySage

6:35 PM

@Rubiksmoose You have 14 answers this month so far, not counting today. You have odd standards.

Rubiksmoose

6:54 PM

@GreySage You should have see me a few months ago. My rep chart looks like it hit an asymptote around then lol.

@NautArch @Adam I gave the vorpal Q a shot.

NautArch

@Rubiksmoose I like it, but it still hinges on a lot of assumptions.

Rubiksmoose

@NautArch I mean sure, but sometimes things aren't clear in the books so you have to use a bit of common sense. I'm not sure I relied on any assumptions other than "each rune should be designed to be roughly the same power"

@NautArch Reading the Vorpal Rune the more powerful way makes that one rune the same power as at least 4 other runes combined.

NautArch

I agree, but it's hard to counter a response of "So what?"

Rubiksmoose

@NautArch Well when the language is iffy and there are two interpretations, do you go with the one that makes the rune fit in with all the other runes or the one that makes it stand out like mount everest in the middle of a field?

There is literally no way to "prove" this conclusively I recognize that, but when one interpretation is ridiculously powerful and the other makes a lot of sense and fits exactly how the rest of the features of the item, does that not seem at all compelling?

V2Blast

yeah, I think the best we can do in the absence of an official answer is logically reason out why it doesn't make sense for vorpal/defender runes to give a +3 and their main effect

someone tweet Crawford :P

NautArch

7:06 PM

@Rubiksmoose I hear ya. I'm just worried that if someone is looking for a loophole, they'll take the loophole without something to really challenge it besides common sense.

But I guess it was good enough for GaelL

Rubiksmoose

What is funny is that not only would the Vorpal replace getting the first rune 3 times, but it also completely replaces it entirely. Not really much point to have two different runes give the same effect only one gives it much better.

@NautArch I don't follow exactly. What do you mean?

Sir Cinnamon

While I think that's the right answer RAI, as a counterpoint to your answer moose: In antimagic field "a longsword, +1 in the sphere functions as a nonmagical longsword."

NautArch

@Rubiksmoose I"m bordering on being Not Nice with explaining it :)

basically, munchkins gonna munchkin without a clear constraint.

Rubiksmoose

@NautArch Sure, but isn't my asnwer arguing for restraint? Or are you saying that by admitting that there is no clear RAW I'm giving ammo to people who say that it does get that +3?

David Coffron

I asked Crawford. Maybe he will respond (though I doubt it since he's probs have to look up the rules. No one plays with moonblades)

NautArch

7:12 PM

@Rubiksmoose the latter :) You have made a good case for what the constraint should be, but because it isn't an actual constraint.

Rubiksmoose

@NautArch gotcha gotcha. Well I've never known a munchkin who was dissuaded from pursuing a loophole by a lack of answer.

GreySage

@NautArch munchkins gonna munchkin even with clear constraint, and if thats the game they play good for them, if that isn't the game they play, then the DM will shut it down.

Rubiksmoose

@GreySage And yeah I think a good DM would look at that answer and provide a good tool to shut it down if they wanted to.

@NautArch I could have made it so much worse by inserting my original answer in the beggining as a RAW answer which was arguing that it would take the +3

NautArch

@Rubiksmoose aaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh

Rubiksmoose

@NautArch I still can if you really want me to ;)

David Coffron

7:19 PM

I don't understand why you all assume it's a munchkin question. Could just be trying to clarify what it means (could happen in game easily)

Rubiksmoose

I wonder how many more questions I have to answer and get accepted today by Gael before I trigger some sort of anti-collusion function in the SE system lol.

Do you have the answer I seek ? (I'm asking this series of questions to properly answer another question about the theoretical maximized damage you can do on a single hit. Been working on an optimized answer for days now) — Gael L 33 mins ago

I still don't actually think it is muchkiny though really.

NautArch

@DavidCoffron I'm not assuming it's a munchkin question - but it could be used by one.

David Coffron

I mean I already answered the maximum damage question with moonblade

NautArch

And I upvoted the question (which I don't' do when I think it's a munchkin question)

David Coffron

3

A: What is the most damage that can be done in a single melee attack?

∞ Well not actually infinity but arbitrarily large. Since you said any official items are allowed, the answer keeps getting higher the more time you have to setup. This is because of Moonblade. Moonblades gain a new rune for each master it has served, meaning that with more former masters, it w...

nitsua60

8:51 PM

@Rubiksmoose The exact numbers/cutoffs/calculations aren't known to us, but I'd be shocked--shocked! I say--if you were close to tripping anything. The list of who they've given votes to reads like a who's-who of 5e posters over the last year.

screamline

Hey @Rubiksmoose - For the record I think you're ultimately correct about the moonblade/vorpal thing. I just think it's unprovable.

Rubiksmoose

@screamline I'm with you there, but, on the other hand not every answer has to be provable, just backed up. And I think I meet that threshold at least.

But yeah, I thought it was a good enough and solid enough reasoning to stand up.

@screamline (also I hope you didn't take my comment as anger or something) I just was trying to avoid an argument to break out in my comments lol

@nitsua60 phew lol Yeah I'm sure the've fine tuned that stuff quite a bit by now.

screamline

@Rubiksmoose No worries. We're good.

BESW

→ 7 messages moved to Not a bar, but plays one on TV

→ 1 message moved to Not a bar, but plays one on TV

Transcript for