a couple of questions

[radmod]

My problem with the FAQ's answer is (from Dandu's post):

Upon a roll of natural 20 (followed by a successful roll to confirm the critical hit)

which means it IS a critical hit.

Question: irdeggman posted from the FAQ:

but the description calls out a
number of creatures immune to critical hits, but that have
heads, as subject to the weapon’s effect.

What am I missing? Where in the listing does it do that? Vampires, yes, but where else?

Sounds like a DM's call to me (and since I don't like vorpal anyway, I'll ignore the FAQ).

BTW, I believe it was 2e which had the Periapt of Wound Closure saying specifically it prevented open and bleeding wounds. One DM ruled that a vorpal strike was an open wound therefore the Periapt prevented being vorpal-ed!

 

[irdeggman]

Question: irdeggman posted from the FAQ:
What am I missing? Where in the listing does it do that? Vampires, yes, but where else?

Golems - all constructs are immune to critical hits. So they mention undead and golems (constructs) - which are the 2 most common creature types immune to critical hits. Seems to me to be sufficient to make the point that being immune to a critical hit does not automatically make a creature immune to the effects of a vorpal weapon.

Remember it (DMG and FAQ) does not say that taking off their head auto kills them (only usually) - it specifically mentions that taking off and that some creatures who lose their heads are unaffected by the loss (undead {except for vampires} and golems)

Being too quick to assume that the FAQ is wrong and making the assumption that it is all of the time leads to skimming over the answer and missing the parts within.

 

[Jhaelen]

Eh, I always saw it as the magic of vorpal.
Player: "I stab the giant in his ankle!"
Sword: *snicker-snack*
DM: "... a phantom scythe blade flashes through the giant's throat and his head falls off."
Player: "... Cool! Ankles are a giant's weak spot."
DM: *groan*

He he, that reminds me of a hilarious Rolemaster session in which one pc tried to slit the throat of a sleeping npc. The DM told the player to roll on one or two tables (well it's Rolemaster!) which resulted in ... hitting the npc's ankle

 

[irdeggman]

My problem with the FAQ's answer is (from Dandu's post):
which means it IS a critical hit.

Which technically means the following

A critical hit means that you roll your damage more than once, with all your usual bonuses, and add the rolls together. Unless otherwise specified, the threat range for a critical hit on an attack roll is 20, and the multiplier is x2

But you are not doing that vor a vorpal effect - so technically it is not a "critical hit" but would merely follow the mechanics for executing one (which the DMG leads you to believe and the FAQ gives commentary that is what it says).

But back to the FAQ answer in this case.

Where does it conflict with what is said in the DMG?

People are actually arguing over what the DMG says not what the FAQ says.

All I did was provide the FAQ answer as another piece of evidence to support that vorpal effect is not a "critical hit" but only uses the mechanic for confirming a critical hit.

 

[ValhallaGH]

But back to the FAQ answer in this case.

Where does it conflict with what is said in the DMG?

People are actually arguing over what the DMG says not what the FAQ says.

All I did was provide the FAQ answer as another piece of evidence to support that vorpal effect is not a "critical hit" but only uses the mechanic for confirming a critical hit.

See my previous post.

 

[irdeggman]

See my previous post.

Which from my previous post has nothing to do with the FAQ answer,.but rather the DMG entry itself correct?

The rules don't address creatures with their heads already removed.

 

[radmod]

Golems - all constructs are immune to critical hits. So they mention undead and golems (constructs) - which are the 2 most common creature types immune to critical hits. Seems to me to be sufficient to make the point that being immune to a critical hit does not automatically make a creature immune to the effects of a vorpal weapon.

Ah, I see where I erred in my thinking. I was thinking "subject to the effects" meant they were killed, not simply the case that they lose their heads even though they aren't killed.

Being too quick to assume that the FAQ is wrong and making the assumption that it is all of the time leads to skimming over the answer and missing the parts within.

I certainly hope you are not referring to me here because that's certainly not what I did.

 

[irdeggman]

I certainly hope you are not referring to me here because that's certainly not what I did.

I didn't mean to offend and maybe it was an assumption on my part of the reason that the FAQ wasn't read in its entirety.

It is just human nature (like optical illusions) that when one has a preconceived notin about something (in my point the FAQ being wrong) that the reader tends to read things in that light - and sometimes miss things that are there.

In this case the point that the FAQ has about losing their heads but still not die or be destroyed because of it and the examples listed (in the DMG) of creatures immune to criticals but still being subject to losing their heads although not dying or being destroyed becasue of it.

 

[ValhallaGH]

Which from my previous post has nothing to do with the FAQ answer,.but rather the DMG entry itself correct?

The rules don't address creatures with their heads already removed.

No, it is a flaw in the FAQ answer provided.

Because of these exceptions, being immune to a critical or
having an ability that negates a critical has no effect on the
vorpal’s head-taking properties. Only the lack of a head makes
you immune to the vorpal’s decapitation, and only in the cases
where a head is not necessary for the creature to be alive (or it
does not destroy creatures that are not alive) can a creature
survive its decapitation effect.

Lumi have heads. Lumi are immune to Vorpal decapitation. Therefore, the FAQ answer is blatantly wrong.

Not in a major way, but in a way that is clear and obvious to those who know all the facts. Since the FAQ claims to be one of those that knows all the facts, this is indicative of greater issues.

 

[irdeggman]

No, it is a flaw in the FAQ answer provided.


Lumi have heads. Lumi are immune to Vorpal decapitation. Therefore, the FAQ answer is blatantly wrong.

Not in a major way, but in a way that is clear and obvious to those who know all the facts. Since the FAQ claims to be one of those that knows all the facts, this is indicative of greater issues.

So instead of giving the "general" rule for how a vorpal weapon works (which they did) you expected them to cover all of the specfic creatures.

That is to say that Lumi is a specific creature that states it is immune to a vorpal weapon - now that could be because the head is already disconnected (which the floating head ability states) or it could have been "just because". It also states that they can't be flanked or strangled or suffocated.

I don't see how this makes the FAQ answer blatently wrong in any way.