D&D 5E Lesser Vorpal Sword

[Lakesidefantasy]

I want to give my players a vorpal sword. They are fourth level. Do you think it's too early for a vorpal sword? I think it might be too early for a warpful sword. So I came up with the lesser vorpal sword.

It does everything a normal vorpal sword does except it only gives a +1 bonus and you have to confirm criticals to trigger the decapitation property. If you're not familiar with confirming critical hits, it comes from 3rd edition, where rolling a 20 on an attack roll is not an automatic critical hit. Instead, a roll of 20 is simply an automatic hit and gives you the opportunity to confirm a critical hit by re-rolling the attack roll and succeeding against the armor class of your opponent.

Do you think this would be safe to give to 4th level players? Do you think it is too harsh? Do you think it would just be annoying?

 

[Lanefan]

I've never worried too much about giving low-level characers high-end items, but then in my system items can be destroyed so there's some long-term turnover. That, and they often only get to use it for that adventure anyway as when it comes time to divide the treasury no single character can afford to claim it it and they all need the money for other things e.g. training. Thus, the high-end item gets sold off.

I like your idea here. I've always been a fan of confirming crits and fumbles in order to make them happen less often, and this is a good way of introducing the confirm-rule idea to your group in a to-them-beneficial way.

 

[Clint_L]

It’s powerful, so it might make other players kinda jealous - it’s the kind of weapon that can wind up rewarding its owner with a lot of big hero moments. As for annoying, that kind of depends on you. Will you be annoyed if your carefully prepared BBEG fight ends on the first roll? I think it would be kind of funny, but I miscalibrate fights all the time.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

I also have to worry about them. They're going up against the sword itself. I have to accept that they might get their heads cut off.

 

[Reynard]

I would be more inclined to give them the vorpal sword but make it dangerous to wield. Like, "If your total to hit roll is not at least 10, you strike yourself" level dangerous. Low level characters with relatively low to hit bonuses are looking at 25% chances of lopping off their own limbs. As they get higher level, that probability drops until it hits the nat 1, where it should be.

 

[DEFCON 1]

My paladin in a PF game I'm playing in was given a +3 vorpal sword at probably 7th-8th level that also required a Nat 20 crit confirmation, so like yours it was a lower-powered one than normal. At least for us it has never really been a big deal because we face a large variety of enemies and creatures that only some can be decapitated on, plus our party is of 6 PCs which means battles tend to end in shorter numbers of rounds (reducing the number of attack roll opportunities I have to roll those confirmed Nat 20s.)

All told I've taken the heads off a handful of creatures, but thus far only two "plot-centric" enemies have I done it to. And for those two times even though I was ending a fight quickly on a "big bad"... they both became very memorable moments in the campaign. And goodness knows the other PCs have had more than their fair share of "How do you want to do this?" moments as well, so my character has by no means dominated the discussion on that score.

Granted... we play with a DM who knows all of this and is very cognizant and careful about keeping the balance amongst all of us so that no one dominates things all the time (and all the other 5 PCs have more than their share of cool and powerful magic items too)... so just because it works for us doesn't necessarily mean it will work for everyone. But if you have a specific reason for giving your players a vorpal sword and think you can keep the party balanced even with it in the hands of one of your PCs... then go ahead and try it. If the sword is sentient... as your just previous post seems to possibly infer... then if at some point the sword becomes too much for the party than you can always find a reason for the sword to ditch the group and move on.

 

[Shardstone]

I've given a player a Vorpal sword at level 4 before and it didn't shift the game horribly. It made that player have some really cool highlight moments, but nothing truly out of the ordinary.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

At low levels a crit can kill enemies whether or not you have a vorpal sword.

 

[Upper_Krust]

A 1 in 400 chance of decapitation is a bit rubbish. Maybe make the confirmation roll 'your level or less on a d20'.

Also base vorpal swords (even without the confirmation roll) are relatively weak - I suggest having swords of sharpness and vorpal swords always deal maximum damage on each hit (ie. 8 on a d8).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I've never worried too much about giving low-level characers high-end items, but then in my system items can be destroyed so there's some long-term turnover. That, and they often only get to use it for that adventure anyway as when it comes time to divide the treasury no single character can afford to claim it it and they all need the money for other things e.g. training. Thus, the high-end item gets sold off.

That sounds like a very egoistical way of playing.

I like your idea here. I've always been a fan of confirming crits and fumbles in order to make them happen less often, and this is a good way of introducing the confirm-rule idea to your group in a to-them-beneficial way.

The only real benefit of confirmations is that you don't crit if the enemy is very hard to hit.

Maybe I will introduce the rule that you can't crit if a natural 20 would not hit the enemy. But usually that is no problem.

Perhaps allowing a con save vs crit (DC = attack roll - 10 = attack bonus + 10) seems more appropriate as a confirmation.