D&D 5E Lesser Vorpal Sword

[DEFCON 1]

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).

Confirming a crit doesn't mean needing to roll a second Nat 20 (which I agree would be rubbish), but rather it means you make a second attack roll and if you were to hit again then the crit is confirmed.

 

[Weiley31]

"What makes it a lesser Vorpal Sword?"

"Well for starter, it only goes SNICKER with no snacks."

"Damn, I was quite hungry too."

 

[Upper_Krust]

Confirming a crit doesn't mean needing to roll a second Nat 20 (which I agree would be rubbish), but rather it means you make a second attack roll and if you were to hit again then the crit is confirmed.

Been a while since I played 3E but that sounds more like it. Wondered what the heck I was thinking.

 

[GMMichael]

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?

4th level players? Oh god, no. Give it to their characters, though. That would be fun. Except you might blow the players' minds a bit with the whole A-Hit-Is-Definitely-Meat thing. One way to avoid that and reduce the Vorpal power is to make the hit that reduces to zero HP the one that lops off the head.

Side note: why don't NPCs get death saves? Are they more hardcore than PCs?

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.

Oh, well that's good to know. We're still talking about the characters, right?

 

[Lanefan]

That sounds like a very egoistical way of playing.

Egalitarian, not egoistical. Everyone gets an equal share by value.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Egalitarian, not egoistical. Everyone gets an equal share by value.

Depends on how you interpret it.

In our games we always gave the item to the one who can use it best for the group. Insisting on selling it so you get some share is egoistical, because everyone looks at their own pocket instead of looking at the party as a whole.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

Well I feel dumb. I just watched you guys debate the meaning of a misspelled word. Now I come to learn that it's not misspelled at all.

It's like 'supposably' all over again.

 

[jmartkdr2]

The decapitation aspect doesn't come up much and isn't really controlled by the player, so I wouldn't put a lot of value on it. It's cool when it happens but not really a major increase in power.

+3 at level 4 is a bit much,, but scaling that part of it is simple to execute.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

The decapitation aspect doesn't come up much and isn't really controlled by the player, so I wouldn't put a lot of value on it. It's cool when it happens but not really a major increase in power.

+3 at level 4 is a bit much,, but scaling that part of it is simple to execute.

I think I'm going to have it potentially grow with the Play...er, I mean Characters (if they so choose to keep it). The bonus will be half of the attuned wielder's proficiency bonus rounded down (up?), and the confirmed decapitation will revert to simple critical decapitation when that bonus is +3.

 

[Lanefan]

Depends on how you interpret it.

In our games we always gave the item to the one who can use it best for the group. Insisting on selling it so you get some share is egoistical, because everyone looks at their own pocket instead of looking at the party as a whole.

Does one character - or more - have to put off training into a new level so another can retain the very expensive vorpal sword we just found? Or be denied the funds to go out and buy something else that's come available in town?