magic weapon powers, keen,and Undead..?

[kreynolds]

You may disagree with it since it was meant only as my opinion hence the "I would still run it differently" and the "it seems". ;-)

I was disagreeing with your opinion.

Though in your paragraph I believe you follow my point in that they are exceptions to the rule with out making them selves known as exception.

Actually, I don't follow your point. Because...

The weapon states its effect happens when a crit occurs when as you said before a crit can not occur. The weapon states its effect happens when a crit occurs when as you said before a crit can not occur. As you have stated in past posts this only uses the crit mechanic and, I am led to believe, with out it being an actual "critical hit".

Exactly. Either it works or it doesn't. Constructs can't be criticaled. This weapon destroys them on a crit. Thus the intent is clear that the weapon destroys the construct on a crit. With the intent clear, I think the fact that they are exceptions is also clear, which is why I can't follow your point.

Like I said though, it wouldn't hurt to be phrased a little differently, for those that miss the intent.

Yes I meant simpler to understand.

Gotcha.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Burst weapons affect anything on a successful critical hit. Since you can't successfully critical a construct or undead, and since the intent of burst weapons is not to specifically affect constructs or undead, then they don't affect constructs or undead.

The bottom line is that you can't crit a construct, so your flaming burst will not activate, ever, as it requires a "successful critical hit".

Vorpal: Upon a successful critical hit, the weapon severs the opponent's head (if it has one) from its body. Some creatures, such as golems and undead creatures other than vampires, are not affected by the loss of their heads.

-----

Successful critical hit. However, it goes on to point out that if you chop off a golem's head, it doesn't matter.

But the only way to chop off its head it with a successful critical hit. If that's impossible against a construct, why bother to tell us that losing its head doesn't affect it? It can't lose its head.

... unless its possible to achieve a "successful critical hit" against a golem, sufficient to activate the Vorpal ability, that doesn't deal critical damage.

And if it works for Vorpal, then since Flaming Burst uses the same wording, it must work for Flaming Burst as well.

-Hyp.

 

[kreynolds]

Successful critical hit. However, it goes on to point out that if you chop off a golem's head, it doesn't matter.

It also points out "The DM may have to make judgement calls about this sword's effect". Sounds like an awfully big exception to the rules.

But the only way to chop off its head it with a successful critical hit. If that's impossible against a construct, why bother to tell us that losing its head doesn't affect it?

Why bother saying anything at all if vorpal isn't merely another exception?

... unless its possible to achieve a "successful critical hit" against a golem, sufficient to activate the Vorpal ability, that doesn't deal critical damage.

And if it works for Vorpal, then since Flaming Burst uses the same wording, it must work for Flaming Burst as well.

I still don't see any merit to this. The mace of smiting is an exception. Disruption weapons are an exception. Vorpal weapons, which use such a wierd and unpredictable subset of rules that it had to include a disclaimer about DM judgement calls, is quite clearly an exception. I don't see the tie-in to the reverse argument.

 

[Anthron]

Constructs can't be criticaled. This weapon destroys them on a crit.

I must sharpen my skills of discerning intent then because to me the first statement invalidates the second. If no critical hit can be made against the construct then the critical hit that destroys it can not be made. If the critical hit destroys the construct then it was vulnerable to that critical hit.

If to a construct a 20 had the same effect as any other hitting number on the die then when would said weapon succeed at the critical? Only if it construct was not immune to that critical or if it wasn't a critical in the first place. Either way it would be out side the stated rule.

 

[kreynolds]

I must sharpen my skills of discerning intent then because to me the first statement invalidates the second.

Not really. You must simply exercise your right to think for yourself instead of fixating on just the words and not their meaning. If A cancels B and B cancels A, but the obvious intent is that B is supposed to be able to work, then you're missing something, and what you're missing here is the intent.

 

[Anthron]

Not really. You must simply exercise your right to think for yourself instead of fixating on just the words and not their meaning. If A cancels B and B cancels A, but the obvious intent is that B is supposed to be able to work, then you're missing something, and what you're missing here is the intent.

I think you are missing my intent. I am not trying to figure out if the Smiting and Disruption effects are triggered on a critical but why they are and Flaming/Icy/Shocking Burst are not. The sage saying "Because they don't" is not quite sufficient. Though I will run it how I choose no matter what, this is a very enjoyable conversation.

 

[kreynolds]

I think you are missing my intent.

Dude! I almost shot Diet Coke outta my nose!!! LOL

I am not trying to figure out why the Smiting and Disruption effects are triggered on a critical but why they are and Flaming/Icy/Shocking Burst are not.

Because Smiting and Disruption weapons are the exception and Flaming/Icy/Shocking Burst are not.

The sage saying "Because they don't" is not quite sufficient.

I totally agree, which is why it's such a good thing that my standpoint has nothing to do with what he says.

Though I will run it how I choose no matter what, this is a very enjoyable conversation.

Yeah, it's been going pretty smoothly. There were a couple of "almost-ugly" moments, but so far so good.

 

[Anthron]

Dude! I almost shot Diet Coke outta my nose!!! LOL

A little Coke through the nose never hurt anything... well maybe keyboards. {edit: Not that kind of Coke!}

Because Smiting and Disruption weapons are the exception and Flaming/Icy/Shocking Burst are not.

I take it that is how you would run it in game.

If confronted with it in game I would run it where the damage from the critical is normal but the effects of the crit are still triggered, the main reason for this is cause I like the looks of satisfaction on my players faces when they roll a natural 20 and see the effects no matter the foe. It is strange though, I have been called sadistic many time but my players do still keep come back.

Yeah, it's been going pretty smoothly. There were a couple of "almost-ugly" moments, but so far so good.

It sure is nice to have a well-mannered rules discussion when I should be working.

 

[Hypersmurf]

It also points out "The DM may have to make judgement calls about this sword's effect". Sounds like an awfully big exception to the rules.

That's not the judgement he makes.

If the target has a head - whether it's immune to criticals or not - the head gets chopped off on a successful critical. The DM's judgement is how that impacts upon the creature.

Why bother saying anything at all if vorpal isn't merely another exception?

Hmm? You're making the assumption that Smiting is an exception again.

On a successful critical hit, the clay golem's head is chopped off. But because it's a construct, it doesn't care.

Vorpal uses the same phrasing - "successful critical hit" - that you claimed disqualified Flaming Burst.

I don't consider it to be an exception.

And certainly not "quite clearly" an exception.

-Hyp.

 

[kreynolds]

That's not the judgement he makes.

If the target has a head - whether it's immune to criticals or not - the head gets chopped off on a successful critical. The DM's judgement is how that impacts upon the creature.

And that wasn't my point. My point was that Vorpal is a really poor (from my perspective) example to further your argument, as it also uses its own subset of rules. It's an exception to the rules in and of itself.

Hmm? You're making the assumption that Smiting is an exception again.

I'm not making an assumption that Smiting is an exception to the rule. I believe and interpret smiting to be an exception to the rule. Please don't belittle my having an opinion that differs from yours.

On a successful critical hit, the clay golem's head is chopped off. But because it's a construct, it doesn't care.

Vorpal uses the same phrasing - "successful critical hit" - that you claimed disqualified Flaming Burst.

I don't consider it to be an exception.

And certainly not "quite clearly" an exception.

Fair enough, but I do. Look, I'm not just here to merely disagree with you, and it's not that I don't want to be proven wrong, it's just that you provided an argument with Vorpal at the forefront, and I just don't see vorpal as anything but an exception, just like the others. That's all.