Vorpal, AoO, and one very dead Barbarian

[Dimwhit]

Last night we had an interesting situation come up, and I still don't know if the right call was made (though I probably wouldn't have gone the same way--maybe).

We're fighting a demon with a 10' reach. He starts casting a spell that is a full-round cast. The Barbarian knows this, so on his turn, he charges in to disrupt the spell. Since the demon has reach, he is given an AoO, rolls a 20 with a vorpal sword, confirms the crit, and kills the Barbarian, who happened to have Death Ward cast on himself.

Here are my questions:

1. Does Death Ward protect against Vorpal? The spell used to make a vorpal weapon is a death affect spell, but it's just a sword. DW protects against an Arrow of Slaying, but that items says specifically it's a death affect, and the vorpal does not.

2. If a caster is in the process of casting a full-round spell, can he still take an AoO? Would doing so disrupt his spell? If he can't take the AoO, can he voluntarily drop the spell and take the attack? Keep in mind that a fighter can't use quickdraw to whip out a weapon for an AoO, so would the free action of dropping the spell be allowed outside of the creatures turn?

Like I said, I'm not sure I disagree with the ruling, but we couldn't find anything in the books, both 3.0 and 3.5, that explains it very well.

 

[DiFier]

My opinion is that the barbarian succeeded at discrupting the spell, but at the cost of his life. (I'm not sure about the vorpal/death immunity thing) You can't attack while casting a spell.

 

[sithramir]

Last night we had an interesting situation come up, and I still don't know if the right call was made (though I probably wouldn't have gone the same way--maybe).

We're fighting a demon with a 10' reach. He starts casting a spell that is a full-round cast. The Barbarian knows this, so on his turn, he charges in to disrupt the spell. Since the demon has reach, he is given an AoO, rolls a 20 with a vorpal sword, confirms the crit, and kills the Barbarian, who happened to have Death Ward cast on himself.

Here are my questions:

1. Does Death Ward protect against Vorpal? The spell used to make a vorpal weapon is a death affect spell, but it's just a sword. DW protects against an Arrow of Slaying, but that items says specifically it's a death affect, and the vorpal does not.

2. If a caster is in the process of casting a full-round spell, can he still take an AoO? Would doing so disrupt his spell? If he can't take the AoO, can he voluntarily drop the spell and take the attack? Keep in mind that a fighter can't use quickdraw to whip out a weapon for an AoO, so would the free action of dropping the spell be allowed outside of the creatures turn?

Like I said, I'm not sure I disagree with the ruling, but we couldn't find anything in the books, both 3.0 and 3.5, that explains it very well.

1. No death ward is useless. He died from parts being chopped off and from DAMAGE and bleeding. Not from a death spell. DW only protects from the slaying part of an arrow of slaying. Not the damage part of 1d8 or what not.

2. A caster only needs one free hand to cast. Also if its a demon its probably a spell like ability or something also. Either way as long as theres a weapon in the other hand he still threatens and is allowed an AoO.

Sucks but thats one dead barbarian hehe.

 

[sithramir]

My opinion is that the barbarian succeeded at discrupting the spell, but at the cost of his life. (I'm not sure about the vorpal/death immunity thing) You can't attack while casting a spell.

Good thing thats an opinion. You can't attack while casting in the same round anymore since thats 2 standard actions and haste doesn't allow that anymore. However, you still threaten an area if wielding a weapon and you can cast a spell with one hand. Since an AoO is not a standard but a free action theres no reason for him to not be able to do it.

If you only need one hand and maybe some words for the spell why wouldn't you be able to swing your sword?

I _might_ understand if a DM ruled he had to make a concentration check however that wouldn't be in the actual rules.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

By the rules, you still get AoO's, even when you cast. In that case, he probably didn't even cast, but used a spell-like ability, which are AFAIK without somantic components.

A concentration check would be OK, though (it is one of those gray areas which don't come up all that often and have to be house ruled).

But the Vorpal thing is clear: The barbarian is now very headless and dead.

 

[Artoomis]

Rules mistake.

Cast a Spell
...While casting a spell, you don’t threaten any squares around you...

There should have been no AoO from the demon.

 

[Dimwhit]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cast a Spell
...While casting a spell, you don’t threaten any squares around you...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



There should have been no AoO from the demon.

Wow. We looked all over, but we didn't see that. Where is that quote?

What would you rule about the Demon, if he doesn't threaten, voluntarily dropping the spell so he could take the AoO? I would say no, since even if a free action, it would still have to be done on his turn.

 

[Artoomis]

Wow. We looked all over, but we didn't see that. Where is that quote?

What would you rule about the Demon, if he doesn't threaten, voluntarily dropping the spell so he could take the AoO? I would say no, since even if a free action, it would still have to be done on his turn.

In the SRD it's under Combat Actions I, "Cast a Spell."

Would I let him stop casting? Nope - it's not his turn. Simple as pie.

I would let him not complete the spell if he so chose, but that would be on his turn. It would be a slight twisting of the rules to do even that, as the spell is complete just before his turn, but common sense says he should be able to stop at some point rather than complete the spell.

 

[Dimwhit]

One last question: does this apply for 3.0, 3.5, or both? I found that line in the 3.5 SRD, but is that a new point to the rules?

 

[Artoomis]

One last question: does this apply for 3.0, 3.5, or both? I found that line in the 3.5 SRD, but is that a new point to the rules?

In 3.0 I don't think this is spelled out. I think the 3.5 rule is clarifying things, not making a new rule.

The above, however, is just my assumption.