Vorpal sword and Heavy Fortification

[Trainz]

Given that...

==============================================
Fortification: This suit of armor or shield produces a magical force that protects vital areas of the wearer more effectively. When a critical hit or sneak attack is scored on the wearer, there is a chance that the critical hit or sneak attack is negated and damage is instead rolled normally.
Fortification Heavy totally imunes to crits and sneak attacks.
==============================================
Vorpal: This potent and feared ability allows the weapon to sever the heads of those it strikes. Upon a roll of natural 20 (followed by a successful roll to confirm the critical hit), the weapon severs the opponent’s head (if it has one) from its body. Some creatures, such as many aberrations and all oozes, have no heads. Others, such as golems and undead creatures other than vampires, are not affected by the loss of their heads. Most other creatures, however, die when their heads are cut off. A vorpal weapon must be a slashing weapon. (If you roll this property randomly for an inappropriate weapon, reroll.)
==============================================

Although undead are immune to crits, their heads can indeed be chopped off by a vorpal blade. A character wearing a heavy fortification armor loosing his head... would be affected by the loss of his head...

What do you think ? Does a heavy fortification armor protects from a vorpal blade ?

 

[CalrinAlshaw]

Well, by the rules it's a NO.

But, as a DM call, I'd allow instead of head removal, I'd allow standard crit damage.

Calrin Alshaw

 

[Thresher]

Few ways of looking at this

1: Yes
2: No
3: Maybe, if the fortification is on a suit of armour and not a shield/bracers
4: Maybe, the vorpal weapon is higher as it costs more than heavy fortification
5: Maybe, the armour fills a slot, a weapon dosnt, armour wins
6: No, theres enough insta-kill already with divine casters

I err on the side of no myself, but the above will give you some idea of how this thread will wallow into an old fashioned screaming match.
Personally at home we removed vorpal and gave it an extra (x4) to the weapons crit, which so far tends to make things pretty dead or wish they where dead, seems to have been a good enough house rule so far.

 

[Crothian]

Yes, it protects against vorpal

 

[LightPhoenix]

Heavy Fortification specifically says the critical is negated. Vorpal requires a confirmed critical to activate. Therefore, HF protects completely against the Vorpal effect. Likewise, any Fortification provides a percentage chance to negate the ciritical, and thus negate any effect dependant on criticals - Vorpal, Burst, Thundering, and the like.

 

[dcollins]

Very much a DM's call. My reading, narrowly construed, would be "no fortification protection against a vorpal weapon". The rule you posted is keyed off rolling a 20 and then a confirm -- in other words, fortification + vorpal results in "normal damage (no crit or sneak damage), but lose your head".

But, heck, for flavor purposes it seems neat if fortification does guard your neck like that. As the 3.0 vorpal description says, "The DM may have to make judgment calls about this sword's effect."

 

[Epametheus]

IMO, it negates crits, so it stops vorpal blades.

I don't particularly care for fortification being placable on shields, though. Being able to carry around a dinky buckler that effectively nullifies all hostile rogues seems a bit much.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Heavy Fortification specifically says the critical is negated. Vorpal requires a confirmed critical to activate. Therefore, HF protects completely against the Vorpal effect. Likewise, any Fortification provides a percentage chance to negate the ciritical, and thus negate any effect dependant on criticals - Vorpal, Burst, Thundering, and the like.

I agree with this.

A Flaming Burst weapon versus a zombie: on a confirmed critical attack roll, the Burst triggers. The zombie, as an undead creature, is immune to criticals, and thus takes no critical damage or sneak attack damage... but the critical does still occur, and the Flaming Burst damage applies. (3.5 Main FAQ)

However...
A Flaming Burst weapon versus someone wearing Heavy Fortification Armor: on a confirmed critical attack roll, there is a 100% chance that the critical is negated. The wearer is not immune to the critical; rather, it is as if the critical never happened in the first place. No critical, no Burst. Different to immunity.

The Sage has been quoted as stating - in an email, from memory - that Fortification doesn't actually negate a critical... but since that's in direct contradiction to the text and hasn't made it into the Official FAQ, it doesn't have a whole lot of credibility.

Vorpal is a slightly odd case, given that it uses a Natural 20, rather than the threat range of the weapon... but it specifically uses the phrase "confirm the critical hit", which suggests that if the critical doesn't occur, neither does Vorpal.

If it's negated, it doesn't occur.

-Hyp.

 

[Trainz]

In view of all your posts, I tend to think that heavy fortification does protect against vorpals.

My player in my epic solo game will be glad to learn this. I intend to throw at him a bunch of Greater Balors at him in my next game (see Greater Balor thread in house rules).

 

[Endur]

Under 3.5, I'd be inclined to allow a vorpal blade to remove the head of someone protected by heavy fortification. Under 3.0, I probably would have ruled the other way.