Vorpal vs fortification armor

[Cabral]

Okay I created a house rule thread with Scion's rule (I hope you don't mind) and my own clutzy ideas

 

[Scion]

So then, which magical defense protects against Vorpal?

High AC? Miss chance? Mirror Image?

All of those help to protect against it.

Changing into a form without a head works as well.. and i suppose there is something to be said for creatures who have heads out of reach.

 

[mvincent]

If you're immune to crits, the crit still happens; you just don't take the extra damage. Crit-triggered effects - like Vorpal, Flaming Burst, etc - still trigger and have their normal effect.

If you have a % chance of negating the crit, and that chance arises, the crit never actually happened. Crit-triggered effects remain quiescent, because the critical that would trigger them was negated.

So fortification would negate the burst from a shocking or flaming burst weapon?

 

[Nyeshet]

And if the beheading weren't dependent on confirming a critical hit - a hit that has been negated by the Fortification property - I'd agree with you.

That is to say: The "two events" of which you speak are not simultaneous and independent. Beheading is dependent on the critical hit.

Not necessarily. Although I cannot think of one off hand (unless certain types of vermin, perhaps?) that can survive a beheading and are not immune to critical hits, I would rule in this case that they are beheaded and receive critical hit damage. This is, in my opinion, what happens when Vorpal is applied to undead, golems, etc. The beheading and the damage occur, but the damage is negated by immunity to critical damage.

 

[KarinsDad]

High AC? Miss chance? Mirror Image?

All of those help to protect against it.

Changing into a form without a head works as well.. and i suppose there is something to be said for creatures who have heads out of reach.

At the level at which Vorpal swords come into play, high AC, miss chance, and Mirror Image might not be very viable options. Many characters, even Fighters, have ways to acquire True Seeing, See Invisible, etc. at those types of levels.

If you were the PC Cleric and you were about to fight the BBEG, wouldn't you put a True Seeing spell on the PC Fighter with the Vorpal weapon?


And typically, you do not change into a form with no head unless you know ahead of time that you will be facing a Vorpal weapon.


Basically, some minor defenses do exist (even Fly), but only Fortification can really be considered a defense purposely designed to counter Vorpal (and other special weapon / ability attacks).

 

[Scion]

So fortification would negate the burst from a shocking or flaming burst weapon?

yep, isnt that cool?

 

[Scion]

At the level at which Vorpal swords come into play, high AC, miss chance, and Mirror Image might not be very viable options. Many characters, even Fighters, have ways to acquire True Seeing, See Invisible, etc. at those types of levels.

If you were the PC Cleric and you were about to fight the BBEG, wouldn't you put a True Seeing spell on the PC Fighter with the Vorpal weapon?

And typically, you do not change into a form with no head unless you know ahead of time that you will be facing a Vorpal weapon.

So it takes some special preperation to get around, and even those preperations can be further countered.

Such is life in d&d really.

Basically, some minor defenses do exist (even Fly), but only Fortification can really be considered a defense purposely designed to counter Vorpal (and other special weapon / ability attacks).

But the wording on vorpal and fortification say that one does not effect the other.

So, it could be that vorpal has no direct counter in the ruleset other than being immune directly. There are other items like that, but none that I can think of kill instantly.

More reason I think vorpal should be removed completely.

Even if fortification did work I still would think vorpal should be removed. It just isnt balanced when used.

 

[mvincent]

I cannot think of one off hand (unless certain types of vermin, perhaps?) that can survive a beheading and are not immune to critical hits,

Hydra

 

[KarinsDad]

But the wording on vorpal and fortification say that one does not effect the other.

Where?

So, it could be that vorpal has no direct counter in the ruleset other than being immune directly. There are other items like that, but none that I can think of kill instantly.

More reason I think vorpal should be removed completely.

Even if fortification did work I still would think vorpal should be removed. It just isnt balanced when used.

Agreed. I would allow my players to craft a Vorpal weapon, but eventually (once it became semi-common knowledge) the "local authorities" and other interested parties would attempt to steal it / acquire it / suppress the use of it, etc. I'd probably let my players know this ahead of time.

Think of it like an Abrams Tank in the real world. What government would allow an individual to travel around in such a thing without stopping them?

Some weapons are just too potent to be allowed in just anyone's hands.

PS. I might also allow a very potent BBEG have one, but it would be a BBEG that the PCs would rarely encounter and he would be known to have one (hence the reason nobody tries to take him out).

 

[Nail]

I see them as seperate and distinct, given the wording. It definately does not say that it is a critical hit effect, merely that the critical that it already is must be confirmed for it to trigger.....

So you are saying a "critical hit effect" does not follow from a "confirmed critical hit"?

A critical hit is only a critical hit if it is confirmed. There is no other kind of critical hit. The phrase you are looking for is "a threat-a possible critical hit". The vorpal ability does not activate if you threaten a critical hit.

Beheading occurs because of a confirmed critical hit from a vorpal weapon. Fortification negates critical hits. Negation means the confirmed critical hit did not occur - the attempt is invalid. Negation does NOT mean the event happened, and then part of it didn't happen.