Vorpal vs fortification armor

[Nyeshet]

Hydra

I can't believe I forgot that creature!

 

[Sejs]

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.

Trolls.

"If a troll loses a limb or body part, the lost portion regrows in 3d6 minutes. The creature can reattach the severed member instantly by holding it to the stump."

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

That's how I read it too. I'm not quite sure how you can read it the other way without some form of linguistical gymnastics. I must be missing something key there.

In the case of undead and constructs, I read "not subject to critical hits" to mean that it actually happens, they just are not affected, and Vorpal is an exception to this standard rule.

 

[Sejs]

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.

See this is where we differ on this matter, Nail. The ability says expressly that "the critical hit or sneak attack is negated and damage is instead rolled normally."

Just like you said, the word negation does not mean it sorta happened and sorta didn't, it means flat out did not happen. Were the entry to simply read that it negates the critical hit, period, full stop, it would mean that no damage is rolled at all; the critical hit was negated, part and parcel. It doesn't read that way though, it says the critical hit or sneak attack is negated and damage is instead rolled normally. It says to me that the hit took place, but you don't get extra damage out of it. But vorpal isn't damage, it's an effect.

I don't know, I think Peter had the right of it when he said it's another one of those issues that's too close to call in any official capacity and that it's pretty much up to the individual DM.

Heh, then again I also agree with everyone who has said that Vorpal weapons are just Bad News Bears period and should never see the light of day.

 

[IanB]

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.

I don't think the rules support this interpretation.

"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."

This wording says to me very clearly that the critical hit is confirmed first, then there's a chance to negate it. It does not matter if that chance is 100%. The order of events is thus:

1) critical threat
2) confirm critical
3) check to see if critical is negated
4) roll damage as appropriate

I don't see how this text can be read any other way, frankly. It does not say "when a critical threat is scored on the wearer, there is a chance that the confirmation roll never happens."

If you get to step 2 and confirm the critical, the critical is confirmed whether or not it is negated in step 3. As we know from this sentence, "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," all you need to do is confirm. You don't care if it is negated afterwards. The head comes off regardless.

This seems very straightforward to me.

 

[KarinsDad]

See this is where we differ on this matter, Nail. The ability says expressly that "the critical hit or sneak attack is negated and damage is instead rolled normally."

Just like you said, the word negation does not mean it sorta happened and sorta didn't, it means flat out did not happen. Were the entry to simply read that it negates the critical hit, period, full stop, it would mean that no damage is rolled at all; the critical hit was negated, part and parcel. It doesn't read that way though, it says the critical hit or sneak attack is negated and damage is instead rolled normally. It says to me that the hit took place, but you don't get extra damage out of it. But vorpal isn't damage, it's an effect.

The sentence has to handle two cases: critical hit and sneak attack damage, not just one case.

It is not talking about extra damage in the case of a critical hit, it is talking about the normal damage rolled because you hit in the first place. What happens when you do not get a critical but still hit? You roll normal damage.

In the case of sneak attack damage, it is not talking about the extra sneak attack damage, it is talking about the normal damage because you hit in the first place. What happens when you do not get a sneak attack but still hit? You roll normal damage.



The problem I have is that people somehow are talking as if the critical hit is NOT negated when it flat out states that it is. If you can avoid the negation of the critical hit, could you also avoid the negation the sneak attack?

It seems unlikely based on what is written there.

 

[Cabral]

a flaming burst weapon deals an extra 1d10 points of fire damage on a successful critical hit

Because the trigger event is the critical hit, fortification protects against it.

Upon a roll of a 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.

If the fortification negates the critical hit, the natural 20 followed by a successful roll to confirm the critical hit still happened. The Vorpal effect is not dependant on the critical hit, it is dependant on the successful confirmation roll which fortification does not affect.

If instead Vorpal said: "If a roll of a natural 20 results in a critical hit, ..." then I would agree fortification protects against it.

If instead Fortification said: "When an attack threatens a critical against the wearer, fortification provides a chance to negate it. If the chance is successful, the threat does not confirm, otherwise roll normally." Then I would agree that it would protect against vorpal.

Since, neither is the case, Fortification, as written, does not protect against Vorpal, as written. 3.5 is (generally) written in very deliberate language for a reason. The fact that they did not make vorpal dependant on a critical hit was intentional. The fact that fortification does not protect against a vorpal weapon may or may not be.

Edit: Just for grins, I sent this question to Sage Advice ... maybe we'll see in Dragon in a few years...

 

[KarinsDad]

I don't think the rules support this interpretation.

"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."

This wording says to me very clearly that the critical hit is confirmed first, then there's a chance to negate it. It does not matter if that chance is 100%. The order of events is thus:

1) critical threat
2) confirm critical
3) check to see if critical is negated
4) roll damage as appropriate

I don't see how this text can be read any other way, frankly. It does not say "when a critical threat is scored on the wearer, there is a chance that the confirmation roll never happens."

If you get to step 2 and confirm the critical, the critical is confirmed whether or not it is negated in step 3. As we know from this sentence, "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," all you need to do is confirm. You don't care if it is negated afterwards. The head comes off regardless.

This seems very straightforward to me.

The rules for miss chance state that the attacker rolls to hit first, then the defender rolls miss chance.

But, if the attacker actually makes his to hit roll, did he actually hit if the defender makes his miss chance roll?

NO, it does not mattter that he made a to hit roll.

The Attacker misses. It is not that he "sort of hit". He missed. Period.


That's what your argument here is like.

Did he critical?

NO, it does not matter that he made a critical hit roll.

Why? Because the armor protected against that.


We are not playing Magic the Gathering with a convulted set of "if this happens before that..." set of rules. It didn't actually happen. Just like a Sneak Attack against the armor didn't actually happen if the roll is made for the armor.


The defense prevented it from happening at all, exactly like a Miss chance does. The rules are identical here. The offense rolls. If they succeed, the defense rolls to see if they actually failed.


So yes, the roll can be made all you want. That still does not prevent the negation of the critical hit. It never happens if the defense prevents it, exactly like the Miss chance rules.


They had to write down some order to check this out, but this does not mean that something actually happens when a rule states that it is negated.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

You should also quote the Fortification rule:The Vorpal ability requires you to confirm the critical.

The Fortification ability negates a critical hit (some % chance).

If a critical is negated, how can it be confirmed?

Wouldn't you roll to see whether the critical hit is negated after you roll to see if it's confirmed. After all, the fortification property negates critical hits, not critical threats. A critical hit isn't a critical hit unless it's confirmed. So, once it's confirmed, you roll to see if the armour protects against it, much in the same way as how you roll the miss chance on an incorporeal creature after you hit it with a magic weapon, not before.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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. Ettin.