Vorpal vs fortification armor

[IanB]

The word successful is modifying roll. It is not modifying critical hit.

 

[KarinsDad]

... Actually, here's a new twist. A vorpal weapon beheads someone if the user rolls a natural 20 followed by a successful roll to confirm the critical. The target, however has a miss chance and successfully rolls it. Does the vorpal weapon effect still kick in?

I say no, the successful miss chance preempts the roll to confirm the critical hit. ... besides it's just silly

Ah, so you admit that other game elements could prevent the Vorpal weapon from working, even though the critical roll was successful.

 

[Cabral]

Uhm ... yes and no. The other game mechanic works to prevent a vorpal because it prevents the roll for confirmation.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Uhm ... yes and no. The other game mechanic works to prevent a vorpal because it prevents the roll for confirmation.

Does it, though?

The rules say that the defender rolls a miss chance if the attacker hits.

The rules also say that the attacker rolls confirmation if the attacker hits with a threat.

Since the miss chance is only consulted if the attack hits, we know it must have hit before the miss chance is consulted, and therefore it's valid for the confirmation roll to be made, even though the attack ends up missing.

Why, then, can you not behead someone with an attack that misses due to concealment, as long as you roll a natural 20 followed by a successful roll to confirm the critical hit?

Isn't the roll all that's necessary, not the hit?

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

Isn't the roll all that's necessary, not the hit?

According to some people.

 

[Cabral]

...
...
You know, you're almost right. pg 140, Critical Hits sidebar, under increased threat range "Any attack roll that doesn't result in a hit is not a threat." since miss chances change the result of the attack roll and negates the critical hit roll, it still protects versus vorpal.

 

[Nail]

If the fortification negates the critical hit, the natural 20 followed by a successful roll to confirm the critical hit still happened.

No, the critical hit didn't happen. The critical hit is negated. The Fortification property says so. The fact that a player or DM may or may not have rolled to confirm the critical is irrelevant.

It pays to be precise with our language here: The critical hit is not confirmed, as it has been negated.

An "order of operations" arguement doesn't help here. "Negation" is a pretty strong word.

The Vorpal effect is not dependant on the critical hit, it is dependant on the successful confirmation roll which fortification does not affect.

A critical hit can only happen if a threat is confirmed. There is no other way. Divorcing those two concepts (threat confirmation and critical hit) leads to all sorts of silliness and lingual gymnastics.

Again, to be clear: The Vorpal property requires a confirmed critical hit. The Fortification property negates critical hits. Therefore the Vorpal property cannot function.

 

[Cabral]

I still stand by my position that if the critical hit is negated, it has no bearing on whether or not roll to confirm the critical was a success. Silly? Yes. What the Designers intended? probably not. How I implement this in my games? Definately not.

I'm not trying to say this is the way vorpal and foritifcation should be implemented. I am just a retired rules lawyer who sometimes likes to flex his roots. While doing so, it is not my intention to make a nuisance of myself. It's more to play devil's advocate because if you don't know it's broken (in this case the wording), how can you fix it?

I was kind of disappointed when I found the clause allowing miss chance to protect against vorpal weapons ... I was going to declare vorpal weapons the official weapons of rules lawyers ... :\