Vorpal

[setzer9999]

Vorpal is a magic weapon effect, and as such, it cannot have an occurance or roll of it's own. Weapon effects require, and take place based on, the successful attack rolls and, where specified, confirmed critical hits of the weapon to which they are ascribed. The text regarding vorpal is worded in a slightly odd way, but given that vorpal itself cannot have a d20 roll, the d20 roll referenced in the effect is the attack roll of the weapon that has the vorpal property, not some non-existent roll for vorpal itself.

Confirming the critical hit on the natural 20 roll described in the vorpal weapon property entry in the rules is reffering to confirming the critical made with the weapon, not the vorapl ability itself (again, vorpal doesn't get a roll, so there is nothing to confirm regarding vorpal directly). The reason a roll of natural 20 is called out instead of it saying simply "upon a critical hit" is not to make it easier for a vorpal weapon to activate by being some weird case where a weapon effect goes off all by itself instead of based on the weapon's critical hit. If that were the case, you could just roll infinite amounts of d20 checks without even attacking, and cut off infinite heads. The roll is for the WEAPON, not the effect. In the case of vorpal, the wording of the effect is written as it is to spell out that the critical hit made with the weapon must also be a natural 20, and not a critical hit made with increased threat range.

Vorpal does call out that undead and constructs are affected by vorpal but, aside from vampires, not killed by the loss of their heads. This is not because vorpal is an effect separate from criticals. It is already stated in the general magic weapon effect rules that while such creatures are immune to the extra weapon damage dice of a critical hit, they are not immune to the magical effects of a confirmed critical. So, this stipulation about undead and constructs cannot be used as evidence that vorpal is an effect that can take place regardless of the weapon's critical. In fact, it is, if anything, more evidence that vorpal is simply a weapon property that goes off on a critical hit with a weapon that has it as a property... not on its own.

Therefore, fortification effects would prevent vorpal. They do not prevent vorpal directly. Arguments that vorpal isn't a critical hit are moot. I agree vorpal isn't a critical hit. It isn't. It is an effect on a weapon that only takes place if a critical hit takes place.

Some would argue that fortification doesn't negate vorpal or other magical effects that rely on criticals. Those that make this argument state that fortification only eliminates the extra damage dice when it is effective, but allows critical hit effects to still go off. This too is incorrect. Fortification says that "the critical hit or sneak attack is negated AND damage is instead rolled normally."

Two things are emphasized above. Firstly, and most importantly, it says the critical hit or sneak attack is negated. It doesn't say that the extra damage dice are negated... it says the whole critical hit or sneak attack is negated... and then also, secondly, points out that this means you roll damage normally. This isn't pointed out because not getting the extra damage dice is the only thing that occurs due to the negation. It is an "AND" statement, like a clarification or reminder. The fact is, the critical hit is NEGATED, so there is no critical at all... and if there is no critical, there is no critical hit effect.

TL;DR
If a vorpal weapon does not confirm its critical hit, the vorpal effect does not occcur. A critical hit that activates a vorpal effect must occur on a natural 20 roll only, not on increased threat range. Successful rolls to confirm fortification effects negate criticals entirely, they don't only negate their damage dice. Since a critical hit does not occur when fortification is successful, vorpal cannot be activated in such cases, because the critical hit never happened... it was negated.

Please discuss.

[wraithstrike]

I remember this discussion from 3.5, and both sides had good points.

In short I agree with you, and unless I see new proof(reasoning) my table is not changing anything.

[Talonhawke]

Agreed the fact that a critical must be confirmed kinda says it for me.

[Obirandiath]

I agree with your evaluation, though I admit that I never thought of it any other way. I can only presume that you have some issue with vorpal weapons in your home campaign that brought it up.

[setzer9999]

Well, I know its only two posts so far, but both from members with lots of posts and opinions on rulings. Both agreeing with me... what's going on here, one of my tirades being agreed with? Nonsense. :P

Anyway, I just saw a lot of stuff on other forums about various editions of the game, and it baffled me when people would take the opposite stance. I'm trying to put all my house rules and official rules clarifications together in a written document, and I'm bouncing extra controversial ones off the forums from time to time.

I feel pretty justified in this one though... seems totally RAW to me. We'll see if anyone else says anything!

Edit... a third post emerged while I was typing... another in agreement. Cool. It hasn't come up in a home game, as to be honest, never really gotten to a high enough level to encounter one that wasn't thrown in way too early anyway... but I like to keep on top of all the rules, even ones I may never encounter :)

[Are]

I don't see any other way to interpret this, really.

Fortification says it negates the critical hit, and vorpal says the critical hit must be successfully confirmed. If there's no such confirmation, there's no vorpal effect.

[setzer9999]

It is still surprising to me how much agreement there has been in this thread... even though its few posters, there has been no dissent at all. Yes I think it's clear as a bell too... but that never stopped the forums before! There are a few posts from back in 2010 on this subject on these boards too where people disagree, but they haven't chimed in here. Didn't want to resurrect that thread... and besides, it had some meandering thoughts.

Look around on search engines though and there ARE arguments about this, albeit its mostly for other versions, not PF specifically, but the text looks pretty much if not exactly the same for the rule in those versions.

I'm not really asking a question, I know, I obviously have my stance on it, but I really am surprised that there was unanimous agreement on this thread. Will wonders never cease.

[blahpers]

Yep.

[Nephril]

i think this falls under the "well yeah" category. to start a thread debating if you get +2 att on charging do you get -2 to your ac. i agree with you completely but i dont see any other way of reading it either.

[Glutton]

This is all correct and already covered in the magic items revisited player companion

[Nephril]

Personally less than a 5% chance to instant kill someone is not worth +5 hell I have trouble paying a +3 for something that is instant kill less than 5% of the time and has so many different ways to negate it.

They have to have a head,
Losing said head has to be a mortal wound.
Has to be crittable,
Pretty much all golems and undead are just immune to it.

I can see many better options for the price of a +5 combination.

[Midnight_Angel]

Nephril wrote:

I can see many better options for the price of a +5 combination.

Same here. Unless I know I am going up against a Demilich, or Jabberwock, at least.

[Saint Bernard]

Midnight_Angel wrote:

Nephril wrote:

I can see many better options for the price of a +5 combination.

Same here. Unless I know I am going up against a Demilich, or Jabberwock, at least.

And in both cases, the reason is to bypass DR and not the instant kill. The 1 in 20 odds of activating a instant kill is not worth it.

[Talonhawke]

Maybe i Missed something how is Vorpal helping you Bypass DR?

Or are you meaning that you would rather have a +5 weapon than a +1 vorpal?

[master arminas]

Saint Bernard wrote:

Midnight_Angel wrote:

Nephril wrote:

I can see many better options for the price of a +5 combination.

Same here. Unless I know I am going up against a Demilich, or Jabberwock, at least.

And in both cases, the reason is to bypass DR and not the instant kill. The 1 in 20 odds of activating a instant kill is not worth it.

In order to bypass DR, a magic weapon has to have an actual enhancement bonus of +3 or greater (+3 for cold iron/silver, +4 for adamantine, +5 for alignment-based), not just possess additional weapon properties that raise the total price of the weapon.

Quote:

Weapons with an enhancement bonus of +3 or greater can ignore some types of damage reduction, regardless of their actual material or laignment. The following table shows what type of enhancement bonus is needed to overcome some common types of damage reduction.

That is from the Damage Reduction special quality in the Core Rulebook.

Quote:

Some magic weapons have special abilities. Special abilities count as additional bonuses for determining the market value of the item, but not modify attack or damage bonuses (except where specifically noted). A single weapon cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents) higher than +10.

From the Magic Weapons section in the Core Rulesbook.

So, unfortunately, I think you are wrong. A +1 or +2 vorpal longsword will only defeat DR/magic. A +3 vorpal longsword will bypass DR/magic, cold iron, and silver. A +4 vorpal longsword will bypass DR/magic, cold iron, silver, and adamantine. And finally, a +5 vorpal longsword (total modified price of +10) will defeat DR/magic, cold iron, silver, adamantine, and all alignments.

Master Arminas

[CBDunkerson]

Nephril wrote:

Personally less than a 5% chance to instant kill someone is not worth +5

Hand the vorpal sword to a hasted high level warrior and that 5% per attack starts to get ridiculously deadly. That is, the fact that the roll only comes up 1 time in 20 isn't really that much of a drawback when you are rolling five times (or more) per round. I had one v3.5 game where a vorpal sword took out three nasty 'epic level' enemies in quick succession. Did the math afterward and it turned out the rolls were only slightly better than average. Haven't had one in my games since, and if I do in the future I'm changing it to take off a random extremity rather than always the head.

[Dosgamer]

Jabberwocks and demiliches have DR except versus vorpal weapons. I think that is what they meant up thread.

[Talonhawke]

Jabberwock sure someone please explain how a vorpal weapon is any kind of threat to a flying head???????

[Alitan]

It severs it from that tiny slice of neck keeping it animate?

:P