Vorpal VERSUS Fortification

[Vua]

Huh? It's not me who confused by rules. Fortification negates the whole critical, including additional "kinda attack" roll, which exist ONLY when there is critical.



But actually I think its fine to play with whatever DM rulings or houserules you like, while it works for your group.
Cheers

This is not a house rule.

Magic Weapons and Critical Hits Some weapon qualities and some specific weapons have an extra effect on a critical hit. This special effect functions against creatures not subject to critical hits, such as undead, elementals, and constructs. When fighting against such creatures, roll for critical hits as you would against humanoids or any other creature subject to critical hits. On a successful critical roll, apply the special effect, but do not multiply the weapon’s regular damage.

[bartharok]

No sir, its actually me explaining mechanics behind it, while some others change wordings to fit their opinion. I'm arguing to help people understand rules better.

Basic case:
1. You make attacking roll
2. If you hit, you deal normal damage.

Critical case:
1. You rolled 20 on attack
2. By critical rules, you make another roll to confirm
3. If you confirm, you deal critical damage (if not, it's still autohit)

Fortification case: this is toughest of all.
1. You rolled 20 on attack
<- 100% fortification negates critical hit and critical damage
2. No critical, so rules does not grant you confirm roll anymore.
3. You deal normal damage (autohit)

Vorpal case is easy after that:
1. You rolled 20 on attack
2. By critical rules, you make another roll to confirm
3a. If you confirm, you deal critical damage (if not, it's still autohit)
3b. If you confirm, you vorpal enemy. It uses same confirm roll.

Combining Vorpal and Fortification
1. You rolled 20 on attack
<- 100% fortification negates critical hit and critical damage
2. No critical, so rules does not grant you confirm roll anymore.
3a. You deal normal damage (autohit)
3b. Vorpal doesn't trigger, there wasn't successful confirmation roll.

Sir, you clearly have no idea of the mechanics of fortification, or the effects that are triggered by criticals.

Fortification merely negates the critical damage, that is all it does (well, it negates sneak attack damage as well, but thats beside the point). It does not negate the critical roll.

[Vua]

No sir, its actually me explaining mechanics behind it, while some others change wordings to fit their opinion. I'm arguing to help people understand rules better.

Basic case:
1. You make attacking roll
2. If you hit, you deal normal damage.

Critical case:
1. You rolled 20 on attack
2. By critical rules, you make another roll to confirm
3. If you confirm, you deal critical damage (if not, it's still autohit)

Fortification case: this is toughest of all.
1. You rolled 20 on attack
<- 100% fortification negates critical hit and critical damage
2. No critical, so rules does not grant you confirm roll anymore.
3. You deal normal damage (autohit)

Vorpal case is easy after that:
1. You rolled 20 on attack
2. By critical rules, you make another roll to confirm
3a. If you confirm, you deal critical damage (if not, it's still autohit)
3b. If you confirm, you vorpal enemy. It uses same confirm roll.

Combining Vorpal and Fortification
1. You rolled 20 on attack
<- 100% fortification negates critical hit and critical damage
2. No critical, so rules does not grant you confirm roll anymore.
3a. You deal normal damage (autohit)
3b. Vorpal doesn't trigger, there wasn't successful confirmation roll.

Where does it say you don't roll for critical confirmation due to fortification?

[Derailment]

Sir, you clearly have no idea of the mechanics of fortification, or the effects that are triggered by criticals.

Fortification merely negates the critical damage, that is all it does (well, it negates sneak attack damage as well, but thats beside the point). It does not negate the critical roll.

And yet you're wrong, I already quoted according rule 3 times:
"When a critical hit scored, the critical hit is negated"
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems...#fortification

Where does it say you don't roll for critical confirmation due to fortification?

What exactly allow you to roll confirmation, when there is no crit? Please explain.
(Please read quoted rules (http://forums.ddo.com/showpost.php?p...5&postcount=27) before doing so, so we don't go in circles)

[bartharok]

And yet you're wrong, I already quoted according rule 3 times:
"When a critical hit scored, the critical hit is negated"
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems...#fortification





What exactly allow you to roll confirmation, when there is no crit? Please explain.
(Please read quoted rules (http://forums.ddo.com/showpost.php?p...8&postcount=27) before doing so, so we don't go in circles)

The critical hit is the damage multiplier applied. This said multiplier is negated. Thats all that is negated.

[Derailment]

Ok, now I see where we disconnect. Sorry, I don't agree. For me, "critical hit" is rule called http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/act...m#criticalHits, and not only small part of this paragraph telling about damage multiplication.

[bartharok]

Ok, now I see where we disconnect. Sorry, I don't agree. For me, "critical hit" is rule called http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/act...m#criticalHits, and not only small part of this paragraph telling about damage multiplication.

We disconnect because you dont actually try to understand what is meant by the rule of: Critical hit is negated. It just means the multiplier to damage, nothing else.

What youre doing is what we would have called rules lawyering in PnP, the only thing that it would do, is to get you banned from the playgroup.

[Derailment]

I don't agree on this either. We disconnect because YOU don't actually try to understand what is meant by rule of Critical hit is negated.

(Also nothing wrong with rule lawyering either. You probably mean banned from YOUR group, but that's matter of preferrences)

[Vua]

No sir, its actually me explaining mechanics behind it, while some others change wordings to fit their opinion. I'm arguing to help people understand rules better.

Basic case:
1. You make attacking roll
2. If you hit, you deal normal damage.

Critical case:
1. You rolled 20 on attack
2. By critical rules, you make another roll to confirm
3. If you confirm, you deal critical damage (if not, it's still autohit)

Fortification case: this is toughest of all.
1. You rolled 20 on attack
<- 100% fortification negates critical hit and critical damage
2. No critical, so rules does not grant you confirm roll anymore.
3. You deal normal damage (autohit)

Vorpal case is easy after that:
1. You rolled 20 on attack
2. By critical rules, you make another roll to confirm
3a. If you confirm, you deal critical damage (if not, it's still autohit)
3b. If you confirm, you vorpal enemy. It uses same confirm roll.

Combining Vorpal and Fortification
1. You rolled 20 on attack
<- 100% fortification negates critical hit and critical damage
2. No critical, so rules does not grant you confirm roll anymore.
3a. You deal normal damage (autohit)
3b. Vorpal doesn't trigger, there wasn't successful confirmation roll.


And just to illustrate, that all vorpals are crits, but not all crits are vorpals:
1. You rolled 19 on attack with 19-20 weapon
2. By critical rules, you make another roll to confirm
3a. If you confirm, you deal critical damage (if not, it's still autohit)
3b. Vorpal doesn't trigger, it's not 20 roll

And yet you're wrong, I already quoted according rule 3 times:
"When a critical hit scored, the critical hit is negated"
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems...#fortification





What exactly allow you to roll confirmation, when there is no crit? Please explain.
(Please read quoted rules (http://forums.ddo.com/showpost.php?p...5&postcount=27) before doing so, so we don't go in circles)

The rule doesn't say not to roll for confirmation, it says it may be resisted. You're assuming you don't roll when someone has full fort and that's wrong. Read the rule I posted above about magical weapons and critical hits. I'll link it for you when I'm not on my phone

[bartharok]

I don't agree on this either. We disconnect because YOU don't actually try to understand what is meant by rule of Critical hit is negated.

(Also nothing wrong with rule lawyering either. You probably mean banned from YOUR group, but that's matter of preferrences)

We disconnect because of your desire for the unreal be real. It is the way it is, all the lawyering in the world wont make it any different.

[Derailment]

The rule doesn't say not to roll for confirmation, it says it may be resisted. You're assuming you don't roll when someone has full fort and that's wrong. Read the rule I posted above about magical weapons and critical hits. I'll link it for you when I'm not on my phone

Ok I found your rule. Actually it's interesting. It says two things:

1. When fighting against (creatures not subject to critical hits, such as undead, elementals, and constructs), roll for critical hits.
This part effectively allow vorpal against creatures listed in vorpal entry. Thank godness.
Also, its not what it says exactly, but you can stretch it to allow Vorpal to grant confirmation roll on it own. I can suppress rule lawyer inside me for that
2. On a successful critical roll, apply the special effect
This one requires successful confirmation to apply the special effect.

Now back to fortification. Fortification is Magical effect too. It says:
1. When a critical hit scored, there is a chance that the critical hit is negated
2. in table, Chance for Normal Damage for Heavy fortification is 100%.
That mean any critical will be negated.

What relationship between those rules? I'd say, "Magic Weapons and Critical Hits" is specific to magical weapons and beat general critical rule. But, "Fortification" rule is more specifical, iand beats all weapon rules.


TL;DR: I still rule "100% Fortification" beats "Magic Weapon and Critical Hits", because specific beats general.

Thanks for discussion, really interesting mind exercise.
Cheers

[kierg10]

And yet, it will prevent. I already quoted rule already 2 times on this page:

"The critical hit is negated and damage is instead rolled normally"
Critical hit is negated AND damage is rolled normally.
Critical hit negated. Damage rolled normally.
It's not just "critical damage negated". It's "say no to critical hit". I hope we done with this part.




Not sure what you mean, but I agree reading is always good.

I was answering on "no where does it say ALL vorpals are criticals."
In the critical rules, it says all 20's are (possible) criticals and have confirmation roll.
All vorpals also happen on 20's, and use critical's confirmation roll (not its own; one from critical rules).

See? Vorpal can't be on non-critical hit. QED

you read discontent as disconnect.

also by your reasoning flaming burst extra crit damage should be negated by fortification as it is an effect that happens on a critical.

[Derailment]

We disconnect because of your desire for the unreal be real. It is the way it is, all the lawyering in the world wont make it any different.

Thanks, I appreciate your opinion, but I don't find it more "right" or "real" than mine.
Now I understand you read "Critical Hit negated" as "Critical Hit Damage negated".
Now I understand you read "Crit negated and damage rolled normally" as "Crit negated so damage rolled normally".
This is not what written in rules. Let's agree to disagree here.

[Derailment]

you read discontent as disconnect.

also be your reasoning flaming burst extra crit damage should be negated by fortification as it is an effect that happens on a critical.

Oh sorry I used wrong word.

Yes, by my reasoning flaming burst would be negated too. Despite the fact Vua pointed to the rule which allows Flaming Burst to work on undead and golems, I still think Fortification trumps it, because Flaming Burst requires "striking a successful critical hit"

[Malison]

Another look at specific phrasings, as the moment when fortification is applied seems to be the contention:

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.

Critical hits are negated. Critical threats are not negated. This is the crux of it all.

When you make an attack roll and get a natural 20 (the d20 shows 20), you hit regardless of your target’s Armor Class, and you have scored a threat. The hit might be a critical hit (or “crit”). To find out if it’s a critical hit, you immediately make a critical roll — another attack roll with all the same modifiers as the attack roll you just made. If the critical roll also results in a hit against the target’s AC, your original hit is a critical hit.

If you roll a 20, you threaten. You roll another d20 to confirm. If you do confirm, it's actually a critical hit, which is then negated by fortification. If you don't confirm, it was never a critical hit in the first place.

Consequently,

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.

It requires a successful roll to confirm the critical hit. It does not require a successful critical hit. Your roll to confirm was successful. You chop the enemy's head off.

By this understanding, fortification would not stop vorpal.

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

On the other hand, burst effects specify "on a successful critical hit" and so they would be blocked by fortification.

[Derailment]

If you don't confirm, it was never a critical hit in the first place.

Ok, can you explain why fortification doesnt work in the same way - as it was never a critical hit in the first place?
Why do you need to roll confirmation and THEN discard results selectively?

It does not require a successful critical hit. Your roll to confirm was successful

Don't agree. You already rolled confirmation because 20 is also always threat. Do you roll confirmation TWICE, for crit and vorpal? No.

[SableShadow]

This is why it takes two hours and a pizza delivery to resolve a single round of PnP. :P

[AbyssalMage]

Sir, you clearly have no idea of the mechanics of fortification, or the effects that are triggered by criticals.

Fortification merely negates the critical damage, that is all it does (well, it negates sneak attack damage as well, but thats beside the point). It does not negate the critical roll.

That is why (R)eading (I)s (F)undamental. Honestly, people are misunderstanding the word "Negates." Negates does not mean "Do not roll to confirm."

Now if you are playing PnP, it usually is a waist of your time to make the second roll, although technically you should be rolling it just for the DM to say, "Sorry, your critical did not happen."

A natural 20 always requires a 2nd roll (If you are playing by 3.x rules), but when you are doing PnP, DM's usually let you slide on the second roll for immune monsters.

[Funny_looking_mole]

So if Vorpal is blocked by fortification does that mean that a Golem using a heavy fortification shield would be immune to the special effect of the mace of smiting?

[Derailment]

Honestly, people are misunderstanding the word "Negates." Negates does not mean "Do not roll to confirm."

"Negates" is only part of problem. Second part is word "successful".

Vorpal requires "a successful roll to confirm the critical hit". Was it successful, if the whole critical hit was "negated"?

Or, more straightforward, how critical hit can be confirmed, if it was negated?

When rules written in such ambigous way, we need another rule, like, Writing Is Fundamental..