decapitation: old school

[big teej]

Vorpal: as defined currently in 3.x
"on a natural 20, you cut off a creature's head, slaying it instantly, this does not affect undead, constructs, blah blah blah blah blah"

+ 5 enchantment.

bubkis.


it is my understanding (which has recently been confirmed by a 1st ed player) that vorpal used to be something along the lines of.

Vorpal: as (roughly) defined by 1st ed.
"on a natural 20, you cut off a creature's head, and sever their tie to their body, this prevents all but the most powerful magic from returning them to life."


I ask ye.

is there anything wrong with reverting Vorpal's effect to it's 1st ed roots? (though redefining them with appropriate terminology?)

[Rogue Shadows]

is there anything wrong with reverting Vorpal's effect to it's 1st ed roots? (though redefining them with appropriate terminology?)

Depends. How much do you like it when your characters one-hit-kill vampires, inevitables, balors, and and so on?

[Ravens_cry]

I got both the AD&D 1st edition DMG, both with the efreeti and the green robed guy with the key, open to page 166, and neither say anything like that under either the "Sword of Sharpness" or "Sword, Vorpal Weapon" quality. I can type out exactly what it does say if you like.
And even if it did, I still say no. Why? Because it's not fun for me as a player or DM. By luck of the die, your character is dead, and likely can not be raised. How fun is that to happen to a character you have worked on since level 1, die because of a die roll that is going to happen about 5% of the time and have little to no way of been brought back? It sucks in a game where you actually get invested in a character, where they become part of the world and add to it, which is the kind I like. A more grindhous style game it might work better, but even then it doesn't sound all that fun as there is little tactical skill involved. From an character op. stand point, it is inelegant. You either get a natural 20, or you don't, there is little one can do to optimize. From a plot driven game, it is anti-climactic. No epic confrontation, boss dies. Boring.
So again, no, I don't see it been a good idea in several ways of approaching D&D.

[big teej]

Depends. How much do you like it when your characters one-hit-kill vampires, inevitables, balors, and and so on?

I would actually rule that inevitables don't have a connection to sever, being constructs.


the reason for the thread is simple, I don't see vorpal being worth +5 as is. (I recall there being an at length discussion on these forums about it some time ago)

[big teej]

Depends. How much do you like it when your characters one-hit-kill vampires, inevitables, balors, and and so on?

I would actually rule that inevitables don't have a connection to sever, being constructs.


the reason for the thread is simple, I don't see vorpal being worth +5 as is. (I recall there being an at length discussion on these forums about it some time ago)

[Rogue Shadows]

the reason for the thread is simple, I don't see vorpal being worth +5 as is. (I recall there being an at length discussion on these forums about it some time ago)

It's a 5% chance to make the DM sad already...

[Ravens_cry]

It's a 5% chance to make the DM sad already...

Or a player.
A really nasty one was in 3.0. It worked on a critical. In a game where improved critical and keen stacked and there was a class that increased threat ranges. Of course it was pointless because, like in AD&D, Harm left a target, no matter their hitpoints, with 1d4 hit points. Oh, and no saving throw.

[NNescio]

Or a player.
A really nasty one was in 3.0. It worked on a critical. In a game where improved critical and keen stacked and there was a class that increased threat ranges. Of course it was pointless because, like in AD&D, Harm left a target, no matter their hitpoints, with 1d4 hit points. Oh, and no saving throw.

Also Haste lets casters break the action economy in half by casting twice per round.

[Ravens_cry]

Also Haste lets casters break the action economy in half by casting twice per round.
In half? They make them crumble it into little pieces which are then fed to pigs which are then slaughtered and then turned into bacon, which is then crumbled into little bits.
Then they eat those bacon bits.
'Course, TSR also had no idea about balance either.
But on topic, this is not how AD&D 1st edition Vorpal worked.

[WinWin]

The vorpal sword from 2nd edition decapitates a normal, human sized (or smaller) opponent on a roll of 17-20. that is a 20% chance per attack roll. In 2nd edition, gaining 3 attacks per round with a warrior was not difficult (high level, specialisation). 4 base attacks were possible with weapon mastery. Double that with some kind of haste or speed effect.

Snicker-snack.

Even against opponents like golems, the vorpal sword has a chance to decapitate on a natural roll of 19 or higher.

I am not sure what the difference in basic or AD&D 1e was, as I do not have those rulebooks at hand.

[Ravens_cry]

I quote directly from the 1st edition AD&D Dungeons Masters Guide:

Sword, Vorpal Weapon is similar but superior to a sword of sharpness. A vorpal is +3 "to hit" and for damage bonus. When a score on the "to hit" die shown below is made, it will sever the neck/head if its opponent:

Opponent is Modified score to sever*
normal/armored 20-23
larger than man-sized 21-23
solid metal or stone 22-23

*considers only the sword's bonus of +3.

The DM will note that there are many creatures that cannot suffer decapitation due to lack or mutability of form. There are also certain creatures that may have heads but will not necessarily be killed by decapitation (among those are dopplegangers, elementals, and golems).

[Ernir]

"on a natural 20, you cut off a creature's head, and sever their tie to their body, this prevents all but the most powerful magic from returning them to life."

To be fair, decapitation might be enough to make Raise Dead fail.

Although Reincarnation and all the more powerful spells would still work. :smallsigh:

[Ravens_cry]

To be fair, decapitation might be enough to make Raise Dead fail.

Although Reincarnation and all the more powerful spells would still work. :smallsigh:

*points to my post* I am not sure what he is quoting, but it ain't AD&D 1st edition. It can't even count as paraphrasing. But yes, Raise Dead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/raiseDead.htm) fails if you have no head.

[Alefiend]

*points to my post* I am not sure what he is quoting, but it ain't AD&D 1st edition. It can't even count as paraphrasing. But yes, Raise Dead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/raiseDead.htm) fails if you have no head.

Raise Dead "closes mortal wounds and repairs lethal damage of most kinds," so it can be argued that it will work if the head is present but not currently attached. If the head is really missing, then Raise Dead definitely fails.

Also, I downloaded a copy of the DMG just to post the Vorpal stuff that you so graciously provided above.

[Claudius Maximus]

From an character op. stand point, it is inelegant. You either get a natural 20, or you don't, there is little one can do to optimize.

Surge of Fortune.

Though that's pretty lame to do in a game.

[Ravens_cry]

Raise Dead "closes mortal wounds and repairs lethal damage of most kinds," so it can be argued that it will work if the head is present but not currently attached. If the head is really missing, then Raise Dead definitely fails.

It also says the body "must be whole". The way I read that, no decapitations. Unfortunately, this is a dictionary war, and each DM must decide how to read it.



Surge of Fortune.

Though that's pretty lame to do in a game.
Indeed, and why I said "little" rather than "nothing".

[Downysole]

You could make it so the Vorpal sword casts disintegrate on severed heads. Ouch.

[deuxhero]

To be fair, decapitation might be enough to make Raise Dead fail.


It also makes Animate Dead impossible for most species, as you can't really place the gems in the eye sockets anymore. :p

[Ravens_cry]

It also makes Animate Dead impossible for most species, as you can't really place the gems in the eye sockets anymore. :p
Unless you are animating just the head.
If you do, however, they must be called Murrey.
They must. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Curse_of_Monkey_Island)

[Alefiend]

It also says the body "must be whole". The way I read that, no decapitations. Unfortunately, this is a dictionary war, and each DM must decide how to read it.

Agreed. I wasn't about to say you were wrong, because it's open to interpretation and I do see your side of the debate.

[Ravens_cry]

Agreed. I wasn't about to say you were wrong, because it's open to interpretation and I do see your side of the debate.
Congratulations, you have acted with grace and composure in an internet debate.
Have a cookie (http://www.cookietime.co.nz/wbc.html).:smallsmile:

[Keld Denar]

Unless you are animating just the head.
If you do, however, they must be called Murrey.

A Murray Head (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnqj31VPNoE), you say?

[Acanous]

This thread needs to merge with the "Intelligent Items+Candy" thread.

Item Familiar intelligent Vorpal Sword with Sorceror levels that readies to Disintegrate anything it decapitates. Oh yes.