clarification on the wording of the vorpal sword

[Doombaby]

The wording on this item has me quite confused. from what I have been able to find, if something is immune to a damage type you still can't damage it even if you can ignore resistance to that damage type, but the vorpal sword says:

"When you attack a creature that has at least one head with this weapon and roll a 20 on the attack roll, you cut off one of the creature’s heads. The creature dies if it can’t survive without the lost head. A creature is immune to this effect if it is immune to slashing damage, doesn’t have or need a head, has legendary actions, or the GM decides that the creature is too big for its head to be cut off with this weapon. Such a creature instead takes an extra 6d8 slashing damage from the hit."

does this mean that if you hit a creature that is immune to slashing with a natural 20 it take the additional 6d8 damage which is then immediately reduced to 0?

[Tetrasodium]

The wording on this item has me quite confused. from what I have been able to find, if something is immune to a damage type you still can't damage it even if you can ignore resistance to that damage type, but the vorpal sword says:

"When you attack a creature that has at least one head with this weapon and roll a 20 on the attack roll, you cut off one of the creature’s heads. The creature dies if it can’t survive without the lost head. A creature is immune to this effect if it is immune to slashing damage, doesn’t have or need a head, has legendary actions, or the GM decides that the creature is too big for its head to be cut off with this weapon. Such a creature instead takes an extra 6d8 slashing damage from the hit."

does this mean that if you hit a creature that is immune to slashingwith a natural 20 it take the additional 6d8 damage which is then immediately reduced to 0?

6d8 it appears to be yes

[Specter]

Yep. That damage is still slashing.

But I'm confused, are there creatures who are immune to slashing damage?

[Doombaby]

I'm not sure. I have not researched every creature... but the sword says if a creature is immune to slashing so I am assuming that there is at least one creature that would be immune.

[Tetrasodium]

Yep. That damage is still slashing.

But I'm confused, are there creatures who are immune to slashing damage?

good point. my original quick glance reading interpreted the immediately reduced to 0 hp as in it was enough to cause bleeding out/dead.

I think you are right in that it reduces down to 0. I would rule that something happens based on how stupid attacking it with a slashing sword hoping for a 20 seems. An iron golem that everyone knew was immune to slashing, but was unexpected so no bldg stuff was on hand might get something neat or partial damage; likewise if immunity came from a spell or something. an iron golem you explicitly went out to kill?... clang & nada.... I can't think of any other slash immune stuff though

[Millstone85]

All golems are immune to bludgeoning, piercing and slashing damage from nonmagical nonadamantine weapons.

All lycanthropes are immune to bludgeoning, piercing and slashing damage from nonmagical nonsilvered weapons.

There are others.

[JackPhoenix]

All golems are immune to bludgeoning, piercing and slashing damage from nonmagical nonadamantine weapons.

All lycanthropes are immune to bludgeoning, piercing and slashing damage from nonmagical nonsilvered weapons.

There are others.

Vorpal sword is magic weapon, though. Black pudding and ochre jelly are immune to slashing, period.

[Millstone85]

Vorpal sword is magic weapon, though.For some reason, I keep forgetting that. I just imagine a really cool sword, really sharp. :smallredface:


Black pudding and ochre jelly are immune to slashing, period.So yeah, those are relevant.

[Unoriginal]

For some reason, I keep forgetting that. I just imagine a really cool sword, really sharp. :smallredface:

Back in the days it was enough to call it magical.

[Millstone85]

Back in the days it was enough to call it magical.Indeed, but here the implication is that the sword has been enchanted to be more swordy: sharper, lighter, sturdier and so on.

Which is arguably smarter than making a flaming sword or a talking sword or whatever. Terry Pratchett would have loved it.

And yet I got in my head that it was about the metal and the craftsmanship.

[JackPhoenix]

Indeed, but here the implication is that the sword has been enchanted to be more swordy: sharper, lighter, sturdier and so on.

Which is arguably smarter than making a flaming sword or a talking sword or whatever. Terry Pratchett would have loved it.

And yet I got in my head that it was about the metal and the craftsmanship.

Sufficiently advanced metallurgy is indistinguishable from magic?