Can a DM expose a vampire character to sunlight with combat actions?

[LostSoul]

The problem isn't with the idea - using the vulnerability is a good idea. The problem is the execution.

Using a standard action, even with an attack roll, just doesn't make sense. That's way too easy. Why can't I grab a bow as easily? A player should NOT choose to play an archer if you don't want close quarters to be problematic.

If someone hasn't fastened their hood well, and if they aren't armed - then sure, a standard action is reasonable. Otherwise, I'd say this is on the order of disarming - that's being rather optimistic, IRL this would definitely be harder - and disarm is not something trivially possible in 4e.

So yes. You're the DM. Be creative! Don't just unbalance the game by introducing inconsistent combat actions, make something up that players and other creatures can't copy willy nilly.

A couple points:

1. What P1NPACK suggested requires two standard actions, with attack rolls for each and the horrible Grab action, neither of which actually causes damage. The ongoing damage can be countered easily ("Take my cloak!").

2. Yes, you should be able to grab someone's bow from them.

3. Disarming is fine, even if you're not a 17th level Fighter; you just have to keep aware of the action economy (unless you're a 17th level Fighter, a disarm should not deal damage).

4. None of this even comes close to unbalancing the game. Personally, I'd say the opposite: it makes it more balanced.

Why wouldn't this be v. Reflex?

This is what I use to determine if an attack is vs Ref or Fort:

You try to push, overpower, or manhandle someone: Fortitude
You try to touch or tag someone: Reflex

Ripping the cloak away seems to fit it the "manhandle" definition, so I personally would go with that.

 

[eamon]

1. What P1NPACK suggested requires two standard actions, with attack rolls for each and the horrible Grab action, neither of which actually causes damage. The ongoing damage can be countered easily ("Take my cloak!").

That sounds more reasonable. Then again, that sounds like something I'd never have an opponent do, it's such a poor choice generally. And it still raises the question, why not just take their weapon instead?

2. Yes, you should be able to grab someone's bow from them.

3. Disarming is fine, even if you're not a 17th level Fighter; you just have to keep aware of the action economy (unless you're a 17th level Fighter, a disarm should not deal damage).

Unless specifically built for it, disarming is essentially a 4e save-or-die. A typical archer won't have a second bow, won't have the time to string it if he does, and it won't have the requisite enhancement bonus should he solve the other two problems. Being dex-based, his chances of grabbing it back are likely to be virtually zero. I don't think that's balanced at all. It's also completely outside of the normal rule structure, meaning that there's no rich set of powers, combat options, class features & items to deal with it.

Building a disarm rule that works, isn't overpowered and is reasonable is something that doesn't fit well in 4e, and in any case would require a large number of changes to the game. Getting those right is quite a challenge; there might be some suggestions on the house rule forum, but I'm not holding my breath for it...

 

[LostSoul]

I don't know - I've had hobgoblin soldiers, acting in a shield wall, have one member try to disarm a PC. They were successful, but the big problem was the Dark Creeper who stabbed the PC in the back.

I've been playing with rules that allow characters to disarm each other for many, many encounters; it's never caused a problem.

 

[Mad Hamish]

What level have you been playing?
Being disarmed is annoying but not crippling at low levels.
Get to level 30 and you might have -12 to hit (6 magic weapon, 3 proficiency, 3 expertise) and lose the benefits of a lot of your feats

and if removing a cloak from a vampire is easy how about a neck slot item?

oh and fighting in cloaks wasn't uncommon, as I understand it they were commonly used to entangle the opponent's weapon and as a defensive option

 

[Aegeri]

I've been playing with rules that allow characters to disarm each other for many, many encounters; it's never caused a problem.

Try at epic tier, when the PCs are fighting on the bridge of an elemental ship as it cruises over a raging battle in the elemental chaos near the abyss. A PC gets disarmed and finds his weapon thrown overboard and lost into god knows where. Now you're utterly useless for that entire encounter.

Replace the above with the ocean, a lake of acid, the bowels of a volcano and similar fantastic terrain. Disarming is never a good idea if creatures were to ever actually use it remotely intelligently. Coincidentally PCs are punished far more for losing their weapons than monsters are too!

 

[LostSoul]

Try at epic tier, when the PCs are fighting on the bridge of an elemental ship as it cruises over a raging battle in the elemental chaos near the abyss. A PC gets disarmed and finds his weapon thrown overboard and lost into god knows where. Now you're utterly useless for that entire encounter.

If you allow disarms, you open up many avenues of action that could be decisive in the context of the encounter. That's why a PC is not utterly useless when disarmed. In some encounters, perhaps, but we're not playing a game that consists of only one encounter!

 

[Ferghis]

I agree that the character should not lose the benefits of the item in question with this maneuver. It seems like the maneuver's goal should be to expose PART of the vampire to sunlight, not remove the item.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Apparently the designers must know of ways to implement this into combat, if they didn't then they never would have added it. I saw a thread on the Wizard's site where people were comparing this to the Paladin's Code of Conduct from 3.5 and saying that it shouldn't be exploited in combat because it's unfair to the player. Sounds to me like people just can't accept when a player class has a built in weakness.

If the designers didn't mean for it to be used they shouldn't have added it to the class.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

If you allow disarms, you open up many avenues of action that could be decisive in the context of the encounter. That's why a PC is not utterly useless when disarmed. In some encounters, perhaps, but we're not playing a game that consists of only one encounter!

ok so in theory I am level 27... I have +13 from half level, +7 stat, +3 prof, +6 magic... so I have a +29 to hit then I get disarmed, and id I have no back up weapon this fight sucks... then if I can't get it back, what do i do...


if i get a long sword I can atlest keep my +3 prof... but if I can't buy a +6


heck I can't see a benfit here...

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Our DM has decided that creatures that have anything that can be used as a reflective surface can take a full round action to reflect the sunlight into the vampire's face, but if the creature is attacked or does anything else then the sunlight reflection is broken.

Also if a grab is maintained then the person doing the grab can remove the hood and the vampire will have to escape and replace his hood.