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

[P1NBACK]

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.

That's how I judged it also.

 

[Ferghis]

The problem with that suggestion is that it requires a helpless PC. While a helpless PC is not quite the same as a dying PC, it's pretty close. And, for good reason, the DMG suggests not attacking dying PCs unless there are exceptional reasons to do so. If the character in question is helpless but not dying, that's a pretty rare instance that can be analyzed more specifically, but the discussion here is more general.

Yep. It does happen though, but I could well imagine it would if he's fighing a vampire hunter. Of course, from a meta-game perspective, that's a death sentence: If he's dying (thus unconscious), he'll almost certainly be unable to raise his hood before the end of his turn, and that means he'll be destroyed instantly. Whether that's OK depends on what kind of game you're playing.

I think that's rarely ok, at least in my book. And that's why the coup de grace idea doesn't work.

As a DM, I think you should try to make this disadvantage enter play frequently enough that it be a genuine concern of the player (as opposed to a pretend-concern), but without having to kill the character, and in a manner that's both fair (in terms of game mechanics) and legitimate (in terms of storyline or plausibility). Using coup de grace might meet the last two requirements, but fails the first two.

 

[eamon]

As a DM, I think you should try to make this disadvantage enter play frequently enough that it be a genuine concern of the player (as opposed to a pretend-concern)

Hmm, I don't think this should be something common in combat. Not one of the suggestions in the thread here is really suitable for that; and in any case, if it were a regular occurence, I'd assume the PC wouldn't take it lightly and simply use a leather ski-mask or whatever: something you can't take off without ample time or decapitation.

And then there's reasonable fairness: you don't take off people's headslot items either, do you? Or tear off their amulets? Catch their ioun stones? If you haven't, then why is it OK to start now? There's just no way to exploit the vampire's vulnerability rules in a fashion that can't fairly trivially be used to exploit PC's in general.

This whole issue only crops up because the PC happens to have a vulnerability, so it seems like you must use this vulnerability in combat. I don't think that makes sense. The way the vulnerability is written, it's just really hard to exploit in-combat. And that's just fine.

You don't have to exploit it in-combat. And you don't have to exploit it in a mundane fashion. You can roleplay it (lends itself perfectly to that!), and you can use a plot-driven creature specifically capable of using the vulnerability (rather than a general, mundane tactic). You still get the flavor, you get the drawbacks, but you don't have to come up with new (rather farfetched) mechanics, and then selectively target just one PC for no really apparent reason.

 

[P1NBACK]

And then there's reasonable fairness: you don't take off people's headslot items either, do you? Or tear off their amulets? Catch their ioun stones? If you haven't, then why is it OK to start now? There's just no way to exploit the vampire's vulnerability rules in a fashion that can't fairly trivially be used to exploit PC's in general.

Yes. I would. Fairness? Fair means the PCs can do the same thing to monsters. That's fair. If your PCs want to drag a vampire out into the street and remove its cloak for a nice suntan, are you going to tell them, "No, that's not fair!"

Come on, dude. That's bogus.

As said earlier, some intelligent beings will know of the vampire's innate weaknesses and might exploit that. I'd expect extremely intelligent beings who know that the PCs have magic items to do exactly what you say. If a PC has an amulet that gives them immunity to a particular effect, and the monster knows about the item, why wouldn't they try to take it away??

Again: I'd expect the PCs to use the same tactics! And, knowing my players, they'd be pissed if I said, "No! That's not fair! My monster needs that amulet!" Or, "No! You can't pull the vampire's cloak off! He's vulnerable to sunlight!"

This whole issue only crops up because the PC happens to have a vulnerability, so it seems like you must use this vulnerability in combat. I don't think that makes sense. The way the vulnerability is written, it's just really hard to exploit in-combat. And that's just fine. You don't have to exploit it in-combat. And you don't have to exploit it in a mundane fashion.

No one here has suggested this. We have suggested that if there is a monster who has reasonable and justifiable knowledge of the vampire's vulnerabilities, then use it if it makes sense (and in most cases, this option will be less harmful than the monsters actual attacks as demonstrated).

That makes perfect sense. And, I'd expect the PCs to employ similar tactics.

But, no one has said that this should be a mandated attack by all monsters! OH NO!

You can roleplay it (lends itself perfectly to that!), and you can use a plot-driven creature specifically capable of using the vulnerability (rather than a general, mundane tactic). You still get the flavor, you get the drawbacks, but you don't have to come up with new (rather farfetched) mechanics, and then selectively target just one PC for no really apparent reason.

Huh? What do you mean "you can roleplay it"? You say that as if roleplaying ceases to happen during combat? I don't get that...

And, since when is disarming, snatching items, and exposing one to harmful elements "farfetched"? Seriously, happens all the time in action movies and stories.

Edited to Add: There's a very sad thing I see on this forum quite often lately. I don't know if it's because of 4E's insistence on "balance" that's being taken way out of context or what... But, since when did the amazing mantra of DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS, "You can try anything" get the addendum "but only if it's 'fair'."?

 

[Ferghis]

As a DM, I think you should try to make this disadvantage enter play frequently enough that it be a genuine concern of the player (as opposed to a pretend-concern), but without having to kill the character, and in a manner that's both fair (in terms of game mechanics) and legitimate (in terms of storyline or plausibility).

Hmm, I don't think this should be something common in combat.

If you think something has to be common to be frequent enough to be a genuine concern, then you play a different game than I do. Or maybe you just read the word frequent, and assumed I meant common. I did not. I meant "frequent enough to be a genuine concern." As in "of sufficient frequency to cause the player to be mindful of it."

Your other points are well-addressed by P1NBACK, although they were also addressed in the post of mine I quoted here, and that you only quoted in part.

 

[mneme]

I'd want to be careful with this, but I don't really see the problem:

1. The player should be trying to avoid combat outside during the day. That's when they're most vulnerable, because, well, yeah.

2. Yes, if they're unconcious and exposed, they might be instantly destroyed by sunlight via a coup de gras. Well, yes? OTOH, if an ally wants to take heroic action and try to rescue them, they can unless the initiative order doesn't allow it (and I'd be more hesitant to do this if the initiative was really going to screw the PC) -- and that would be kinda awesome.

 

[eamon]

Yes. I would. Fairness? Fair means the PCs can do the same thing to monsters. That's fair. If your PCs want to drag a vampire out into the street and remove its cloak for a nice suntan, are you going to tell them, "No, that's not fair!"

Come on, dude. That's bogus.

Yes, it's not fair. It wouldn't have been in a killer 1e game, and it's not in 4e either. It has nothing to do with edition, and everything to do with consistency.

If you institute a novel game mechanic specifically aimed at using a PC weakness, with the in-game explanation that this happens by means of affecting the PC's use of his equipment, you should be consistent. Anything else is unfair.

What does that consistency mean?

• It means that other equipment by other creatures (including other PC's) should be similarly liable to be affected. The rule should not be specifically designed for the vampire, but be general. If you've never snatched someones headband and suddenly introduce mechanics to do so when the vampire comes along, that's certainly looks unreasonable. I know if I were a player in such a campaign, I'd take it less seriously right there - I don't like opportunistic consistency.
• It means that similar effects for creatures should be possible, where reasonable. However any and all creatures in the MM aren't designed like PC's; which part of their power is due to which aspect of their physiology/items/situation/etc. isn't defined. If you're going to do this, don't make the player's go on a fishing expidition. Tell them of vulnerable parts of monsters, blind angles, equipment etc. that could be similarly exploited. If you aren't, you're being inconsistent - you're doing it to PC's not because it makes sense, but because that happens to be easier in a metagame fashion.
• It means you should be reasonable in your use of the new rule and given how weak this particular vulnerability is, that means that it's probably more relevant to use your equipment-fiddling power in another fashion.
• When the vampire (inevitably) actually ties down his hood, you should let him. Whee, all this effort... for naught.

If you come up with an equipment-fiddly power and then go "well, I'll just use it on the vampire, and since you don't have this kind of precise desciptions of monsters, good luck using it yourself" then you're being inconsistent. If you do this without warning the player before he brings a vampire to your table, you're screwing your player. Not in a major fashion, but I don't think it's fair, and I wouldn't do it.

This has nothing to do with using the vulnerability, and everything to do with the fact that the proposed solution just doesn't make sense. If it were possible and that easy to move other creature's equipment, using a minor vulnerability that occurs at the end of the turn would not be the most attractive way of using it. And it's unreasonable because monsters are likely to be largely immune not because of any particularly logical reason, but simply because their descriptions aren't as detailed, and thus it's harder to think of something comparable.

Not to mention the fact that all of this has absolutely no support in the game. Now, there's nothing wrong with houserules, but some of them work better than others. 4e's strength is it's intrical tactical ruleset. This is like trying to tack a simulationist approach that doesn't mesh with any existing rules. Indeed, 4e is probably one of the worst possible rulesets to do this in; character builds+tactics are quite complex, and the rules concerning PC's bear no resemblance to those for monsters. You'll need to do the whole thing from scratch. That, or be inconsistent, and apply it only to the vampire or only to PC's for no particularly logical reason.

It might surprise you, but I don't think that's at all bogus. Particularly since all this "general solution" approach is totally unnecessary. Make it a unique occasion - indeed, DM fiat - and just go with that plothook power. No worries about other uses, nor odd interactions with game balance, nor the need to explain away inconsistencies.

Then there's the more abstract problem I have with this approach. I don't mind simulationist gaming. But 4e is anything but. It's got a complicated, balanced, shamelessly gamist combat style. I feel that adding complexity to that with rules intended to simulate some kind of in-game action just doesn't work well. There are tons of 4e combat rules that are very weird or outright nonsensical from a simulationist perspective - which is of course entirely not the point. Why exactly is this one worth fixing? Why not marking? Or prone gelatinous cubes? Or immunity to backstabbing? Or that solo's miraculously have four times the hitpoints and move twice as fast? Or whatever?

So you want to make the game better - but then you don't need all this detailed description and simulationist power-design. Just have a creature that happens to be particularly nimble and tricky and let it do what no other creature can - play with the PC's equipment while they're wearing it. Including the vampire's cloak. No need to be consistent since it's not a general solution, and there won't be anything to compare it to with which is should be consistent in the first place - it's story logic, not general the-physics-of-throwing-back-someone's-cloak logic.

 

[P1NBACK]

Eamon, I'm having a seriously hard time parsing your post and where you are coming from. From my basic understanding of your post, you'd rather play 4E like a boardgame and (at least in combat) omit imaginative tactics and limit PCs (and DMs) to what is written and "hard-coded" on their character powers.

If a PC wanted to drag a vampire out into the sun and tear their cloak off, you wouldn't let them??? Wtf.

Sorry, dude. That's now how I play D&D, nor how I would recommend anyone play D&D.

There are simple rule guidelines for adjudicating combat actions in the rules (DMG Page 42), so why not use it?

Doesn't make any sense to me.

I guess it's just different strokes for different folks and all.

 

[eamon]

Eamon, I'm having a seriously hard time parsing your post and where you are coming from. From my basic understanding of your post, you'd rather play 4E like a boardgame and (at least in combat) omit imaginative tactics and limit PCs (and DMs) to what is written and "hard-coded" on their character powers.

If a PC wanted to drag a vampire out into the sun and tear their cloak off, you wouldn't let them??? Wtf.

If they come up with a reasonable explanation, it's fine. Just tearing their cloak off? Not fine. Just like you can't "just" slit his throat - he's not cooperating, now is he?

Coming up with a mechanic that could be used in lots of other places, but inexplicably using it here? Not fine. If you could just tear away peoples combat equipment, why didn't that happen before? Why the heck do it to exploit such a tactically minor vulnerability? Makes no sense; undermines suspension of disbelief. Not fine.

Particularly from the DM's side of the fence, since the DM doesn't need to be balanced. It's A-OK to have some terribly overpowering ability so long as it's unique - so why pick an explanation that's complex, nonsensical, and asking to be abused in another scenario.

 

[P1NBACK]

If they come up with a reasonable explanation, it's fine. Just tearing their cloak off? Not fine. Just like you can't "just" slit his throat - he's not cooperating, now is he?

Coming up with a mechanic that could be used in lots of other places, but inexplicably using it here? Not fine. If you could just tear away peoples combat equipment, why didn't that happen before? Why the heck do it to exploit such a tactically minor vulnerability? Makes no sense; undermines suspension of disbelief. Not fine.

Particularly from the DM's side of the fence, since the DM doesn't need to be balanced. It's A-OK to have some terribly overpowering ability so long as it's unique - so why pick an explanation that's complex, nonsensical, and asking to be abused in another scenario.

Dude, no one here is suggesting anything like this. I don't know what you are railing against here...