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

[DracoSuave]

42 is the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything.

If you don't get the reference, you either started dming with essentials (which has a different magic page# someone else can reference) or you're not paying attention to the rule that exists.

Basicly: Describe intended attack, make roll apply damage. I'd use the once only value, reduce the damage by 5 to balance the effect, describe it as a very frustrating struggle to get covered again, then rule it wont work again for a while.

 

[Ferghis]

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

I'm with you. I feel like we're getting trolled.

 

[Unwise]

In all the games I have played, radiant damage that comes from a priest of the Sun is actually true sunlight. So any radiant attacks from a Pelor paladin/priest will stuff up a vampire pretty badly. Even the sun warrior priests basic utility power that sheds light is sunlight in our games.

I would let someone snatch the cloak with a theivery roll (normal combat penalties apply). I would also let anyone make a grab attack on the cloak to yank it away if they have combat advantage. It can't be much harder grabbing a distracted opponents cloak than grabbing the opponent themselves.

Fighting indoors, enemies can open up windows, tear down curtains etc to create zones of sunlight on the battle map. I GMed a pretty cool fight like this recently. A monster could only be hurt when in sunlight, they had to break open the boarded windows and push the monster into the sunlight.

 

[eamon]

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

If you can snatch a back a cloak, why not a headband?

Edit: I get the feeling you and Ferghis haven't read a word I've said. In fact, Ferghis suggests I'm a troll, which is slightly odd, coming in a discussion in which not one of my points is being addressed. I get that you guys have made up your mind; and the game won't break down if you do introduce a combat maneuver to expose the vampire's head to sunlight. I'm just saying that the proposed maneuver is a poor choice because it's fundamentally inconsistent.

 

[P1NBACK]

If you can snatch a back a cloak, why not a headband?

Yeah? Why not? You tell me. I'd certainly allow this. lol If I can do this in real life, why not in a fantasy game?

Or, even better, how about wrestling a dragon down by its horns and ripping them from its head? Yeah. I'd allow that too. That's badass. But, there's no "power" for it.

Like many people in this thread have said, DMG Page 42 ftw.

I'm just saying that the proposed maneuver is a poor choice because it's fundamentally inconsistent.

It's only inconsistent with how you play (in this hard-coded, boardgame manner). It's certainly consistent with how we play.

Like I said, to each their own.

 

[Ferghis]

Someone is wrong on the internet! I must now spend a half-hour proving this fact to him or her!
Reference: xkcd: Duty Calls

If you can snatch a back a cloak, why not a headband?

I'm not fully clear on what you're saying here. Maybe you're addressing someone in particular in this thread and I don't know who. Maybe you're referring to removing magic items from characters. If it's the latter, and you're addressing me, you may have missed my or Aegeri's posts. Emphasis mine.

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!

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.

The assumptions are that the attacker in question must reasonably know of the vampire's vulnerability, that the action should not deprive the vampire of magic item benefits, and the action should be of the kind that players can try against NPCs to achieve similar results.

Edit: I get the feeling you and Ferghis haven't read a word I've said. In fact, Ferghis suggests I'm a troll, which is slightly odd, coming in a discussion in which not one of my points is being addressed. I get that you guys have made up your mind; and the game won't break down if you do introduce a combat maneuver to expose the vampire's head to sunlight.

I certainly have made up my mind about certain requirements for the page 42 maneuver I'm trying to come up with. But, please tell me specifically, which one of your points has not been addressed in this thread?

As far as I can tell, they all have (but I could have easily missed something), and we are in agreement with you about some points, and disagree with you about others. Also, the difference between feeling trolled and being trolled is that someone can feel trolled by posts authored in good faith. That alone does not make the author of those posts a troll.

 

[P1NBACK]

I think we're being a little hard on eamon. I'm sure he has good intentions.

There is no right or wrong answer here. Ultimately, it's up to the DM to make the right decision, and we all have our different playstyles.

I feel the game has provided the tools to adjudicate this situation (and maybe the game falls a little flat in providing serious examples), and the particulars should largely be left up to each individual group at the table and what playstyle they use.

If eamon's group doesn't allow maneuvers outside of what is on their sheet, then it makes sense that he might not allow someone to remove a cloak or pull back a cloak.

If our group makes liberal use of custom maneuvers and DMG page 42, then it seems absurd that we wouldn't allow this action as it makes perfect, plausible sense in the fiction.

Either way, these are all just suggestions and I don't think there's a definitive answer. It's largely preference.

I keep seeing these threads 10 pages long in 4E forums about something that should be a simple judgment call by the DM. There's a "definitive" answer, right? And, yet, 10 pages later, we're still arguing about what is "right". This is why I think the "hard-coded" approach falls flat for me. And, why I think 3.5-4E have gone the wrong way in trying to hard-code every single action you can possibly take.

Let's give the DM tools for making judgment calls like this. DMG page 42 is a tiny step in the right direction, but it's clearly not enough.

 

[Ferghis]

DMG page 42 is a tiny step in the right direction, but it's clearly not enough.

I agree that 4e is very resistant to the kind of rulings that page 42 of the DMG tries to encourage. Even very experienced DMs often have a tough time making rulings on improvised actions that are not listed on the "menu" of actions a character can take. I find the vampire's vulnerability to sunlight particularly difficult to bring into the game, which is why I turned to this community.

I have to say that I'm pretty happy with the solutions proposed (especially the standard grab, then standard attack vs fortitude exposes the vampire, who can fix the situation by first getting out of the grab and then using a minor action), and I'm not sure I could have come up with that on my own. I like the idea of the ongoing struggle with the clothing. If it were to enter play with a monster good at grabbing, that might lead to a very high-stakes situation, with allies assisting the vampire, or using forced movement attacks to end the grab.

 

[P1NBACK]

I have to say that I'm pretty happy with the solutions proposed (especially the standard grab, then standard attack vs fortitude exposes the vampire, who can fix the situation by first getting out of the grab and then using a minor action), and I'm not sure I could have come up with that on my own. I like the idea of the ongoing struggle with the clothing. If it were to enter play with a monster good at grabbing, that might lead to a very high-stakes situation, with allies assisting the vampire, or using forced movement attacks to end the grab.

Definitely! Let us know how it goes if it happens in the game!

 

[Saracenus]

I think the problem with trying expose a PC vamp to sunlight with page 42 rules is that the sunlight exposure damage comes at the end of the PC vamp's turn.

So, as the DM I make something up on the fly (that is cool and makes sense, not just to be an ass) and now the vampire is exposed. All I have done is impacted the action economy vamp. By DM fiat the vamp uses either a standard, move, or minor (depending on the DMs whim) to put his protection back up. Is that really as effective as just using the monster's powers?

You could get a little more "creative" and have the Monster make touch attack and if they succeed they can make an opposed thievery check vs reflex to mess up the covering item so that the vamp cannot fix it until the end of your monster's next turn (thus the vamp is going to take damage once, unless a friend covers them up or the vamp can find cover from sunlight on the battlefield). At higher levels you could do it as save ends and possibly get more than one round.

In any case once you start attacking worn/held items, expect it to come back on you when players start using it to their advantage as well.