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

[P1NBACK]

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.

Savvy players will do this anyway. It's happened plenty of times in my games.

I'm honestly surprised that most people don't have this occur in their game...

 

[Ferghis]

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?

That's one of the details I like about the grab idea: it lasts until the vampire is grabbed, and that can be a couple of rounds, with certain monsters. I don't care that the vampire has to waste a move and a minor to get out of it. I care that there's actually a decent chance that the vulnerability be actually triggered.

 

[Ferghis]

Here's the answer of someone that helped write the book:

I don't know if Klaus is still following this thread, or if this question has already been answered elsewhere in this thread (I have not followed the whole thing).

Klaus: assuming appropriate in-game reasons for doing so, and that the vampire is wearing gear to protect him or her from the sun, how would you resolve an enemy's attempt at trying to expose a vampire to sunlight in combat?

Full disclosure: I started a thread about this question here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-dis...ampire-character-sunlight-combat-actions.html

I'd make it work like a grab. Each round the grab is sustained, the vampire is exposed to sunlight.

 

[Saracenus]

That's one of the details I like about the grab idea: it lasts until the vampire is grabbed, and that can be a couple of rounds, with certain monsters. I don't care that the vampire has to waste a move and a minor to get out of it. I care that there's actually a decent chance that the vulnerability be actually triggered.

I guess the question I have is, why do you care about it?

Is it really that important to your game that you have some way to make this happen in combat?

Tell me what are you going to get buy being able to threaten the vamp PC with immolation every combat?

How often are you planning to do this to your vamp player?


You seem to be investing a ton of energy on making this happen. More so than I as a DM would be willing to invest in it.

Good luck and good gaming...

 

[IanB]

I am away from my books, but I wasn't under the impression that page 42 was supposed to be there for monsters at all, it is just there to accommodate players' "I want to do this" sort of improvisational actions. I suspect that it isn't particularly balanced with monster actions in mind (and I definitely don't remember it having damage expressions for say, minions.)

 

[Ferghis]

I guess the question I have is, why do you care about it?

I care about the game in general: I enjoy discussing it (that's one big reason I come to these boards), and this is an interesting oddity in the game: a combat mechanic without a clear way of it coming up in combat. Also, I DM a game in which a player plays a vampire, so I think it's part of my job to try to figure out certain things before they come up in play.

Let me turn the tables? Why do you care about it? And if you don't care much, why are you posting in this thread?

Is it really that important to your game that you have some way to make this happen in combat?

It is important that I have a satisfying way to deal with something that might arise in the game and that's not spelled out in the rules. In a relative way, I should add: it is less important than my job, my woman, and my whiskey. Nothing is more important than my whiskey.

I actually answered this question before in this thread. Among the DM's job is that of playing up to both the PC's strengths and weaknesses. Here, I'm figuring out how to play up his weakness.

Tell me what are you going to get buy being able to threaten the vamp PC with immolation every combat?

I don't intend to threaten the vamp PC with immolation every combat. I intend to make him afraid that it could happen in any combat.

How often are you planning to do this to your vamp player?

It depends on how the game is going. The PC might die before I ever get the chance to spring this on him.

 

[eamon]

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?

Right, and that's perfectly reasonable. However, I suspect that most DM's don't actually do this. Although PC's (and presumably NPC's) are heavily dependant on gear, they never rip it off or deprive them of their use. Worse, they never describe in sufficient detail similar weak spots in monsters. So in-game it may make sense to win a combat by "attacking" the other guys gear or specific weak spots, and it theory DM's are OK with it, but in practice they aren't actually doing this: not to the players, and certainly not to the monsters (which would be much more work because 4e's MM doesn't describe such weak spots).

Presumably there's an in-game reason for the various strength's and weaknesses of monsters. Just like you'd be exploiting the reason that the PC vampire can survive in sunlight, it makes sense for PC's to exploit the reason the monsters have those strengths and weaknesses. And it makes sense for other monsters to exploit the reason for other PC strengths and weaknesses. Ideally, you'd have been "attacking" gear all along, and have notes that describe for each monster you've ever used in the game the means by which they fight in similar detail to PC's.

So if you pull back the hood of the vampire once; that's dramatic license. If you're doing as a general strategy (e.g. any monster might do this, it's a viable combat action), then you've got to ask yourself what about all those other reasons - why am I picking on this one?

And then the point is that this just doesn't work well in 4e. It doesn't lend itself to simulating in-game effects very well; it doesn't describe why monsters work as they do; they just do. The whole point is that making monsters is easy and fun; you don't want to explain it in too much detail: you look at the results, not the internals.

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.

And this is a perfect example of something that's badass once, but you wouldn't want to make this a general rule. It happened to work against one particular dragon in one particular situation - it's not generally valid. You're not going to let them systematically apply this action all the time - regardless of whether it makes sense at first glance. You refluff the story to match the rules, and then use dramatic license where appropriate.

Same thing with the vampire. Use the weakness once, dramatically, and make it cool. But don't turn it into a general mechanic. That's almost certainly inconsistent with how you treat other PC's and certainly inconsistent with how the PC's can treat monsters.

DMG42 doesn't really say anything about this at all, but the spirit of the rule concerns unusual actions. That's why I was suggesting using some kind of blink thief. It's sufficiently unusual that no-one's going to worry about this being a constant threat, and you can do imaginative things without messing up game balance - because once he's gone, the rulings don't matter any more. The mechanical suggestions you made (using grab, etc.) are certainly better worked out; I'd say; go for it - just use an explanation that makes it intuitively obvious to the player's that you're introducing a new challenge, not a new rule.

It's not about whether to use the vampire's weakness - you should use the weakness, because players' choices should matter - why play a vampire if it never matters? I'm critical not of the use of the weakness, but of the suggested means. You don't want a systematic new combat mechanic, you want a novel situation calling for creative solutions. So don't overdo it, and when you do, choose an in-game explanation such that it makes sense that it won't happen every combat. That way, you can also make the effect more powerful (i.e. dramatic), since you don't need to worry too much about balance.

 

[P1NBACK]

...but in practice they aren't actually doing this: not to the players, and certainly not to the monsters (which would be much more work because 4e's MM doesn't describe such weak spots).

Really? I'm telling you right now I'm doing this. So, what data is this thesis you are writing actually based on?

Ideally, you'd have been "attacking" gear all along, and have notes that describe for each monster you've ever used in the game the means by which they fight in similar detail to PC's.

This is not necessarily true. In many cases, a "normal" attack is more effective than attacking gear. Why attack gear when I can attack the monster, kill it, and then just take it's gear?

As said earlier, even attacking the vampire's cloak isn't necessarily the most optimal tactic.

So if you pull back the hood of the vampire once; that's dramatic license. If you're doing as a general strategy (e.g. any monster might do this, it's a viable combat action), then you've got to ask yourself what about all those other reasons - why am I picking on this one?

What other reasons?

And then the point is that this just doesn't work well in 4e. It doesn't lend itself to simulating in-game effects very well; it doesn't describe why monsters work as they do; they just do. The whole point is that making monsters is easy and fun; you don't want to explain it in too much detail: you look at the results, not the internals.

Sounds like shoddy DMing to me. If you disallow viable PC tactics because you don't want to "calculate" the monster's new attack bonus without his axe, then that's not really my problem, is it?

Me, I'll just have to use DMG page 42 and figure out what kind of attack the monster does without his axe. That'll take about 15 seconds to look up and memorize (and less if I have DMG page 42 readily available, which any DM worth his salt should).

And this is a perfect example of something that's badass once, but you wouldn't want to make this a general rule. It happened to work against one particular dragon in one particular situation - it's not generally valid. You're not going to let them systematically apply this action all the time - regardless of whether it makes sense at first glance. You refluff the story to match the rules, and then use dramatic license where appropriate. Same thing with the vampire. Use the weakness once, dramatically, and make it cool.

"Hey guys, remember when we dragged that vampire out into the sun and it burst into flames?"

"Yeah, that was pretty awesome and downright effective."

"Hmmm. Let's do that to all vampires if we can!"

Sounds about right to me.

But don't turn it into a general mechanic. That's almost certainly inconsistent with how you treat other PC's and certainly inconsistent with how the PC's can treat monsters.

We didn't. WotC did. And, the player chose to use that mechanic when they chose to play a vampire. It's listed right there on the character class.

You're acting like DMs are making this crap up. No. We're not.

DMG42 doesn't really say anything about this at all, but the spirit of the rule concerns unusual actions. That's why I was suggesting using some kind of blink thief.

You're suggesting coming up with a custom encounter. We're suggesting using a custom action in accordance with already established custom actions (like Grab, Bull Rush, etc.).

I'll take the custom action over custom encounter any day of the week.

It's sufficiently unusual that no-one's going to worry about this being a constant threat, and you can do imaginative things without messing up game balance - because once he's gone, the rulings don't matter any more. The mechanical suggestions you made (using grab, etc.) are certainly better worked out; I'd say; go for it - just use an explanation that makes it intuitively obvious to the player's that you're introducing a new challenge, not a new rule.

As I said, WotC introduced the new rule, and if you're really concerned, you might want to give the PC a disclaimer:

"Hey dude, you do realize this class is vulnerable to sunlight, right? Ok... Just checking. Don't be mad when I pull your cloak off one day."

It's not about whether to use the vampire's weakness - you should use the weakness, because players' choices should matter - why play a vampire if it never matters? I'm critical not of the use of the weakness, but of the suggested means. You don't want a systematic new combat mechanic, you want a novel situation calling for creative solutions. So don't overdo it, and when you do, choose an in-game explanation such that it makes sense that it won't happen every combat. That way, you can also make the effect more powerful (i.e. dramatic), since you don't need to worry too much about balance.

I don't think anyone is overdoing it, man. Well, maybe building an entire encounter to combat ONE PC is overdoing it...

Heh.

 

[eamon]

Right, if you're into disarming and affecting other gear, then this fits in just perfectly. It sounds like you're describing the monsters well enough to enable the PC's to return the favor.

Heck, this is typical previous-edition stuff (in a good way); it's just quite a lot of work and hard to balance well. (Then again, I think that precise balance is somewhat overrated anyhow - a good story is so much more important).

 

[P1NBACK]

Right, if you're into disarming and affecting other gear, then this fits in just perfectly. It sounds like you're describing the monsters well enough to enable the PC's to return the favor.

Heck, this is typical previous-edition stuff (in a good way); it's just quite a lot of work and hard to balance well. (Then again, I think that precise balance is somewhat overrated anyhow - a good story is so much more important).

Right on. Like I said earlier, we've all got our playstyles and I don't think one approach is "wrong" or "right".

Good stuff.