Ferghis
Explorer
I agree on both points: I was concerned about how to balance this kind of action (which is why I asked the community for help), and that balance is somewhat overrated.
Can a DM expose a vampire character to sunlight with combat actions?
- Thread starter Ferghis
- Start date
IanB
First Post
Listed right next to a sentence that essentially tells the player that they don't really have to worry about it. I just hope you're advertising to your players that you're going to make more of the sunlight weakness in actual combat than that section implies, before they make the choice to play the character.
I'm reading Heroes of Shadow right now and I'm not seeing what you're talking about. Maybe you can point me in the right direction (page #, paragraph, sentence)?
IanB
First Post
I don't have it in front of me, but I'm referring to the sentence telling the player, in effect, "you can ignore the sun part of your radiant weakness by wearing a cloak or heavy clothing," which by my recollection is in the same paragraph saying what happens if you happen to wander out into the sun without protection.
In other words, I think the intent behind the sun stuff is give you some vampire flavor, not a weakness that's supposed to be coming up all the time in combat. More along the lines of a wizard needing his spellbook - it is something that you once in a while go after for a dramatic reason but you don't have people trying to steal it every fight. It is something that should be coming up in out of combat situations more than in combat situations, I feel.
There's certainly no mechanical reason that the vampire needs the weakness to see use to be balanced, which means hammering away at it with a mechanic that any monster can use has the potential to make that character dramatically less effective than it 'should' be and to annoy the player of the character to boot.
I think the biggest problem with the 'any monster can do it' approach is minions. The opportunity cost for a minion (or two or three) to use their action to do this to a vampire is *extremely* low, and that goes for any of the equivalent 'improv' disarm type maneuvers people are describing in this thread.
You got "that essentially tells the player that they don't really have to worry about it" out of that sentence?
I read it more like: "This lets you stick with the party despite your weakness..."
Funny.
The irony being BOTH of you have entirely 100% valid interpretations. Some people think it's just pointless flavor that isn't meant to come up in game, others think it should be made mechanically relevant to combat and enemies should exploit it.
Huzzah for writing rules in pudding. Effectively the only way for a vampire PC to know how this works is to ask his DM.
Huzzah for writing rules in pudding. Effectively the only way for a vampire PC to know how this works is to ask his DM.
No, I think it's quite clear how it works. You are fine with a cloak, but otherwise you are in danger. Period. It's pretty straightforward. The only DM interpretation is whether the DM should acknowledge the weakness at all. But, should we extend that to the other weaknesses the vampire has? Should I not use Radiant attacks against the vampire? Oh! That's not "fair" because that's taking advantage of a specific weakness the vampire has! Or, maybe we should drop that whole "being undead" thing too... That's not fair either!
Really, this seems to be only an issue for people have problems with characters having "weaknesses" that aren't "fair".
And, to that I say: don't play an undead monster of the night.
IanB
First Post
The other weaknesses are quite another matter because they interact with the combat rules in a defined way. It might be a little suspicious if radiant-firing enemies show up in every single fight though.
The other weaknesses are quite another matter because they interact with the combat rules in a defined way. It might be a little suspicious if radiant-firing enemies show up in every single fight though.
What's not defined about:
If you end your turn in direct sunlight and lack
a protective covering such as a cloak or other
heavy clothing, you take 5 radiant damage (plus
additional damage from your radiant vulnerability)
from the sunlight, and you are weakened
(save ends). If you drop below 1 hit point from
this dalnage, you are instantly destroyed.
Perfectly defined to me. You either A) are in direct sunlight or not and B) have protective covering or not.
It's pretty straightforward. You guys are seriously making something out of nothing. In fact, the real question of this thread was, "Can I and How do I remove the protective clothing?" And, not, "How does this weakness actually work?" Because, well, that's straightforward.
And, I think the consensus is: yes, you can. And, it's up to you how to rule it, but the common suggestion involves grabbing the target and following up with a move to pull back or remove the protective clothing.
As straightforward as it gets really. And, the fact that this is such a roadblock for 4E players only exemplifies the "hard-coded, boardgame" mentality that's so prevalent.
DracoSuave
First Post
Agreed.
The question as to if you can is easy. Yes you can.
The real question is "should you?" and if yes, "when?"
My opinion is: Yes but rarely and to make a point. Tactics like this are screwing the player. So dont waste a good player screw on normal encounters.
Save this ace for special antagonists. A Latverian soldier couldnt exploit, but Dr Doom MUST.
The question as to if you can is easy. Yes you can.
The real question is "should you?" and if yes, "when?"
My opinion is: Yes but rarely and to make a point. Tactics like this are screwing the player. So dont waste a good player screw on normal encounters.
Save this ace for special antagonists. A Latverian soldier couldnt exploit, but Dr Doom MUST.
