Can vampires go swimming in lakes and oceans unharmed?

[Arravis]

With your Interpretation, you could Put a Vampire into a Barrel full of Water, and pour more water into the barrel till it spills of the edge --> "Moving Water" and the Vampire suddenly Dies? If this doesn't seem Rediculous to you, then i guess i have nothing left to do in this thread :S

Umm, that's not my interpretation, as stated in the original post:

In the Aquatic Terrain section of the SRD it states the following: "Accordingly, these rules simply divide aquatic terrain into two categories: flowing water (such as streams and rivers) and nonflowing water (such as lakes and oceans)."

So it would seem to me that the RAW does define exactly what "running water" is: it is "flowing" water, ie rivers and streams.

 

[Drowbane]

Sometimes ya gotta say "to hell with RAW" and go with "RAI" (I know, blasphemy on the Rules Forum ).

I go with Bram Stoker's approach. If Dracula couldn't leave an ocean-going ship... niether can Strahd.

 

[Arravis]

Well, as you stated so wisely it is the Rules forum, not the House Rules forum .
The RAW may not always make sense and it rarely follows actual myth. The point of this forum is to find out what the exactly the RAW convey, so we as DM's can then make our own decision to overrule them or follow them. That decision is implicit in the very nature of the forum I always assumed.

 

[calighis]

I would have to site standard Halchikk (kosher) procedures for defining water for purposes of making it holy. It must be Maim Chaim (running water) from a running stream or river. Now if neither are available the rabbi's allow that lake or even ocean water is accpetable for Mikvah but I doubt it would stop a vampire. Incidentally the sages don't have much to say about vampires, but lucky for us garlic is kosher.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

I would say that since the RAW is not explicit in defining 'running water', it is up to the GM to interpret how to apply that rule.

For me, I go with running water is not stagnant water.... so any body of water that is not bog or swamp {fetid, stagnant, diseased... epitomies of death} will not impede a vampires movement. On the other hand, water that is moving like rivers, streams, lake, or oceans {clean, healthy... epitomies of life} will impede the vampire.

YMMV...

 

[mvincent]

Issues of myths and legends say are inconsequential.

I disagree. The description for this particular weakness appears to be based solely on those myths, without any particular deviation or elaboration. As such, it can provide useful background information for those that desire it, especially if the matter is subject to some interpretation.

 

[Arravis]

especially if the matter is subject to some interpretation.

That is the reason why we have to go with the rules as written, not with myth, because your opinion of which vampire myth D&D is based on will likely be completely different from my interpretation. That's exactly why it's irrelevant in a Rules forum. The subject of myth IS so open to interpretation, opinion, source, etc that it would be impossible to deny anyone's opinion on any myth. How can you prove a myth wrong or right? It's the very nature of myth to be nebulous and inconclusive.

Do we follow Bram Stoker's novel? Do we follow Anne Rice? Do we follow the myths of Romania, do we use the one based on Greek myth? Do we follow Hollywood, then which movie? Are any of these wrong? Which did the writers of Dungeons and Dragons intend? Most of the stuff in D&D is based on Myth, but because it is so, doesn't mean it matters to the RAW. Look up the Golem of myth, or any other creature, and compare it to D&D.

Unfortunately this could be argued forever, but that doesn't help at a Rules forum. Since it is so, let us stick to the RAW.

 

[mvincent]

Do we follow Bram Stoker's novel?

Yes. That appears to be the "traditional" reference for vampirisms, including this particular weakness (it's similar to how we would typically reference Tolkien when debating beards on female dwarves in 3e, even though there are many different accounts of dwarves).

let us stick to the RAW.

Feel free to yourself, but many of us like to gather information about RAI and such. If it pleases you, simply view such conversions as applying only to us.

 

[Arravis]

I suspect the water issues with vampires predates Bram, but like with all else listed above, this could be argued endlessly. I have nothing against using mythical sources for house rules, etc... in the end, every DM chooses for themselves what they want to do. The issue is that this is the Rules forum and its purpose is to stick to the RAW.

 

[Doug Sundseth]

I have nothing against using mythical sources for house rules, etc... in the end, every DM chooses for themselves what they want to do. The issue is that this is the Rules forum and its purpose is to stick to the RAW.

When interpreting terms in rules, you begin by looking for a definition of the term proximal to its use. Failing that (as here) you look for a definition in a glossary; there is none for "running water". Absent both of those, you can look for guidance elsewhere in the full rules set; nobody has offered any such definition.

"Running water" is undefined in the rules.

From your posts, it seems you have a strong attachment to having "running water" be the same as "flowing water" (elsewhere defined). In order for this to work, you must depend on particular definitions of "running" and "flowing". That is, you are relying on context and general usage.

Context and general usage are precisely what other posters in this thread are relying upon to put forward the case that rivers and lakes are properly "running water" as used in the vampire definition.

In any case, from the information brought forward so far, there is no single RAW definition of "running water". IOW, by the RAW, the definition of "running water" is a DM call.