D&D 5E Dumb question about vampires

[Charlaquin]

Am I missing something, or can a vampire not ever get out of mist form? The shapechanger trait says they can transform as an action. But in mist form they can’t take actions. Misty Escape specifically allows them to revert to their true form by spending an hour paralyzed in their resting place, but if they enter mist form as an action via the Shapechanger trait while they still have hit points, they seem to then be stuck that way forever…

 

[Sword of Spirit]

It seems poorly written. The intent is likely that they can take that action again to turn back.

That isn't the only place such things are overlooked. The warlock's One With Shadows invocation doesn't let you take the Hide action to hide once you are invisible.

Saying that you "can't take actions" is tricky design, unless you are really certain that there aren't any actions they should be able to take.

 

[Xetheral]

The Shapechanger ability states: "If the vampire isn't in sunlight or running water, it can use its action to polymorph into a Tiny bat or a Medium cloud of mist, or back into its true form." (Emphasis added.)

This explicit statement that the Vampire can turn back as an action while in mist form directly conflicts with the explicit statement later in the ability that "[w]hile in mist form, the vampire can't take any actions...." (Emphasis added.)

So Shapechanger is a single ability that appears to have an explicit contradiction within its text. There are a variety of possible interpretative approaches one could take to refute, avoid, and/or resolve this apparent contradiction.

Personally, I prefer the fiction-based approach to resolving apparent contradictions in RPG rules text, where I go with whatever option is more consistent with the expected fiction. In this case that's easy--letting the vampire change back is consistent with the expected fiction whereas forbidding them from doing so would not be.

Even if one wanted to stick only to the text, I would argue that, since an expansive reading of the prohibition on taking actions in mist form would prevent the explicitly permitted action of changing back, the prohibition should be read narrowly, with an implicit exception for explicitly authorized actions. Under this interpretation the contradiction is avoided, and vampires would be able to change back from mist form. This interpretation is also consistent with the general D&D rule of resolving conflicts between multiple abilities in favor of the more-specific ability, even though here there is only a single ability in question (the explicit authorization to change back as an action while in mist form is arguably more specific than a general prohibition on any taking actions).

The best alternative interpretation I can see would be to refute the existence of the contradiction by arguing that the ability to change back from mist form is merely added to the list of actions the vampire can choose from when taking an action, which in no way conflicts mechanically with a prohibition on taking actions in the first place. Under this approach vampires would indeed be stuck in mist form. While it's true that such an approach might match a surface-level translation of the Shapechanger ability to computer code or symbolic logic, I don't think it's a useful approach here, since it would render ineffective the text which grants the vampire the ability to change back out of mist form. I'm not one to argue that every word must be given meaning when interpreting RPG rules, but here I see no reason for the ability to state that vampires can voluntarily change back from mist form if they can't do so in practice.

 

[Charlaquin]

The Shapechanger ability states: "If the vampire isn't in sunlight or running water, it can use its action to polymorph into a Tiny bat or a Medium cloud of mist, or back into its true form." (Emphasis added.)

This explicit statement that the Vampire can turn back as an action while in mist form directly conflicts with the explicit statement later in the ability that "[w]hile in mist form, the vampire can't take any actions...." (Emphasis added.)

So Shapechanger is a single ability that appears to have an explicit contradiction within its text. There are a variety of possible interpretative approaches one could take to refute, avoid, and/or resolve this apparent contradiction.

Personally, I prefer the fiction-based approach to resolving apparent contradictions in RPG rules text, where I go with whatever option is more consistent with the expected fiction. In this case that's easy--letting the vampire change back is consistent with the expected fiction whereas forbidding them from doing so would not be.

Even if one wanted to stick only to the text, I would argue that, since an expansive reading of the prohibition on taking actions in mist form would prevent the explicitly permitted action of changing back, the prohibition should be read narrowly, with an implicit exception for explicitly authorized actions. Under this interpretation the contradiction is avoided, and vampires would be able to change back from mist form. This interpretation is also consistent with the general D&D rule of resolving conflicts between multiple abilities in favor of the more-specific ability, even though here there is only a single ability in question (the explicit authorization to change back as an action while in mist form is arguably more specific than a general prohibition on any taking actions).

The best alternative interpretation I can see would be to refute the existence of the contradiction by arguing that the ability to change back from mist form is merely added to the list of actions the vampire can choose from when taking an action, which in no way conflicts mechanically with a prohibition on taking actions in the first place. Under this approach vampires would indeed be stuck in mist form.

Solid analysis. I was assuming this alternative approach you mentioned here, and had not even considered the interpretation you present in the preceding paragraphs, but it does make sense.

While it's true that such an approach might match a surface-level translation of the Shapechanger ability to computer code or symbolic logic, I don't think it's a useful approach here, since it would render ineffective the text which grants the vampire the ability to change back out of mist form. I'm not one to argue that every word must be given meaning when interpreting RPG rules, but here I see no reason for the ability to state that vampires can voluntarily change back from mist form if they can't do so in practice.

Under the latter interpretation, the explicit permission to change into mist form is part of the same text granting permission to change into any form. It’s not unnecessary because without that text the vampire wouldn’t be able to change form at all, let alone from mist form to another form.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Per the rules text? Yes. The plain meaning of the text traps the vampire in mist form permanently. One must resort to either tortured logic, or rejecting and rewriting the text. This is one of the rare cases where (ironically) "natural language" isn't at fault with a 5e rule. The text is just badly written; it plainly and explicitly results in the vampire being unable to transform out of mist form, no issue of vague and equivocal terms involved.

It's a bit like PF1e's Prone Shooter, which was the consequence of bad editing practices.

Spoiler: TL;DR on Prone Shooter

For those unfamiliar, the TL;DR is that the feat's one and only benefit was that it removed the penalty to ranged attacks while prone....a penalty which doesn't exist. It was later errata'd to actually have a very, very weak benefit, rather than being literally completely useless. This happened because the original author wrote it to give a bonus, and the mechanics guru nixed that because, allegedly, they didn't want to give martial characters bonuses, and thus removed a penalty they wrongly believed was present.

Of course, as noted, the DM can just decide not to use the rules text. That would be the most productive thing to do if you are sitting at the table and discover that the game's makers rolled a Nat 1 on Intelligence (Game Design). That doesn't excuse the badly-written rule. It's just the practical thing to do when faced with bad rules: put on your amateur game designer hat and rewrite them yourself.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

If you really want to go into textual interpretation, you would look at it as follows:

Text-
"If the vampire isn't in sunlight or running water, it can use its action to polymorph into a Tiny bat or a Medium cloud of mist, or back into its true form."

"While in mist form, the vampire can't take any actions{.}"

The second statement is a general prohibition against actions taken in mist form.
The first statement is a specific statement about the ability of the vampire to use an action to change from mist to its true form.

Absent any other statement of intent, when there is a conflict between two ... rules ... one of them a general statement and the other a specific statement, the specific statement will apply as an exception to the general statement.

Therefore, the Vampire cannot take any actions in mist form, except the Vampire can use an action to polymorph into its true form.

 

[Xetheral]

Absent any other statement of intent, when there is a conflict between two ... rules ... one of them a general statement and the other a specific statement, the specific statement will apply as an exception to the general statement.

Therefore, the Vampire cannot take any actions in mist form, except the Vampire can use an action to polymorph into its true form.

Good point. The Specifc-Beats-General rule on PHB 7 talks about "rules", rather than about "abilities" like I'd suggested. So it's entirely possible to use that prescribed interpretative principle to resolve a contradiction that appears within the text of a single ability.

I don't think that will be sufficient to convince those who reject the existence of a contradiction in the first place, but I personally find your argument dispositive.

 

[Umbran]

Good point. The Specifc-Beats-General rule on PHB 7 talks about "rules", rather than about "abilities" like I'd suggested.

If folks are quibbling about whether the text of abilities printed in the rules books don't count as rules, it is probably time to go out for a walk rather than argue with them.

 

[Xetheral]

If folks are quibbling about whether the text of abilities printed in the rules books don't count as rules, it is probably time to go out for a walk rather than argue with them.

I entirely agree. Fortunately I don't think anyone is quibbling on that point. I had just misremembered the phrasing of the Specifc-Beats-General rule, and as a result hedged where I didn't need to. The actual phrasing makes the textual argument in favor of vampires being able to shift out of mist form even stronger.

 

[aco175]

I was still trying to figure out how a vampire in mist form can remain under running water.