D&D 5E Dumb question about vampires

[Xetheral]

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

Now I really want to include in my game a vampire nicknamed "Bubbles" who is trapped in a flooded, spinning torroid in some kind of horrid menagerie.

(In Mist form they'd be immune to the acid damage from submersion, and even though in Mist form they can't enter water, nothing stops confining a Mist form vampire in a space that you then flood. So I think this works.)

 

[jmartkdr2]

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

Bubbles.

Bubbly vampires, suffering.

 

[billd91]

My general approach is if the rule interpretation makes it produce paradoxical results or makes something that should obviously be possible in the setting impossible, then the interpretation is wrong. My classic example is the tortuous interpretations people put the charging feats through in 3e that, basically, disallowed anyone from gaining benefits from spirited charge.

There are times to be careful about rules and times to step back and realize that they exist to operationalize what is going on in the fiction in a fair and reasonable manner. Vampires should be able to take an action to turn back to solid from mist. And warlocks should certainly be able to take the hide action while being "one with shadows".

 

[Charlaquin]

My general approach is if the rule interpretation makes it produce paradoxical results or makes something that should obviously be possible in the setting impossible, then the interpretation is wrong.

I mean, yeah, I think it’s blatantly obvious that the intent is not for vampires to be unable to leave mist form unless they entered it at 0HP with Misty Escape. I was just unsure if I was missing something that fixed this problem, or if I should assume it was an error. Folks have pointed out a potential interpretation that fixes the issue, and while I don’t think it’s the most intuitive way to read the rule, it certainly is a valid reading. Either way you read it though, the result is the same - vampires should be able to use the shape changer trait as an actuon while in mist form, but not take any other actions.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Moist form?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

My general approach is if the rule interpretation makes it produce paradoxical results or makes something that should obviously be possible in the setting impossible, then the interpretation is wrong. My classic example is the tortuous interpretations people put the charging feats through in 3e that, basically, disallowed anyone from gaining benefits from spirited charge.

I never heard of that. I was not active on forums back then. Never had problems at the table. Could you elaborate, please.

 

[billd91]

I never heard of that. I was not active on forums back then. Never had problems at the table. Could you elaborate, please.

Turns out my memory was a little off - it was Ride-By Attack that was a problem for some people.

2 PCs charge 1 NPC from same direction

We have always played that you can charge someone in a straight line as long as the space you stop is: 1) within melee range of the opponant, and 2) in the general direction that you are charging from (so the spaces in both diagnols to the opponant and the direct spot next to the opponant in the...

www.enworld.org

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Turns out my memory was a little off - it was Ride-By Attack that was a problem for some people.

2 PCs charge 1 NPC from same direction

We have always played that you can charge someone in a straight line as long as the space you stop is: 1) within melee range of the opponant, and 2) in the general direction that you are charging from (so the spaces in both diagnols to the opponant and the direct spot next to the opponant in the...

www.enworld.org

Thank you.
Never bothered with that.
I knew that some rules in 3.0 were just better. Because 3.5 tried to make the rules less DMdependand by reenforcing the grid.