Vampires and Disintegrate, does it destroy it? + Libris Mortis question

[akbearfoot]

To me it shouldnt matter if the vampire turns to mist or turns to dust first....If it turns to mist first, that does not somehow negate that disentegrate is still going to turn it into dust, since a creature that is in gaseous form can still normally be targeted by spells.

If the vampire turns into dust first...then 'go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200' You are dead and considerd to be an object and are thus not able to use special abilities.


To me disentegrate just gets stupid when you use it against anything with regeneration...The whole auto-convert to subdual damage thing. Sorry, but a 6th level spell that can turn a huge section of an adamantine wall into dust should be able to kill a CR 5 troll or whatever.

 

[werk]

I'd say disintegrate just lowers the vamp to 0hp, and it turns into mist as per its description.

Any undead reduced to 0hp is destroyed, disintegrate isn't any worse than reducing a vamp to 0hp by any other means it just has a touch of theatrics and improved effectiveness against living targets.

Compare improved energy drain to energy drain...the wording is very different.

 

[evilbob]

Disintegrate's "total destruction" doesn't kick in specifically after a creature being reduced to 0hp, but if it's reduced to 0 hp. It's an instantaneous effect...

The vampire's ability also reads "if reduced to 0 hit points." It's also instantaneous.

Honestly: the two rules are - as far as I can tell - functionally identical. They both talk about damage done to HP and what happens when the damage takes the creature to zero HP. Maybe I'm missing something - entirely possible - but I can't tell the difference.

One:
"Any creature struck by the ray takes 2d6 points of damage per caster level (to a maximum of 40d6). Any creature reduced to 0 or fewer hit points by this spell is entirely disintegrated, leaving behind only a trace of fine dust."
Two:
"A vampire heals 5 points of damage each round so long as it has at least 1 hit point. If reduced to 0 hit points in combat, it automatically assumes gaseous form and attempts to escape. ... Any additional damage dealt to a vampire forced into gaseous form has no effect."

I have a personal opinion on which should trump which, but I can't back it up with a rules reading. Either interpretation seems equally valid.

 

[eamon]

One:
"Any creature struck by the ray takes 2d6 points of damage per caster level (to a maximum of 40d6). Any creature reduced to 0 or fewer hit points by this spell is entirely disintegrated, leaving behind only a trace of fine dust."
Two:
"A vampire heals 5 points of damage each round so long as it has at least 1 hit point. If reduced to 0 hit points in combat, it automatically assumes gaseous form and attempts to escape. ... Any additional damage dealt to a vampire forced into gaseous form has no effect."

I have a personal opinion on which should trump which, but I can't back it up with a rules reading. Either interpretation seems equally valid.

Good catch. I think there is a difference that's not just personal opinion, given the context of those quotes, however. The vampire section applies in generality to all kinds of damage possibly dealt to a vampire. It's necessarily vague since it applies so generally. The conditional serves to override the normal destruction rules pertaining to undead. There are a wide variety of means to deal damage, and the vampire template explains that a few of them circumvent its ability - it names immersion in running water, a stake through the heart, and exposure to direct sunlight, for instance.

The list of exceptions isn't necessarily complete. The vampire's rules simply say that hitpoint damage alone isn't sufficient to kill a vampire.

On the other hand, the disintegrate rules are far more clear cut, and far less general. All objects have hitpoints in the D&D scheme of things, and for all of these objects, the mechanics are pretty much identical. There exist means to prevent certain damage (which the vampire could use too, perhaps), but they don't effect the triggering condition, which applies when the creatures reaches 0 hitpoints. Notably, even a creature in gaseous form can be affected by disintegrate, as could an incorporeal creature (if the 50% spell failure chance doesn't cause the spell not to do damage). The spell provides for no exceptions to the rule that a target which is brought to 0 hit points is utterly destroyed.

Even if a vampire would turn to gaseous form "first", then disintegrate would still destroy it. In any case, the two rules are not created equal: the vampire's text explicitly allows exceptions and gives three canonical examples; whereas disintegrate's "exceptions" are simply when the creature survives the hit-point damage, which is not the case here.

 

[evilbob]

That's a good point and an interesting argument. To paraphrase, you're saying that because the monster's rule allows exceptions and the spell's rule does not, the spell's rule trumps the monster's rule. That's a good thought, but I don't think I can agree. I've seen too many cases in which a set rule does not mention exceptions but actually has an exception - usually because of additional materials, but still: just because a rule doesn't mention exceptions does not mean it cannot have any. And by that logic, the exception to the spell is just as valid as the exception to the monster.


So far, the only reading that I can make that seems to be decisive is to interpret each rule very strictly, and apply them both simultaneously. In this case, a vampire automatically turns into gaseous form once it reaches zero HP and no more damage can be done to it, but since the spell reduced it to zero damage it is also turned to dust. Under a very strict reading, since "entirely disintegrated" is technically not "damage," the gaseous form does not protect against it, and the spell's ability still procs (er, is activated).

This is, again, being very literal - and is in no way definitive. But it at least gives another possible solution that doesn't rely on subjectivity.