Vampires and sunlight

33 posts / 0 new
Last post
Im a lvl 1 vampire is there anyway to get past the sunlight issue? I know a cloak works and stuff but is there a spell i can take to kill that effect off.
Not really, at least on a permanent basis (since no spells are permanent).  Get some items with radiant resistance, though, and you're mostly covered.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Do they have lvl 1 res gear and if so whats the cost i have no idea where to look that stuff up lol. I got all the books and stuff just need a cost and how much res i need. 
Found some stuff but man its costy LOL anyways i just didnt wanna get into combat or anything outside and the enemy be like haha i took your cloak off or somthing LOL. 
Found some stuff but man its costy LOL anyways i just didnt wanna get into combat or anything outside and the enemy be like haha i took your cloak off or somthing LOL. 



While it shouldn't be something that the DM ignores, it also isn't something he should be doing to you all the time. If he does, that simply smacks of him punishing you for your choice of character class.

Still, in order for the DM to really take advantage of it, it requires some houseruling, as there are no rules for how to take equipment away from a character during combat. Work out with your DM what sort of things need to be done in order to remove your coverings in combat.

The vulnerability shouldn't exist as a mechanical element to begin with.



Well considering your a vamp, it should.

As for the OP, yeah just wear a cloak.  But honestly if you're worry this much about sunlight, then why are you playing a vamp?  I mean, if you wanted to play a vamp without the sunlight weakness just play a different striker.  There's easier ways to be dark and creepy without being a vamp.  Or being something else and take the Dhampir feats.  Otherwise, just wear a cloak and hope for the best, that's what comes with playing a vamp. 
No, it should not. It restricts the ability of the character to participate in plotlines, of the player to refluff the mechanics for other things, and there's no circumstance in which it will come into play other than the DM deciding to be a jerk.



This.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
No, it should not. It restricts the ability of the character to participate in plotlines, of the player to refluff the mechanics for other things, and there's no circumstance in which it will come into play other than the DM deciding to be a jerk.



This.



This is wrong.

You are playing a Vampire, its vary nature requires it to be succeptable to sunlight.  I'm sorry that many of todays teenagers look at Vampires through Twilight glasses but that doesn't make it so that D&D needs to accomodate that mindset.  If you want to play a Vampire you have to take the good with the bad, having a weakness doesn't make a character unplayable it creates situations that the player has to contend with.

Lets also remember that many encounters occur in buildings, caverns, caves, dungeons, most all of these places are without sunlight, and those that do have windows or openings there is usually a way to circumvent them. 

I think the idea of playing a Vampire is interesting, it creates a character with depth, I want to save my friends but if I do I might die, it makes decisions important.  Also image the RP death potential.  It's daylight, your in the shade away from the sun and you see a small girl getting ready to be attacked, do you sacrifice yourself to buy her enough time to flee?

Vampires are fine, just accept the weakness and realize the strength of an interesting PC choice.
D&D needs to remember that it's a game, and thus all PC options should be playable.  A character drawback that makes it difficult to participate in the game is, by definition, bad for the game.  If nothing else, the fact that it is so easily circumvented (everybody owns a cloak) means they shouldn't have bothered to include it in the first place.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
D&D needs to remember that it's a game, and thus all PC options should be playable.  A character drawback that makes it difficult to participate in the game is, by definition, bad for the game.  If nothing else, the fact that it is so easily circumvented (everybody owns a cloak) means they shouldn't have bothered to include it in the first place.



Yeah if it weren't for the fact that it was a Vampire I'd agree but since a big chunk of Vampire lore is they die in sunlight it seems necessary.  If you don't like it, you don't have to play a vampire. 
The requirement to cover yourself in daylight is more of a social problem than a combat relevant one.  There is no obvious way in the rules for an enemy to uncloak you in combat, so that sort of thing should happen only when you are helpless -- at which point there are other ways to insta-kill any character. 

So the worst thing you should have to deal with is the occasional question about why you cover yourself on a bright sunny day -- to which your (actually honest) reply could be that you are extremely vulnerable to sunburn.
D&D needs to remember that it's a game, and thus all PC options should be playable.  A character drawback that makes it difficult to participate in the game is, by definition, bad for the game.  If nothing else, the fact that it is so easily circumvented (everybody owns a cloak) means they shouldn't have bothered to include it in the first place.



Yeah if it weren't for the fact that it was a Vampire I'd agree but since a big chunk of Vampire lore is they die in sunlight it seems necessary.  If you don't like it, you don't have to play a vampire. 



Depends on the lore and the vampire.  Most of the earliest vampire stores only had sunlight being a mild irritant at worst to the vampire (including Bram Stoker's Dracula).  Bursting into flames in sunlight is a rather new phenomenon.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
You are playing a Vampire, its vary nature requires it to be succeptable to sunlight.



But what if you're playing a cannibalistic evil druid who turns into wolves and drinks people's blood? 
Epic Dungeon Master

Want to give your players a kingdom of their own? I made a 4e rule system to make it happen!

Your Kingdom awaits!
Update 5th Sep 2011: Added a sample kingdom, as well as sample of play.
As a vampire, I agree that you are thinking about it entirely all wrong.

I love the fact that there is such a hardset weakness.  They also have the ability to save your group at night while they are sleeping.

Your DM should not be creating areas that are completely daylight.  Open battlefields would be the only exception, but as a DM you would want your players to be able to partake in any event.  The DM should make small building's, houses, sheds, etc.. on a battlefield that you and your group can take shelter to.

Have your DM setup areas that will limit you, but allow you to still partake in the adventure.

Again, nothing in D&D is perfect, but that's it's greatness too, you can improvise to what you and your group decide is how the game should be played.
there is also a feat called Divine Vampire in the new platest article that stops you taking damage from sunlight, gets rid of your vulnerablity to radiant, and take a healing surge from someone instead of healing them. Also I love the fluff for the feat.
I for one love the old school vampire lore. In my old 3rd edition games at least one character on the team always carried a bag of poppy seeds just in case I threw a vampire into the mix. Smile 

However if one of my players wanted to be a vampire for game play reasons i would tone down both the advantages and disadvantages of being a creature of the night.

He/she would be vulnerable to the sun, but i would allow them to start with a magic heirloom that protected them maybe. This is good because they still have the weakness and for plot reasons the item could be damaged or stolen, but for the usual run of the mill quests and running around town, he or she could walk around normally.

There would also be no turning into a bat/ vaporous cloud to escape death as this would not be fair to the rest of the most likely non-vamp players. Stakes to the chest or be-headings would also not be required to deal a killing blow, as again, this would be an unfair advantage compared to non-vampires.

As far as the need to feast on blood, a vampire's  classic case of O.C.D. , ability to cross running water, disgust of garlic and the like, i feel these are more role playing aspects and I would let the player choose how he or she wants to deal with these before the game ever begins.

 Of course should he or she choose to be obsessive compulsive or hate garlic, i see no harm in including these quirks in skill challenges and the like every once in a while, and as long as you don't go overboard and make them feel weak or annoyed this sounds like it would be fun for everyone around the table.

I think vampires as characters are interesting and as long as everyone playing is okay with it and you discuss it ahead of time there shouldn't be any real issues.
Still, in order for the DM to really take advantage of it, it requires some houseruling, as there are no rules for how to take equipment away from a character during combat.


 
  Just need to push the hood off, not remove the cloak.

  Simple answer, don't go out during the day, or if you have to, don't get into fights with people that have a cloths fetish.  Duh.  You're a fricken vampire.

A character drawback that makes it difficult to participate in the game is, by definition, bad for the game.


 
  It doesn't make it difficult to participate, it can add challenge to the playing of the game.  There is a difference.

@mikemearls don't quite understand the difference

I don't make the rules, I just think them up and write them down. - Eric Cartman

Enough chitchat!  Time is candy! - Pinky Pie


However if one of my players wanted to be a vampire for game play reasons i would tone down both the advantages and disadvantages of being a creature of the night.



 The OP is referring to the 4th Edition Vampire class released in the Heroes of Shadow book. The Vampire class in 4E has none of the abilities or vulnerabilities you brought up - at least not in the way you're imagining them. As a class (rather than a creature), they're balanced for play just like a fighter or mage.
Vampires take 5 damage when they end their turn in direct sunlight, get vulnerability 5 to radiant damage, darkvision and part-time regeneration. They only need to wear a hooded cloak when outside if they want to avoid the sunlight damage. They have a once-per-day power to "turn into a cloud of bats" and make an area attack then teleport to a square within the area of the attack. As a class, the vampire gains additional powers (class powers, not full-time abilities like shapeshifting or flying) or additional uses of powers as they level. All the rest of their iconic abilities are accomplished through use of their class powers, which have the standard at-will, encounter and daily limitations. As an example, they gain a once-per-day power that gives them a dominating gaze to charm people, but it's no different than any wizard power that dominates - the effect only lasts until the victim makes a saving throw...
 They're not required to "drink blood" to live, although they have powers that allow them to regain healing surges which they can use for healing themselves and other effects.

The only issue that most people have with the 4E Vampire class is the "ability" to take damage in direct sunlight and their vulnerable 5 radiant, since it's the only class in 4E that takes any sort of inherent penalty as part of its class features... Also, the sunlight damage is poorly worded since there are no actual rules for how to remove, tear off or otherwise steal their cloaks or even pull down their hoods - just having a cloak equipped is enough to make the whole issue completely irrelevant according to the rules as written.



Show

I am the Magic Man.

(Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.)

 

I am the Lawnmower Man.

(I AM GOD HERE!)

 

I am the Skull God.

(Koo Koo Ka Choo)

 

There are reasons they call me Mad...

No, it should not. It restricts the ability of the character to participate in plotlines, of the player to refluff the mechanics for other things, and there's no circumstance in which it will come into play other than the DM deciding to be a jerk.



Considering they made sure to point out that you can wear a cloak and wrap yourself up to protect yourself, it really doesn't restrict the player at all.  It is a fluff mechanic, because they're vamps and in D&D sunlight effects vamps.  Also, the DM isn't a jerk for having the game take place during the day, not DM should cater their entire game around the needs on one player.  If someone wants to play a character like the vamp that might have issues in the sunlight, that's the player's choice knowing full well the consequences, that doesn't make the DM a jerk.
D&D needs to remember that it's a game, and thus all PC options should be playable.  A character drawback that makes it difficult to participate in the game is, by definition, bad for the game.  If nothing else, the fact that it is so easily circumvented (everybody owns a cloak) means they shouldn't have bothered to include it in the first place.



Yeah if it weren't for the fact that it was a Vampire I'd agree but since a big chunk of Vampire lore is they die in sunlight it seems necessary.  If you don't like it, you don't have to play a vampire. 



Depends on the lore and the vampire.  Most of the earliest vampire stores only had sunlight being a mild irritant at worst to the vampire (including Bram Stoker's Dracula).  Bursting into flames in sunlight is a rather new phenomenon.



Bursting into flames or just simply burning up in the sunlight IS NOT NEW, how in the world do you get to that conclusion.  As has been said, various vampire lore changes from being vulnerable to sunlight and dying in they're in it, to just being burned but able to survive brief periods, to not being effected at all.  And that goes back to the oldest vamp lore.

Simply put a lot of the recent toning down of sunlight vulnerability comes from Twilight.  Since that farce suddenly spawned the current wave of vamp obsession, it means that those to come after tend to copy the fact that sunlight doesn't affect them.  Not saying that that hasn't been done in the past, it has, but simply to say that sunlight burning up vamps is a new, recent thing is a misconception. 
You are playing a Vampire, its vary nature requires it to be succeptable to sunlight.



But what if you're playing a cannibalistic evil druid who turns into wolves and drinks people's blood? 



The assumedly you'd be in an evil campaign, how does this have anything to do with vamps and sunlight?  There's nothing in the nature of a druid that makes them cannibalistic.  And if your a cannibal, then sure you'd want to feast on the flesh of others of your race, but should if your intent is whether or not the DM should cater to your tastes, then no.  If for some reason your playing a cannibal druid in a good campaign, if I was the DM I wouldn't allow this in the first place without good reason, and for you to have set restrictions on how you'd play such a character in a good campaign, but that aside if your character was to go hunt say humans and eat them, I would fully play out a city that would look for the murderer, and if they found out it was you, pursue you and kill you, simple as that.  No hard feelings, but that's the repercussions of playing such a character.

I played a pally awhile back that was effectively immortal but needed blood every once in awhile to sustain himself, though normally sustained off food.  No feats or any of that, it was mainly fluff.  But occasionally I would hunt people to feed, but I made sure not to kill them and to be very careful so as not to get caught that way my DM didn't have to hunt me down.   
Bursting into flames or just simply burning up in the sunlight IS NOT NEW,


1922. Whether one considers that 'new' or not is pretty subjective, I suppose.

And I think Pluisjen's point is that some people may want to use the vampire class mechanics to play some other concept character, not necessarily an actual vampire. The sunlight damage mechanic makes that more difficult. An analogous mechanic might be a rule that forces a rogue to steal a valuable item every day or suffer some penalty - it'd be perfectly fine if you wanted to play the stereotypical rogue-as-thief, but rather awkward if you wanted to use the rogue class mechanics to represent a duellist, a military scout, or a private detective.

"My flying carpet is full of elves."

Man i like the response from me posting a simple question lol. 
It just makes me sad to see people worried with the mechanics and leaving out what they call "fluff". Really, D&D is a role-playing game and as such you have to think of your character first then the sheet next, the sheet is merely an extention of what your character is supposed to translate in mechanics, so, if you want to play a vampire you should already know that vampires are weak to sunlight, or else you can very well take that Vriloka race and maybe the Vampiric Bloodline feats and you will very well be a blook-sucking character that is not weak to the sun. Hell, I had a Ravenant Fighter that in "fluff" was a zombie risen from the dead because he was burryed in unholy grounds, and I took the Vampire Bloodline feat to portrait his usual need for "brains".
PS: For those wondering, Brams Stoker's Dracula couldn't walk in the sunlight as well, go read the book and take your own conclusions (disregard any movies for that matter).
With that new hybrid/multiclassing playtest article, we now have a mechanical way for a vampire to ignore damage from sunlight -- multiclass or hybrid into a divine class and take the Divine Vampire feat.  If you want to be immune to sunlight damage from 1st level, you would either have to be human or not begin play as a vampire (but instead multiclass into it and retrain another feat later on). 

In fact, nearly any interesting character concept for a vampire would seem to require combining the Vampire class with some other class in some way.
   If you want to play a vampire, you have to take the bitter with the sweet.  You are going to suffer from radiant damage and from daylight.  Otherwise, you are just not playing a vampire. 

    Now the 4e vampire rules have the weakness of not making it clear how often the vampire should suffer this weakness, nor what defensive measures will be how effective.  So the basic answer is "Ask your DM."  He might be lazy and not want to bother with the penalty, but he is the one who makes the rules.  He might also make the character unplayable.  He is the one who will decide.
    What he should do is make sure your PC suffers.  If he lets you buy clothes that will perfectly protect you, these should be awkward and maybe give you a -2 on everything.  Or maybe he will mark the map with a bunch of squares that are sunlit and dangerous to you.  Or ...  But his duty is to make you suffer a disadvantage here.  There should be no easy or cheap way to get around the disadvantage. 
Back in 3.5 days, I opted to make the Vampire a playable race.

I looked at Ann Rice's Vampire cronicles for insiration.

What I landed on was a little shy of the dream for making Vamps viable.

Basically I did away with them having their full complement of powers at creation and set them up on an age category/ powers scale similar to what Dragons have.

Eventually direct sun light no longer killed them outright; but rather, round by round drained them of their abilities, weakened them and finally immobilized them. And ,in accordance with the Ann Rice lore, if they survived they came out with a rather nice tan after a few weeks of recovery.

Anyway, like most people have been saying; don't get so wraped up in this. You adventure at night, stick to it and your DM "should" starting writing for night time adventures. Heck there are more baddies out at night anyways, so it's good time for going around slaying monsters. If your playing with a bunch of humans this could be a problem, but then again they are food anyways.
Show
I don't have a perfect memory, thus I don't always recall the rules and mechanics perfectly. I also don't usually peruse the book before opening my "mouth", so cut me some slack if I'm little off every now and again. When logic fails to be present, the rational must inject logic into the situation.
Ego pad:
Show
Groveborn: Mesinock, I have been complimented on my ability to convey a message, but I think you are my superior. I haven't noticed you posting much, except when things get very convoluted, but when you do post, it's worth reading.
I'm surprised, I never knew WotC were taking a stab at relating fluff to mechanics in 4e. It's new and innovative, I like it.
D&D needs to remember that it's a game, and thus all PC options should be playable.  A character drawback that makes it difficult to participate in the game is, by definition, bad for the game.  If nothing else, the fact that it is so easily circumvented (everybody owns a cloak) means they shouldn't have bothered to include it in the first place.



Yeah if it weren't for the fact that it was a Vampire I'd agree but since a big chunk of Vampire lore is they die in sunlight it seems necessary.  If you don't like it, you don't have to play a vampire. 



Depends on the lore and the vampire.  Most of the earliest vampire stores only had sunlight being a mild irritant at worst to the vampire (including Bram Stoker's Dracula).  Bursting into flames in sunlight is a rather new phenomenon.



Interesting comment, reminded me of one of my favorite series (I usually hate vampire related stuff but this series was something else (also it wasn't some 'dark/forbidden' romance crap)), christopher pike's last vampire series. Vampires weren't hurt by sunlight but it slightly dulled their sight (they had amazing eyesight, add sunlight to the mix and it's bound to be a little sore).

According to other posters about the whole vampire thing and sunlight being part of the mix, then why not add in garlic, crucifixes (or world appropriate religious symbols) and holy water (if this is already true I wouldn't know about it Tongue out)? According to one poster, we shouldn't let ourselves be twilight fanboys, non-twilight CANON vampires according to popular lore are even more malleable, their only strength in the medium they're usually portrayed in is the aspect of surprise. Thinking the reason some people don't want vampires vulnerable to sunlight is because they're twilight fans is close minded, using the twilight fans thing to lower the weight of your opposition's argument is unprofessional and counter-productive (although I won't deny my being sarcastic in my last argument is also true of this Tongue out)

EDIT: Something came to me just now: How would the fluff relate to a warforged vampire? Drinking blood I get, your system functions on blood to run the engines, how do you fluff away the sunlight thing? How do you fluff away the -reanimated- thing instead of rebuilt?

Well aside from the garlic, holy water, crosses part, the vamp warforged never seemed that big a deal.  Warforged are completely mechanical beings, the still live and thus being a vamp warforged works just fine, the vampire curse or virus or whatever, brings them back to life.  Simple as that.  Even though I don't care much for essentials or the vampire class, I think it'd be amusing to play a vampire Shardmind.  Makes crystal fangs grow on his face, haha!