Generally, the specific rule should over-ride the general rule. In this case, I would call the general rule "Disintegrate turns creatures reduced to zero hit points to dust" and the specific rule is "vampires are turn to mist when reduced to zero hit points."
So vampires turn to mist when reduced to zero hit points by a disintegrate. That said, i would probably narate it as the vampire crumbling to dust, and then a mist rising from the dust - I mean, why not?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Generally, the specific rule should over-ride the general rule. In this case, I would call the general rule "Disintegrate turns creatures reduced to zero hit points to dust" and the specific rule is "vampires are turn to mist when reduced to zero hit points."
So vampires turn to mist when reduced to zero hit points by a disintegrate. That said, i would probably narate it as the vampire crumbling to dust, and then a mist rising from the dust - I mean, why not?
I would rule in the opposite direction.
The general rule is that vampires turn to mist when reduced to 0 hit points. Disintegrate overrules this with the specific effect of turning the vampire to dust.
|
Generally, the specific rule should over-ride the general rule. In this case, I would call the general rule "Disintegrate turns creatures reduced to zero hit points to dust" and the specific rule is "vampires are turn to mist when reduced to zero hit points."
So vampires turn to mist when reduced to zero hit points by a disintegrate. That said, i would probably narate it as the vampire crumbling to dust, and then a mist rising from the dust - I mean, why not?
I would rule in the opposite direction.
The general rule is that vampires turn to mist when reduced to 0 hit points. Disintegrate overrules this with the specific effect of turning the vampire to dust.
And there is where the problem is. You have 2 specific rules that oppose eachother, but have no reasonable way to override that can't be turned around. I would like something official about this (like an FAQ/errata).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would argue that the RAI is that vampires can only be killed in certain ways...
If reduced to 0 hit points in combat, a vampire assumes gaseous form (see below) and attempts to escape. It must reach its coffin home within 2 hours or be utterly destroyed. (It can normally travel up to 9 miles in 2 hours.) Additional damage dealt to a vampire forced into gaseous form has no effect. Once at rest, the vampire is helpless. It regains 1 hit point after 1 hour, then is no longer helpless and resumes healing at the rate of 5 hit points per round.
Reducing a vampire's hit points to 0 or lower incapacitates it but doesn't always destroy it (see fast healing). However, certain attacks can slay vampires. Exposing any vampire to direct sunlight staggers it on the first round of exposure and destroys it utterly on the second consecutive round of exposure if it does not escape. Each round of immersion in running water inflicts damage on a vampire equal to one-third of its maximum hit points—a vampire reduced to 0 hit points in this manner is destroyed. Driving a wooden stake through a helpless vampire's heart instantly slays it (this is a full-round action). However, it returns to life if the stake is removed, unless the head is also severed and anointed with holy water.
I know the above quotes don't specifically say "vampires are not slain by disintegrate", but it does list many ways in which a vampire can be slain, and disintegrate is not listed among them. Vampires are uncommon, but not too uncommon. Likewise Disintegrate is not always used, but not too uncommon either. I would think that if disintegrate were intended to kill a vampire, it would have been listed among the ways to kill a vampire.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing in disintegrate says you die or are slain. It's not even a death effect to imply such a thing. You're turned into dust. Normally, this would screw a creature over. However, vampires then turn gaseous and go back to their coffin. "Woops, let's try that again in an hour."
@Kazaan: playing devils advocate again, vampire turns to mist then mist turns to dust. I'm wondering if there is any non-speculation reasoning on this.
As ShadowcatX said, you're not likely to find a specific ruling on this.
As for "non-speculation reasoning", I call that the intention of the rule, or RAI. Sure, DMs are free to rule it however you want, and I don't think players are likely to complain if they kill the vampire with disintegrate. That is not the way I would expect it to happen though, as I would rule it the other way.
|
|
The Vamp won't turn to mist until after the spell has run its course. The effect of the spell is that, if it reduces the target to 0 HP, the target is turned to dust. So the spell itself first reduces the target to 0 HP and, per Vamp rules, being reduced to 0 HP causes the Vamp to become mist and seek safety. And you can't Disintegrate the mist because Vamp rules specifically state that further damage has no effect to vamp mist.
THANK YOU! this is the kind of answer I was looking for. This clearly states how they override eachother.
But, the most surefire way to destroy a Vampire is to hand it a copy of Twilight and let the problem handle itself.
This is the most effective way to get vampire suicide (or other person suicide).
|
|
Cut a vampire in half, and it's still a vampire. Cut it into quarters, and it's still a vampire. Cut it into eleven billion pieces, and it's still a vampire. Is there anything other than an arbitrary value of pieces you could sub-divide a vampire into at which they're no longer considered a vampire?It does operate under the assumption that a pile of dust is a vampire rather than an object. Use what you like however.The Vamp won't turn to mist until after the spell has run its course. The effect of the spell is that, if it reduces the target to 0 HP, the target is turned to dust. So the spell itself first reduces the target to 0 HP and, per Vamp rules, being reduced to 0 HP causes the Vamp to become mist and seek safety. And you can't Disintegrate the mist because Vamp rules specifically state that further damage has no effect to vamp mist.THANK YOU! this is the kind of answer I was looking for. This clearly states how they override eachother.
Simply cutting a creature into very small pieces would not result in dust. A fine red mist or a very messy stain, maybe, but not dust.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Simply cutting a creature into very small pieces would not result in dust. A fine red mist or a very messy stain, maybe, but not dust.Cut a vampire in half, and it's still a vampire. Cut it into quarters, and it's still a vampire. Cut it into eleven billion pieces, and it's still a vampire. Is there anything other than an arbitrary value of pieces you could sub-divide a vampire into at which they're no longer considered a vampire?It does operate under the assumption that a pile of dust is a vampire rather than an object. Use what you like however.The Vamp won't turn to mist until after the spell has run its course. The effect of the spell is that, if it reduces the target to 0 HP, the target is turned to dust. So the spell itself first reduces the target to 0 HP and, per Vamp rules, being reduced to 0 HP causes the Vamp to become mist and seek safety. And you can't Disintegrate the mist because Vamp rules specifically state that further damage has no effect to vamp mist.THANK YOU! this is the kind of answer I was looking for. This clearly states how they override eachother.
Considering one of the largest components of household dust is organic material (and most of that is of human origin), I'd have to disagree.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Disintegrate coolness factor > Vampire coolness factor = Disintegrate wins!
As you can see, it's a mathematical formula.
I think the vampire would be destroyed. If you only use the logic that a vampire can only be destroyed by the explicit ways written in the vampire right up, then wish would not work. I think that disintegrate is the specific that trumps the standard.
It doesn't JUST reduce the creature to 0 hit points, it disentregates any creature reduced to 0 hit points. The duration is instantaneous, therefor it does not "end", it just is. Like healing, the effect never ends, even if it can be changed later.
Yes, disintegrate can target objects. It then destroys 10 cubic feet of non-living matter.Actually the vampire tree (or awakened) tree would be dust. The regular tree is immune to disintegrate.How do you figure that? Disintegrate can target objects, and plants are considered objects.So we agree the tree is not immune and would be seriously compromised if not entirely destroyed.
Ah, you're trying to argue that since the tree is living disintegrate can't harm it. I see your point in the RAW, but bleh, any DM is going to look at it and laugh and destroy the tree.
Bark isn't living. Like dead skin cells of a human.
Thus you can strip the bark from a tree with the spell.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Visible skin and hair aren't alive. Does that mean you could only be hit on a called shot to the eyes? O.o
I don't think the rules cover this, but if they did I think the vampire rules would take precedent because it is a closed list. In order for anything to enter that closed list it would have to be specifically stated like the sunburst(?) spell.
edit:changed sunbeam to sunburst
So you don't think wish can kill a vampire?
The vampire isn't torn apart into smaller pieces of himself. He is transmuted--magically transformed--into dust. He is no longer anything other than dust.
Question..... Does it matter?
<reads SRD> <BLINK>.... Waiter! Cheque please! I want out of this now before someone other than me starts splitting hairs. Oh wait... tree bark. AS YOU WERE!
Disintegrate turns the creature to dust if they hit 0 HP. There is nothing to stipulate that they are destroyed, or oddly even KILLED by being reduced to dust. Just that they are now 'dust' (and given disintegrate is transmutation, there could be an argument there for it being something akin to a polymorph rather than a 'death / destruction effect'). I would assume the the RAI is "And they are dead / destroyed utterly and you have a hard time ressing them without the body, and the dust effect is the rule of cool", but I don't see that explicitly in there. Given this is a vampire, it's really hard to argue 'But he can't breathe if he's dust' because he didn't breathe to begin with.
If it used the keyword 'Destroyed' in the disintegrate effect, then yes, absolutely they are utterly destroyed with no Coffin regen. While they did hit 0 HP, they were also hit by an effect that causes destruction as well. I would say that the destruction trumps the "You hit 0HP" save of the vampire.
RAW? He's just on 0HP and now dust.... and not technically destroyed, so he gets to Form of Mist.
RAI? I'd suggest "Dust in the wind.... all he is is dust in the wind."
We have this:
Reducing a vampire's hit points to 0 or lower incapacitates it but doesn't always destroy it (see fast healing). However, certain attacks can slay vampires.
And then it goes on to enumerate those attacks. This basically creates an exclusive list of how you can destroy a vampire. Disintegration is not a listed attack.
The whole "turn into mist" thing is also a natural ability of the vampire since it's not listed Ex, Sp, or Su. Only polymorph effects strip abilities based on your form, of which, disintegrate is not one.
Attacks are attacks. That spell even makes a ranged touch "attack." Trying to say that's physical attacks only is trying to imply something it doesn't say.
|
|
The reasoning that disintegrate turns vampires to dust is the same as the reasoning that vampires turn to mist if knocked to 0HP or less by disintegrate. You can't say one happens without saying the other happens. The arguement that disintegrate transmutes vampires to dust through magic is the same as the reasoning that getting reduced to 0 HP causes the vampire to be naturally transmuted to mist and back when its in its coffin. Now, you can say that it turns to dust, then mist and floats back to its coffin, yet with the same reasoning, you can say that it turns to mist, floats back to its coffin, and is turned to dust. I suggest, we mark this as FAQ candidate and continue to make arguments. If we get enough people to mark this as FAQ, we might get a response.