Vaporizing Vile Vampires: What happens to vampires in OotS?

[KillingAScarab]

I was going back through the arc when Bozzok and the Guild attacked Haley, Belkar and Celia when I noticed the joke in panel 6 of Power Meeting (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0617.html). As amusing as that was, it then led to Hank's lackey suggesting an urn could be used, "For their ashes, if they got staked." I'm curious what other people think of the implications of that particular sentence. Would a dead vampire leave behind no body, much like disintegrate? Is burning the body necessary to kill one?

[JackRose]

I was going back through the arc when Bozzok and the Guild attacked Haley, Belkar and Celia when I noticed the joke in panel 6 of Power Meeting (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0617.html). As amusing as that was, it then led to Hank's lackey suggesting an urn could be used, "For their ashes, if they got staked." I'm curious what other people think of the implications of that particular sentence. Would a dead vampire leave behind no body, much like disintegrate? Is burning the body necessary to kill one?

My understanding of how vampires work is that if reduced to zero hp by hitpoint damage, they assume gaseous form and retreat to their coffin. If you put a stake through their heart while they're in their coffins, they're dead- as long as the stake remains. If it pulls out, they're up and about again. So if you're trying to kill a vampire thief permanently, you might go a step further, and burn the body (making sure that the stake burns last).

Or OotS vampires might poof like in Buffy. Either way.

[Starbuck_II]

My understanding of how vampires work is that if reduced to zero hp by hitpoint damage, they assume gaseous form and retreat to their coffin. If you put a stake through their heart while they're in their coffins, they're dead- as long as the stake remains. If it pulls out, they're up and about again. So if you're trying to kill a vampire thief permanently, you might go a step further, and burn the body (making sure that the stake burns last).

Or OotS vampires might poof like in Buffy. Either way.

Actually behead the body while staked as vorpal kills vampires.

You don't need to stake them while in coffin but really hard outside it.

[KillianHawkeye]

I was going back through the arc when Bozzok and the Guild attacked Haley, Belkar and Celia when I noticed the joke in panel 6 of Power Meeting (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0617.html). As amusing as that was, it then led to Hank's lackey suggesting an urn could be used, "For their ashes, if they got staked." I'm curious what other people think of the implications of that particular sentence. Would a dead vampire leave behind no body, much like disintegrate? Is burning the body necessary to kill one?

It's clearly a nod to the way vampires get "dusted" in the more modern vampire stories such as Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Whether or not OOTS vampires actually work that way is yet to be seen.

[dtilque]

What about other vampires in thrall to a vampire who gets staked? Do they get immediately released from thralldom or does the master vampire have to be destroyed first?

[SavageWombat]

What about other vampires in thrall to a vampire who gets staked? Do they get immediately released from thralldom or does the master vampire have to be destroyed first?

Immediately released. There's no chain of vampirism in D&D - it's strictly master/slave. I'd probably suggest that a DM not allow thrall vampires to create thralls of their own.

[Icedaemon]

More powerful vampire lords are more-or-less explicitly stated to have enthralled lieutenants who in turn have their own thralls though.

[KillianHawkeye]

What about other vampires in thrall to a vampire who gets staked? Do they get immediately released from thralldom or does the master vampire have to be destroyed first?

A vampire in thrall to another vampire does not get released until the master is destroyed or the enslaved vampire is released. Staking won't do it unless that destroys a vampire in OOTS (it normally wouldn't be enough according to D&D rules, but maybe pop culture > rules on this subject).

A released vampire still maintain control over any vampires it has control over, if any.

[rodneyAnonymous]

A vampire in thrall to another vampire does not get released until the master is destroyed or the enslaved vampire is released. Staking won't do it unless that destroys a vampire in OOTS (it normally wouldn't be enough according to D&D rules, but maybe pop culture > rules on this subject).

Staking a vampire releases its thralls in D&D. There is not a rules distinction between slay and destroy, I don't think. Destroy gets used as a synonym for kill and slay in rules about undead and constructs and stuff.

It comes back to life if the stake is removed, but the vampire was dead.

[KillingAScarab]

If you put a stake through their heart while they're in their coffins, they're dead- as long as the stake remains. If it pulls out, they're up and about again. So if you're trying to kill a vampire thief permanently, you might go a step further, and burn the body (making sure that the stake burns last).How does one ensure a wooden stake doesn't burn? Then again, I suppose it wouldn't need to be fire which does the "burning" if you can get the coffin into sunlight.


Or OotS vampires might poof like in Buffy. Either way.


It's clearly a nod to the way vampires get "dusted" in the more modern vampire stories such as Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Whether or not OOTS vampires actually work that way is yet to be seen.Now that you mention it, On the Origin of the PCs features a Buffy cameo. This might be more probable than I had first thought. That's bad news for anyone who wants to get Durkon back amongst the living, unless there's a dust pan and a resurrection scroll lying around. Heh, maybe there will be another campy Batman reference (for anyone who remembers the ending to Batman: the Movie).


Staking a vampire releases its thralls in D&D. There is not a rules distinction between slay and destroy, I don't think. Destroy gets used as a synonym for kill and slay in rules about undead and constructs and stuff.

It comes back to life if the stake is removed, but the vampire was dead.Could being staked count as something akin to a comatose state? The vampire still exists, after all.

[KillianHawkeye]

Staking a vampire releases its thralls in D&D. There is not a rules distinction between slay and destroy, I don't think. Destroy gets used as a synonym for kill and slay in rules about undead and constructs and stuff.

It comes back to life if the stake is removed, but the vampire was dead.

Could being staked count as something akin to a comatose state? The vampire still exists, after all.

Actually, the rules do make a distinction. "Driving a wooden stake through a vampire’s heart instantly slays the monster. However, it returns to life if the stake is removed, unless the body is destroyed." This pair of sentences indicates that there can be a difference between destroying and merely slaying a vampire. The rules are quite clear that other methods of slaying result in the destruction of the vampire, whereas staking seems to be the only method that slays without destroying the foul creature. And since the rules on enslaved vampires being freed requires the master vampire be destroyed (or that he willingly releases his thrall), I don't think that simply staking it will cause its controlled underlings to be freed.

[JackRose]

How does one ensure a wooden stake doesn't burn?

Soak it in water. Wood can get pretty waterlogged. Then burn the vampire starting at the feet. Or, hack the heart out with the stake still through it, burn the rest of the body, and then the heart.

[rodneyAnonymous]

Actually, the rules do make a distinction.

Yeah, in the sentences "Bob destroyed the iron golem" and "The corpse must be destroyed or the creature might come back to life", the word destroy means different things. Very few English words have only one meaning. Staking a vampire releases its thralls. Once released they can't be re-enslaved the same way, even if the master returns to life.

The whole idea of "in D&D staking a vampire just immobilizes it" is overly-complicated and rules-lawyerly. It kills them. But it's odd to use the word "kill" when taking about something that isn't alive. (And D&D vampires are not alive.)

[KillianHawkeye]

Yeah, in the sentences "Bob destroyed the iron golem" and "The corpse must be destroyed or the creature might come back to life", the word destroy means different things. Very few English words have only one meaning. Staking a vampire releases its thralls. Once released they can't be re-enslaved the same way, even if the master returns to life.

The whole idea of "in D&D staking a vampire just immobilizes it" is overly-complicated and rules-lawyerly. It kills them. But it's odd to use the word "kill" when taking about something that isn't alive. (And D&D vampires are not alive.)

Well while you've been busy simply repeating your argument, I've actually presented evidence which supports my view. Nowhere in the rules on vampires does it state that staking them is equivalent to destroying them, nor that staking them releases any enslaved vampires under their command.

[JackRackham]

Well while you've been busy simply repeating your argument, I've actually presented evidence which supports my view. Nowhere in the rules on vampires does it state that staking them is equivalent to destroying them, nor that staking them releases any enslaved vampires under their command.

The fact that it used two words in sequence does not in fact prove they mean different things. Moreover, there's no precedent in fiction or legend for someone remaining enthralled after a vampire is staked. And most everything I can think of in D&D has some precedent.

[KillianHawkeye]

I didn't say "proof," I said "evidence."