D&D 5E vampire bites

[pukunui]

Hi all,

Let's say a vampire has charmed someone. The rules say that the victim is willing to let the vampire bite them. However, it also says that if the vampire does anything harmful to it, the victim gets another saving throw. If the target is willing, does a vampire's bite still count as harmful for the purpose of granting another save?

I'm thinking yes, but I want to make sure ... because otherwise it seems like, if a vampire charms someone and then gets them alone, it's game over. It can just suck them dry. If I was a player, and the DM did that to my character, I'd probably be annoyed. If, however, I got the chance for a new save every time the vampire bit me, then I'd be more OK with.

I'm asking because I am preparing to run my Curse of Strahd campaign on Friday, and I was thinking that I would have Strahd try to charm one of the PCs, get her to come away from the others with him, and then try to suck her dry so he can bury her and turn her into a vampire spawn ... but I don't want it to be like, "Oops, you failed your save against his charm, so now you're dead. Make a new PC."

So a vampire biting a charmed target counts as harming it for the purposes of granting a new save: yay or nay?


Cheers,
Jonathan

 

[Imaculata]

"Although the target isn't under the vampire's control, it takes
the vampire's requests or actions in the most favorable way it
can, and it is a willing target for the vampire's bite attack."

Well, they definitely could have worded this better. But I think it means that they get a save the moment they get damage. They don't expect any harm to come to them when a vampire walks up to them, exposes their neck, and his teeth. They just let it happen. But the moment they take damage, I think it is only reasonable to allow a save.

The purpose of monsters is usually not to outright slaughter the players. They are supposed to be a challenge. Having the vampire kill, bury, and raise a player as one of its minions, is not exactly it's purpose. Of course, it is still possible that a victim may fail their save, even after the bite, and allow the vampire to drain them. And that is I think how this should be played out.

 

[jasper]

Nay. I will agree to bad wording. But I will say since you are "willing" you like giving up a few hit points to help up your friendly neighbor hood vampire.
have fun turning your friend's pc into a npc.

 

[iserith]

Hi all,

Let's say a vampire has charmed someone. The rules say that the victim is willing to let the vampire bite them. However, it also says that if the vampire does anything harmful to it, the victim gets another saving throw. If the target is willing, does a vampire's bite still count as harmful for the purpose of granting another save?

I'm thinking yes, but I want to make sure ... because otherwise it seems like, if a vampire charms someone and then gets them alone, it's game over. It can just suck them dry. If I was a player, and the DM did that to my character, I'd probably be annoyed. If, however, I got the chance for a new save every time the vampire bit me, then I'd be more OK with.

I'm asking because I am preparing to run my Curse of Strahd campaign on Friday, and I was thinking that I would have Strahd try to charm one of the PCs, get her to come away from the others with him, and then try to suck her dry so he can bury her and turn her into a vampire spawn ... but I don't want it to be like, "Oops, you failed your save against his charm, so now you're dead. Make a new PC."

So a vampire biting a charmed target counts as harming it for the purposes of granting a new save: yay or nay?

Cheers,
Jonathan

I'm inclined to say that the vampire bite doesn't trigger a save to shake off the charmed condition.

Telegraph that liberally and leave it to the players to deal with it.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

Can a target willing to be bitten actually be considered attacked by a bite? Though the bite is still referred to as an attack. Depends on the DM.

 

[Imaculata]

I'm inclined to say that the vampire bite doesn't trigger a save to shake off the charmed condition.

Telegraph that liberally and leave it to the players to deal with it.

Well in that case failing your save equals death. Because that vampire can keep on biting. I don't think a vampire's charm is intended to be deadly. But I guess it depends on how deadly you want your vampire to be.

 

[iserith]

Well in that case failing your save equals death.

Eh, as a DM, that's not my problem.

As long as the players are aware of the risk, it's on them to deal with it. Wander off on your own at your own risk.

I will add that there are a number of potent magic items in this module that basically make vampires into a bunch of chumps. Ruling on the side of the vampire in this particular case may even things out a bit.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Add me to the list of "it doesn't force another save." That's what the first one is for. If you're willing to accept something you're pretty sure is going to cause pain, then you're not really shocked into making a new save. IMO, it also fits with lore more. Once a vampire has charmed and is feeding, you don't really see people break from that charm all the sudden. In every case I can think of, the victim is still charmed.

 

[Sacrosanct]

The purpose of monsters is usually not to outright slaughter the players..

Sure it is. A monster should behave as if it were alive, and in many cases, that means its goal is to destroy the threat (PCs) as quickly as possible. Combat should be a risk, not just a speedbump that takes away X amount of resources. That just seems too metagamey to me.

 

[pukunui]

Huh. Not as much consensus on this as I was expecting. Still not sure which way I should rule.

Of course, it only matters if Strahd can actually get a PC alone, but that shouldn't be too hard if the PC is charmed. All he has to do is say "Come with me." As long as he can stop the other PCs from following, he's sweet.

Is the vampire's charm really meant to be a save-or-die effect? I'm just not sure ...