My PCs decided to torture a vampire with a red-hot knife — would that have caused frenzy? I decided for the session that it was not a flame, and so did not, but I'm not sure that was the right call.
\$\begingroup\$
\$\endgroup\$
3
-
\$\begingroup\$ Are you asking for a RAW answer or for some thematic interpretive opinions? \$\endgroup\$– SkiptronCommented Jan 3, 2015 at 7:58
-
\$\begingroup\$ @Skiptron is there a RAW answer? in my personal opinion all (rulesy) questions are wanting RAW answers, and in lieu of a real rule a solution to their problem. Basically I don't need this restricted to RAW. \$\endgroup\$– xenoterracideCommented Jan 3, 2015 at 8:03
-
\$\begingroup\$ I thought I knew where a RAW was about this, but I was wrong. I like Jessa's answer though. \$\endgroup\$– SkiptronCommented Jan 4, 2015 at 0:47
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
\$\begingroup\$
\$\endgroup\$
There is room for ST interpretation here. The important questions are:
Was there an open flame present in the room?
Even if the flame is at a safe distance, and small or controlled enough to not provoke frenzy on its own, experiencing a burn while in the presence of a fire could push a vampire over the edge.
Did/does contact with the hot knife cause the vampire's flesh to actually catch fire?
Fire is a bane to vampires. It's among the few things that are seriously dangerous. Vampires are portrayed as being slightly more flammable than your average human. It would be cinematic, scary, and in keeping with the feel of the setting if contact with a red-hot knife caused minor flames to curl around the edges of the wound. Such flames would, of course, cause frenzy because your flesh is on fire!
Either case is a matter of ST call. Your call to not include frenzy was just fine, but there are valid reasons for doing it differently if you had wanted to.
