A Druid Vampire

[gamerprinter]

Spirit and soul are not synonymous in D&D. Souls are specific in D&D canon. Lot's of Fey are nature spirits - not souls.

Good point.

GP

 

[Diamond Cross]

It's funny. There was that one thread where everybody was going on about how it's okay to change the rules as you see fit to fit your game...now the rules are being changed and many are saying don't do it!

Nice.

 

[jonesy]

It's funny. There was that one thread where everybody was going on about how it's okay to change the rules as you see fit to fit your game...now the rules are being changed and many are saying don't do it!

Nice.

Humans are complex creatures.

 

[Cor_Malek]

It's funny. There was that one thread where everybody was going on about how it's okay to change the rules as you see fit to fit your game...now the rules are being changed and many are saying don't do it!

Nice.

Um... No, they don't? I know it's bad form, and I should provide quotation, but I feel that I'd have to re-quote about half of posts here (possibly more, I think majority was at "Ney!").

Some, me included, pressed the idea that this combination wouldn't be against the rules. This idea, met a lot of counterarguments that even if we twist the meaning of RAW ("what is life, etc"), the sheer amount of those rules and how they were repeated over the years and editions, make it clear what are RAI in this matter.
They either didn't touch the "but would you allow it?" Or admitted they indeed would. They would just consider it as houseruling. It was perhaps most explicitly written by Hussar. Reread his latest posts.

(...)I was speaking specifically from a RAW standpoint.

From a campaign building standpoint, RAW is something that stands in the corner weeping softly.

↓(Emphasis mine)↓

(...)But, don't try to justify it through mechanics because you can't. It's a contradition of RAW.

And that's totally cool.

So for at least one or two last pages it's a strange discussion where two arguments are: "Well it's clearly against a lot of rules in their RAW and RAI form <insert quotes>". vs "I'd use Rule of Cool and justify it because <insert some ideas>" I'd say that there are two discussions here ATM, and that both have reached consensus. How about we call it a day, then?

 

[Hussar]

It's funny. There was that one thread where everybody was going on about how it's okay to change the rules as you see fit to fit your game...now the rules are being changed and many are saying don't do it!

Nice.

Oh hey, don't get me wrong here. I've stated that I'd probably do the EXACT same thing as you. I LOVE the idea of the druidic vampire. Red of tooth and claw and all that. This would be a very interesting character if you can massage the rules for D&D vampires down a bit (that domination power is a trifle overpowering in the hands of a player that doesn't tone it down himself).

But, no, totally cool.

But, don't try to justify it through the rules. You really can't. This is against the RAW and RUI. Which is totally cool. I was just poking fun at your justification, not at your idea.

Cool idea. Totally against the rules, but, that doesn't change it from being a cool idea.

 

[Diamond Cross]

Well, to tell you the truth, with earlier editions it can't be done because the rules state that a vampire must be evil and when a new vampire is made the alignment changes to evil. It also states for Druids in earlier editions that if their alignment changes for any reason they lost their class.

I'm not so sure it states that for 3.5e, but I'm looking in to it since I'm using 3.5e rules for this.

However, if I don't like I can still change the rules to meet the story.

And the character is not a player character, it's to mostly serve as a Dragon type character for the main big bad.

Added:

So, after reading about the Druid class, there is only three ways that they can cease being a Druid:

1. Cease revering nature.
2. Change alignment
3. Teach the Druidic toungue to a non-Druid.

According to the rules of the Vampire in the SRD:

Special Qualities: A vampire retains all the special qualities of the base creature and gains those described below.

AND:

Vampire Characters

Vampires are always evil, which causes characters of certain classes to lose some class abilities. In addition, certain classes take additional penalties.


Clerics: Vampire clerics lose their ability to turn undead but gain the ability to rebuke undead. This ability does not affect the vampire’s controller or any other vampires that a master controls. A vampire cleric has access to two of the following domains: Chaos, Destruction, Evil, or Trickery.


Sorcerers and Wizards: Vampire sorcerers and wizards retain their class abilities, but if a character has a familiar other than a rat or bat, the link between them is broken, and the familiar shuns its former companion. The character can summon another familiar, but it must be a rat or bat.


So, there does not seem to be any restrictions in 3.5e for a Druid to not be a Vampire.

Because it doesn't say that if a Character becomes a Vampire then their alignment must change.

And even if it did, that means it would be changed to being evil. A Druids' alignment restriction must have a Neutral alignment, but they can be Neutral Evil in 3.5e.

So, so far I don't have to change anything to have my Druid Vampire, for 3.5e.

 

[Hussar]

I gotta admit, one of the best things to happen to druids was ejecting the whole "Must be Neutral" thing. I just love the flavour they've managed to give druids - from Loving Nature to Chaos Unleashed.

I always thought a CN druid would make a really cool experimentor sort. Using magic to inject a bit of errr ... wonder into nature around him.

 

[Diamond Cross]

Chaotic Neutral is an allowable alignment for a Druid in 3.5e.

How about that.

 

[Hussar]

Chaotic Neutral is an allowable alignment for a Druid in 3.5e.

How about that.

Oh totally. Loved the changes to druids in 3e. Haven't actually seen 4e druids. No idea what they look like.

 

[JustABill]

It would work fine, until he decided to try the Anger of the Noonday Sun spell...