Can the Vampire Class make new vampires?

[AbdulAlhazred]

1) I know they drink blood. My point was that they have no way to spawn by doing so. I looked at the class from Heroic to Paragon to Epic- and correct me if I'm wrong, but the class has NO inherent ability to create other vampires anywhere in its 30 level progression.

No, it does basically exist as a power for paragon tier Vryloka. There is also a ritual, Dark Gift of the Undying, which creates a new Vampire Lord. The 4e lore for vampires also states that they are not affected by running water, garlic, or wooden stakes. Holy symbols aren't specifically mentioned, but presumably the wielder would need to be a cleric with Turn Undead etc. There are some differences, normal vampires victims will rise as Vampire Spawn and there's a 'must rest in your coffin or be weakened' sidebar note. OTOH nothing in the 4e monster vampire lore discusses sunlight at all, the statblock just states they cannot regenerate in direct sunlight.

Now, I suspect there is a reason for this: it would provide a way to crack open 4Ed's basic multiclassing rules to let a Vamp class to beagle to make others MC into the class, voluntarily or involuntarily. But that's a sucky justification created by the (IMHO bad) design decision to make vampirism into a class in the first place.

Well, you can make another PC into a MONSTER vampire, by performing the above mentioned level 11 ritual. It is reasonable to believe this ritual is not normally available to PCs, but there's no rule stopping them from using it. The choice to make it a class was IMHO not sucky but a conscious decision to make it possible for vampires to be of any race and the idea that portraying a full on vampire as a PC required a lot more than the resources available to a race, and thus logically is a class. Given that you have MANY other options for various degrees of vampire that don't require taking the class I think this not really as unreasonable as people have made it out to be.

2) AFAIK, no vampire autocreates vampires by merely drinking: depending on whose fiction you read, they commonly have to actually kill whom they're feeding on by drinking or give their intended spawn a taste of THEIR blood after feeding on them to a certain point.

It totally depends on the fiction. IIRC the 'Bram Stoker' vampire created new vampires by draining their blood, but depending on which movie you watch this might or might not have been strictly intentional. Likewise it was pretty vague in other legends, though in many the vampirism was a specific curse and not transmittable at all. Anne Rice AFAIK invented the whole drinking each other's blood thing, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was older than that.

In any case, MONSTER vampires do create new vampires (albeit weak ones) whenever they feed.

I would also note though that there are a LOT of different vampire stat blocks and lore scattered around in 4e here and there. It is not by any means all consistent either. The PC vampire is pretty consistent with that lore. I would just say that the developers had a lot of considerations in designing a PC vampire. It had to be able to function as a PC, and it had to not create huge problems for every DM allowing it into a game. In the opinions of most of the people I know that have looked at it they managed to strike a workable balance. I seriously doubt any vampire they could have made would satisfy anyone.

I think the whole scorn thing just gets to me. It is like if a concept doesn't match exactly with a specific idea then it is bad. They did a good job within certain constraints that they felt were necessary. You have different ideas about that, and you have a specific game and style of play and players. No doubt you can decide what you want in your game, and that can be different from what the developers decided was a good addition to the game as a whole and neither of you is wrong. Within the existing 4e vampire lore seems to me to be all the elements that you're looking for. In a perfect world you'd get exactly what is perfect for YOU in the book. This is the kind of case where that just isn't at all likely to happen and hasn't happened.

Wouldn't it be most productive to decide what exactly you do want and I'm sure we're all happy to chime and and tell you how much we think you're wrong! I'm sure we are all happy to contribute ideas that will make it work in a way you want it to. I enjoy that. I enjoy doing that more than going on down the road of why the HoS vampire is bad. We'll just never do anything productive that way.

 

[Dice4Hire]

That is another fun thing about the vampire class; its perfect control over its blood drinking.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You could even explain it by saying that because as a PC you still retain some form of will over the need to consume blood at all times, you also don't develop the full curse. That part comes along after you've fully succumbed to the curse.

Which, apparently, does not happen within the 30 level vampire class progression. Wouldn't you think a 30th level vampire could figure out the story of the Ghost birds and Revenant bees?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

That is another fun thing about the vampire class; its perfect control over its blood drinking.

Again, correct me if I'm wrong (I'm away from my books at the moment), but that's not exactly the case either. They have abilities that benefit them when they feed off of allies (only), and different ones for enemies... Do they pick their buddies based on "flavor?"

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I think the whole scorn thing just gets to me. It is like if a concept doesn't match exactly with a specific idea then it is bad.

I simply have never cared for exception based design all that much, and 4Ed's version of it continuously irks me

I don't have a problem with creative creature design and variation, but when the goalposts keep shifting, I get annoyed. Like I said before, I'm sure I'm not alone in seeing HoS's prerelease press and thinking about the vampire class somewhat resembling the creatures already extant in the game. It doesn't- color me unimpressed.

And just so we're clear- I actually like the vampire to an extent. I'd play one before playing several other classes in the game, like the Monk. But I AM disappointed that the vamp class does not cleave closer to other bloodsuckers in the game.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Which, apparently, does not happen within the 30 level vampire class progression. Wouldn't you think a 30th level vampire could figure out the story of the Ghost birds and Revenant bees?

"Beware young one, for when you drink the last blood of those you love and trust, then all humanity is truly gone, and nothing is left but the curse. Then truly you will be completely a monster!"

 

[Dice4Hire]

Again, correct me if I'm wrong (I'm away from my books at the moment), but that's not exactly the case either. They have abilities that benefit them when they feed off of allies (only), and different ones for enemies... Do they pick their buddies based on "flavor?"

How is it not the case? Is there any penalty for not drinking blood? There is not. Thus they can choose when and ho to drink blood logically, not in a limited way.

Sure, fluff what you like, but the class does give perfect control.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

How is it not the case? Is there any penalty for not drinking blood? There is not. Thus they can choose when and ho to drink blood logically, not in a limited way.

Sure, fluff what you like, but the class does give perfect control.

I would just say there's a different procedure for when you ASK for blood (it is voluntary, your ally has to agree) and when you just TAKE it (only enemies need apply).

While 4e doesn't quite spell out the ally/enemy decision in 100% precise terms we logiked our way through it in the Q&A Forum. Ally means both creatures agree to treat each other as allies, enemy means one or the other does not agree to be the ally of the other. So, your friend can be nice and GIVE you some blood. If you don't mind attacking the party, well you can try to TAKE some, but the mechanics are a BITE different

Doesn't seem like a major issue to me.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

How is it not the case? Is there any penalty for not drinking blood? There is not. Thus they can choose when and ho to drink blood logically, not in a limited way.

Sure, fluff what you like, but the class does give perfect control.

No it doesn't. I'd agree with you if the blood-drinking benefits used "target" instead of "ally" and "enemy" (or their equivalent), but they don't.

Assume Ability #1 gives you Benefit A only when you drink from an ally, and Ability #2 gives you Benefit B only when you drink from a foe. If you need Benefit B for some reason and are in the presence of no foe, you either have to do without (penalty) or attack an ally (penalty).

And there is no logical reason for it that I can see, since blood from friend or foe should be essentially interchangeable in one's diet. It's as absurd as saying the sliced white Wonder Bread* at Tom Thumb grocery is nutritionally different from the sliced white Wonder Bread at Kroger or Aldi.




* Note: For clarity- I'm not calling anyone sliced white Wonder Bread.

 

[Xris Robin]

You know, one thing that bothered me about the Vampire class, was the real lack of help roleplaying one. And a few rules oddities. Like the class feature that says they don't breathe but do sleep. No mention of eating, or drinking blood. There's no actual rule about eating at all, or that say you have to drink blood. While several powers are implied to be blood drinking, there's no advice on how often say, you need to drink blood to survive. I would have found that helpful for roleplaying during downtime.