Can the Vampire Class make new vampires?

[Umbran]

Another iconic ability sacrificed at the altar of balance.

Yes, but in an iconic sense, vampires are antagonists, rather than protagonists. So, by using them as a PC, you've broken the icon to start with. You shouldn't be surprised that the fracture lines go a little ways...

 

[Scribble]

Yeah...and those are the guys that most people were thinking about when they first heard about playing a vampire in D&D. Sure, you can make a nifty PC with what they delivered, but there's a term for the difference between the the term they used (the very specific term, "vampire", with many accumulated connotations) and what they delivered (a vampire-like undead): bait & switch.

Had they come up with a different name, not only would they have fewer gripes, they might even have some unique IP to work with.
Had they

I disagree.

Vampire the Masquerade vampires are pretty different then the standard Bella Lugosi Dracula, but they still call them vampires. Hell Bram Stoker was pretty far off from the original myths.

Just because it's different then whatever the current person thinks is the most iconic example of said thing doesn't make it a bait and switch.

I'm not opposed to it being a part of the class, I just don't think the class has to have the ability outright for it to match source material.

There are a lot of legends and stories that only have the vampires created with a special action of some type (especially stories new players are likely to have encountered.) So if it's that important as a DM I think it's fair to say ok we'll work something out with said player for like a follower or something if they want it to be part of a special storyline.

I wouldn't even be opposed to a power that creates a minion or something like the beastmaster rangers or other summoner type classes.

I just don't think it has to be automatically a part of every vampire.


A large portion of the time though I find these arguments akin to the Katana arguments... The katana is awesome it should be sharper and better then any weapon out there and like covered in lasers and crocodiles!

Why? Because it's a katana and they're awesome!

right.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Yes, but in an iconic sense, vampires are antagonists, rather than protagonists. So, by using them as a PC, you've broken the icon to start with. You shouldn't be surprised that the fracture lines go a little ways...

However, there are numerous examples of protagonist vampires who have all the same abilities, limitations and drawbacks as either 1) the traditional Dracula style Western vampire or 2) all the antagonistic vampires within the same "fictionverse" as the protagonist.

The struggles they go through circumventing those limitations- like feeding without spawning or, in some cases, not feeding on humans at all- and drawbacks is part of what makes them at least quasi-heroic.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah...and those are the guys that most people were thinking about when they first heard about playing a vampire in D&D. Sure, you can make a nifty PC with what they delivered, but there's a term for the difference between the the term they used (the very specific term, "vampire", with many accumulated connotations) and what they delivered (a vampire-like undead): bait & switch.

Had they come up with a different name, not only would they have fewer gripes, they might even have some unique IP to work with.
Had they

Hmmmmm, right, so it has to match one particular set of currently popular variations of vampire lore exactly or it is 'not a vampire'.

Now, I can understand some of the logic of giving people what they're familiar with, but in fact you get a great deal of that. You can also find plenty of vampire lore which doesn't include most of the things you're arguing are missing. In fact a lot of what people are arguing is missing is stuff that was added to the genre by one guy in one novel.

I think they gave us the core platform. A pretty nice vampire that matches a lot of the old vampire lore and can easily be leveraged in various ways depending on exactly how you want to use and depict the PC vampire. It is working fine for me. I fully intend to add some interesting twists to the concept in my next story arc, but there's no way WotC could possibly have anticipated and provided EXACTLY to a tee what I want, and I'd rather not have superfluous elements added that make the thing hard to use as a PC and difficult to fit in the game. I am a better judge of what those elements are than a WotC dev for my game. In the meantime the class is playable in a general way and IMHO makes a pretty good vampire.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Vampire the Masquerade vampires are pretty different then the standard Bella Lugosi Dracula, but they still call them vampires. Hell Bram Stoker was pretty far off from the original myths.

V:tM vampires still suck blood and may thereby create other vampires. So while the game DID break some new ground- as have many modern works of fiction in the vampire vein *ahem*- the game (and the bulk of those other works) kept the part of the vampire myth whose absence was bemoaned in the OP.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Hmmmmm, right, so it has to match one particular set of currently popular variations of vampire lore exactly or it is 'not a vampire'.

Nope, not what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying that if you tell someone you're delivering a "vampire" for them to play in game, significant variances from 1) legend AND 2) from vampires that already exist in the game are going to be met with a jaundiced eye by at least some not insignifcant portion of your prospective market.

And it didn't have to be that way. As others have pointed out, adding a "Create Vampire" Ritual to the class- available only once the PC reaches Paragon Level, perhaps, but not making them fully capable Ritual Casters- would have been an easy thing to do and not unbalancing in he least. (Or if not a Ritual, a Utility power.)

 

[Scribble]

V:tM vampires still suck blood and may thereby create other vampires. So while the game DID break some new ground- as have many modern works of fiction in the vampire vein *ahem*- the game (and the bulk of those other works) kept the part of the vampire myth whose absence was bemoaned in the OP.

The vampire class drinks blood as well, they just don't start with a power that auto-makes other vampires.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The vampire class drinks blood as well, they just don't start with a power that auto-makes other vampires.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Scribble]

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.

I can't really answer this, as I don't have the book, and have only looked at it a bit in the builder.

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.

I don't know if I agree. It might be a factor, but I think there are other factors at play in why they wouldn't want people to be able to create new vampires at will.

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.

Eh... In Dracula what's her face was becoming a vampire before she was dead just by being bitten. The more he bit her the stronger the "disease" became.

Either way I get what you're saying regarding the vampires in the MM turning people they kill into vampires, and that people reading that and getting the class might be upset.

But I also agree with what Umbran said... You're also not, as the book says forced to be consumed by the thirst, with all emotion being twisted and overcome by this drive.

You're already breaking away from the icon, you're allowed to roleplay as you wish... So it stands to reason you just won't be the same.

 

[Scribble]

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.

If you do, you start making vampires when you kill someone, but you also no longer have a playable PC, because everything you do is instigated by the need to drink blood.