Am I correct that I can make a quadruple vampire?

[DracoSuave]

Schrödinger's Bloodsuckers?

More like red-haired laws-of-the-universe rules-lawyers.

So the vampire's being undead trait gets applied to the vryloka, who can choose to be living any time it's to his benefit, rendering the class feature moot.

Never thought of that. Red Witch gives her bounties indeed!

 

[I'm A Banana]

So the vampire's being undead trait gets applied to the vryloka, who can choose to be living any time it's to his benefit, rendering the class feature moot.

Never thought of that. Red Witch gives her bounties indeed!

It's an interesting mechanic. It's mostly flavor, but then there's this (fairly useless) ability to be a triple vampire, and I presume it works weirdly with things like the Lich ED and suchlike.

It also makes them interesting adversaries...or rather, frustrating adversaries...

 

[Estlor]

I think it's a bit of a loophole.

To take the vampire bloodline feats, the exact prerequisite is a living humanoid race.

Vryloka are a living humanoid race. Revenants are not.

Vryloka also get to be considered living or undead depending on what they want (e.g.: what might benefit them the most), so a vryloka vampire isn't always undead, unless it would help them out.

It's RAW-legal, baby! CB let me do it just fine.

Yes, but one of the class abilities of the vampire is you become undead. So you're no longer meet the "living" portion regardless of race.

The CB is not a rules source/proof of something being "legal." (Mainly because it's prone to having bugs or things not implemented correctly. Like being treated as a living creature when you pick vampire as your class.)

Now, if you're asking, would I let a player do that as the DM even though it's not RAW... depends on the theme of the campaign. If everyone else was being a little silly, then heck yeah, bring on the Vampiric Vampire Vampire.

(Otherwise I'd tell them, "Go play a striker that can actually excel at it's role." )

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Otherwise I'd tell them, "Go play a striker that can actually excel at it's role."

As opposed to one who sucks, riiiiight?

 

[DracoSuave]

Yes, but one of the class abilities of the vampire is you become undead. So you're no longer meet the "living" portion regardless of race.

Except for the fact that vryloka are living or undead depending entirely on what benefits them. Racial ability trumps vampire class in this instance. The vampire makes you undead, and vryloka makes you able to ignore that for whatever purposes you like.

The CB is not a rules source/proof of something being "legal." (Mainly because it's prone to having bugs or things not implemented correctly. Like being treated as a living creature when you pick vampire as your class.)

It is actually correct in this instance. Vryloka says 'That undead bit... feel free to ignore that if you don't like it.' You get to choose what undeadness applies to and what it does not.

Now, if you're asking, would I let a player do that as the DM even though it's not RAW... depends on the theme of the campaign. If everyone else was being a little silly, then heck yeah, bring on the Vampiric Vampire Vampire.

It is RAW.

(Otherwise I'd tell them, "Go play a striker that can actually excel at it's role." )

Vryloka have Dex and Cha, which happen to be the Vampire's pet stats. They also have a really good racial that can help mitigate the Vampire's fragility due to lack of healing surges, or move him into position when it needs to get done.

Sure, you're using a feat to take Vampiric Heritage, but whatever, see 'You don't need every damage dealing feat to be effective, unless you like having irrational and absurd beliefs'

 

[Herschel]

But wait, do the language rules of even-numbers-of-negatives come in to play? A Revanent Vampire would be an un-undead, so would that mean it's really living?

 

[DracoSuave]

But wait, do the language rules of even-numbers-of-negatives come in to play? A Revanent Vampire would be an un-undead, so would that mean it's really living?

Well, un-undead would be... dead. Motionless. Deceased.

AN EX-UNDEAD.

 

[Klaus]

I can't offer an official statement, but as the writer of the vryloka, I'd rule that the Vampire "become undead" aspect trumps the vryloka's "living or undead" trait. That's why it is a very taboo thing among the vryloka, who made the bargain with the Red Witch *specifically* to avoid becoming undead in the first place.

 

[Herschel]

Well, un-undead would be... dead. Motionless. Deceased.

AN EX-UNDEAD.

So he just created a dead character. I suppose it cuts out the middleman and the actual wondering of how your character is going to get ganked.

 

[Mirtek]

Going through the new Heroes of Shadow book (and this has probably been brought up, but I don't have a subscription so I can't do a forum search), but with the Vampire as a class I came up with a horribly terrible idea (that probably won't work, but that's why I'm asking.)

If I were to make a Revenant (past like Vryloka) Vampire with the Vampire Heritage feat and one of the Vampire Paragon Paths wouldn't that mean that the character became an undead vampire in life, then died and became an undead Revenant who then became a vampire, and who had a vampire great-great-grandfather or something and then around level 11 becomes a vampire, sorta, again...

Making him... a quadruple vampire quintuple undead...?

IMO that would still only make him a double vampire.

1. Past live Vryloka
2. Vampire class

The Vampire PP simply further specifies what kind of vampire you are, it doesn't make you into a vampire one more time.


Eidt: About Vampire Heritage, I responded only to the first post not realizing there is already a discussion about it's legality on a vampire vryloka. I am with the side saying that the vampire class trumps the race in this case