Am I the only one who doesn't like the D&D Vampire? (Pointless rant, I suppose)

[Green Knight]

) Check out the MM, p. 7: "Slam: The creature batters opponents with an appendage, dealing bludgeoning damage."

It's not a body slam or anything like that; it's just a smack. A punch, kick, elbow, backhand, pimp slap, whatever. "Slam" is shorthand for "some kind of unarmed attack that doesn't use claws or anything, but counts as an armed attack for purposes of most rules."

It drains levels 'cause vampires are fueled by negative energy, and negative energy drains levels. That's how undead work in D&D, mostly.

So it does, in fact, slap the levels out of you.

 

[Green Knight]

Besides, "permanent" drain isn't. Attributes permanently lost don't recover naturally, but powerful enough magic will bring 'em back. Restoration is "only" 4th level.

What about the average person who doesn't have access to 4th level spells? Isn't someone who's a victim of a vampire attack just supposed to be sick for a while (As a result of the blood loss), and then recover as if nothing happened? It'd be pretty dumb if half the population in the countryside was pasty white and sickly for the rest of their lives.

As to the permanent Con loss. Think of it as a curse. So long as the vampire "lives" the victim does not recover the loss. To recover you must destroy the beast. Makes dealing with them harder and their destruction more imperative.

But according to the rules, killing the vampire who bit you doesn't get you your lost CON back. And again, I go back to my previous point. Killing a vampire who bites you isn't exactly an option to your average Joe Schmoe, and the thought of an entire villages population being sickly pale for the rest of their lives seems pretty dumb.

Whoever said it has a good point, though, about a Vampire Spawn template.

 

[Green Knight]

Another comment on the subject of a permanent Con loss. That makes the idea of a vampire who plants roots pretty dumb.

For instance, a vampire's preying on a town and drains people left and right, but doesn't kill them. Before you know it, everyone's down to like a Con of 2 or 3 and can't possibly recover. So the vampire can't stick around. He has to leave, as he starts running out of healthy victims. And once he's out of healthy victims, the only thing left is to kill everyone. That's assuming they last that long. If they're so sickly then how can they possibly work, farm, make a living, etc? All in all, the permanent Con loss is stupid.

BTW: Thanks for the link. I'll go check out Seans vampire, now.

 

[mythusmage]

Who said your vampires mustbe like the ones in the book? Should someone complain your vampires are not according to the rules remind them, "I don't use vampires as they appear on Oerth, I use vampires as they appear on my world."

Make them uncertain of their ability, and fearful of what they're facing. Being sure they know what they're facing has ruined many a good adventure for the players.

 

[Furn_Darkside]

What about the average person who doesn't have access to 4th level spells? Isn't someone who's a victim of a vampire attack just supposed to be sick for a while (As a result of the blood loss), and then recover as if nothing happened? It'd be pretty dumb if half the population in the countryside was pasty white and sickly for the rest of their lives. .

Why is it dumb?

Vampires are not over-sized mosquitos.

Being bitten by one is being drained of more then blood- but of your body's overall life force.. err. .constitution.

As for what is the average person to do.. well.. that is what adventurers are for, to help the average people.

FD

 

[LostSoul]

Why is it dumb?

I thought the argument about vampires not being able to set up roots was a good answer to your question.

But nothing makes sense in D&D, so why should vampires?

 

[Andrew D. Gable]

3) Vampire Spawn - Nevermind that these should be templates. But why is it you have to be 5th level or higher to become a full-fledged vampire, while anything less only makes you a Vampire Spawn? Either way, you're still under the thrall of the vampire which created you, so it really doesn't make a difference.

As another gripe - wouldn't vampire spawn become vampires as they advance? Lucy Westenra, in Dracula, is my idea of a vampire spawn - and I believe she would have become a full vampire, were she not slain by Van Helsing.

 

[TheWiseWarlord]

I'd just like to point out the Vampire is hardly the only D&D monster that "doesn't make sense". They're good to throw at hapless adventurers, so what's the problem? They're good at what they're meant to do, and that's enough for me.

If you want more "realistic" monsters, there are a few dozen monsters that need work in that area. Have fun with the house rules.

 

[coyote6]

Another comment on the subject of a permanent Con loss. That makes the idea of a vampire who plants roots pretty dumb.

For instance, a vampire's preying on a town and drains people left and right, but doesn't kill them. Before you know it, everyone's down to like a Con of 2 or 3 and can't possibly recover.

Actually, that's not necessarily a problem. I don't see anything in the vampire description that says they have to drain blood! They don't actually seem to get anything out of it, oddly enough.

The energy drain does restore hp, so that's of some use. Fortunately, it's also not necessarily permanent -- the victim can recover, if they're lucky enough to make the DC. And they can always get more XP and regain any lost levels . . .

My pet dire peeve about D&D vampires is that, barring extremely powerful clerics (or merely powerful clerics with the Sun domain) or a couple of spells (sunbeam, sunburst), there's no way to kill them in a fight! You have to beat them up, then play follow the fog back to the coffin where you wait for 'em to reform, so you can stake, behead, and burn 'em, or drag 'em into the sun or dunk 'em in running water. Oh, if you could somehow manage to make a vamp helpless in a fight, you could stake him. But how're you going to manage that, given undead immunities and the gaseous form ability?

Before I saw SKR's variant, I was toying with the idea of allowing a critical hit on a vamp (or what would be a crit, if the target weren't undead) with a wooden stake to count as a stake to the heart, forcing the vamp to make a Fort save (a la coup de grace, or Sean's vamp rules). A crit-only approach makes it much harder to stake a vamp in a fight than SKR's rule -- I kind of like that, at least for non-mook vamps. Otherwise, the PCs will dust Gulthias in the first round . . .

But anyways.

 

[Tonguez]

Another comment on the subject of a permanent Con loss. That makes the idea of a vampire who plants roots pretty dumb.

For instance, a vampire's preying on a town and drains people left and right, but doesn't kill them. Before you know it, everyone's down to like a Con of 2 or 3 and can't possibly recover. So the vampire can't stick around. He has to leave, as he starts running out of healthy victims. And once he's out of healthy victims, the only thing left is to kill everyone. That's assuming they last that long. If they're so sickly then how can they possibly work, farm, make a living, etc? All in all, the permanent Con loss is stupid.

BTW: Thanks for the link. I'll go check out Seans vampire, now.

Humans breed and baby humans grow and have full Con
If you have a population in thrall and with low con because they have been drained then you have cattle who can't not fight back. These cattle still breed and grow new cattle who sustain your need to feed

I like the slams too - imagine your vampire leaping at your throat taking hold and slamming your body into the wall were you now hang helpless as it mocks you and seeks to dominate your mind

and yes Con drain should be 'permanent' - if a Vampire doesn't kill you then it leaves you with a permanently 'scarred'