Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Serge" data-source="post: 270052" data-attributes="member: 4049">I'm pleased to inform you folks that this thread has been far more interesting than recent Vampire threads I've seen at the WotC site (which were closed due to a lot of flaming).Anyway, I think the problem with Vampires and virtually every monster or class in the D&D game is bridging the gap of folklore and popular contemporary concepts.A few people here clearly like the Anne Rice influenced Vampire which has greatly impacted popular concepts of this creature.  (Incidently, this "romantic" vampire showed up before Stoker's Dracula in that there were "noble" vampires in other, very long stories).  We see this Vampire in the Masquerade and in many novels of varying quality.  Then, we have those of you who want the more "traditional" Vampire, a la Dracula, clearly a monster who is both reviled and seductive (again, the seductive aspect of this kind of Vampire is very flexible.  Dracula brought out a sensuality that is considered repellent in the novel, and most movie and stage adaptations of Dracula added quasi-romantic elements not at all related to the novel itself).  And, then, there are those who are talking about the folklore vampire, the plague that rots in a grave, kills everything in sight, doesn't have as many fancy powers, etc.I think the problem here is, if D&D were to cling to a folklorish Vampire, they would cut out a large number of people unfamiliar with such a creature.  In addition, I think this kind of "vampire" does exist, only under different names like Ghast, Ghoul, and Wight.  Furthermore, attempting to create a completely folklore-ridden vampire would result in most of the monster in the MM and other creature collections being changed.  Say goodbye to mega-powerful dragons, cutesy Elves, noble Dwarves, and so on.As for those wanting the angst-ridden, super sexy, androgenous, "bisexual" Vampire, well, you also end up conflicting with the mainstream because most people, although they see Vampires as beautiful and all that, still see them as monsters that only come out at night and kill people (incidently, the vampire in Stoker's Dracula could move about during the day, although he was stuck in the last form he was in when the dawn arrived).  The vampire you're asking for really is more of a role-playing issue.  (I will say that I happen to like this vampire-type just fine, although I think it has been overused and overblown since the mid-90s).The vampire template in the MM is fine.  It captures the traditional powers we associate with vampires, while attempting to pay homage to both tradition (the Constitution drain is something seen in some "oriental" vampires and some "European" vampires) and the new-age, sexy vampire (that Dominate person is a real charmer).  Sure, on paper, these vampires appear very powerful and seem to just be monsters.  But, that's the point with this version of D&D's creature collections; the MM provides the stats and the building suggestions (which I use because they allow for balance, a very important consideration for 3ed).  It does not tell you how to make each vampire distinct from others of its ilk.  If you want a raving, slathering monster, it's up to the DM to craft and role-play one.  If you want a seductive, angst-ridden charmer, again, the DM can create one.  Also consider that Ravenloft does offer more power and varients for the vampire template that allows DMs to make even more refined undead.  While it would have been nice to see these rules in the MM, I suspect they were excluded due to space constraints and 3ed tendancy to cling to traditional, 1ed ideas.Anyway, I once again commend everyone here for this great thread.Later!</blockquote>

Verification