Disappointed wit Vampires and Deathknights

[Sitara]

Both are my faveorite critters in nearly any game. 4e has really neutered them down. Especally the valmpire lord.

First, the VL can't shift into a bat or a wolf, or swarm of bats. Ok these 3 are going right back in as per houserules, and when shifted into a wolf the vampire gets increased speed, a Fangs of Fury attack (or something to represent the vampire wolfs powerful jaws) and some other stuff.

Now the Deathknight; first the Soulsword concept is rather wonky. I was wary of this since the preview so many months ago, but this is even worse. The immolation power is also nothing to write hom about, and while the undead healing bit is nice, I would have preffered more damage and/or he be able to shoot balls of flame.

Basically they have lost their signature attacks/powers, which ticks me off. For instance, I want my death knights to be able to cast fireball, like Lord Soth. So I guess I will add that back in, but basically it would have been nice to have it done already. With the new monster rules there really is no limit to the number of powers you can tack on really, just some type of cap on damage (Haven't analyzed monster generation rules yet)

Thoughts, and maybe any suggestions on how to make these creatures of the night more like their classic selves?

 

[Surgoshan]

Your death knight does cast fireball. It's just a fireball in line with all other powers in 4e. That is to say, it's not broken like magic was in 3.5. It's a close burst 2 that does 6d8+12 and gives the knight free attacks against anyone who attempts to move while near him. That's a pretty nasty power. If he runs up to the squishies and uses that, then they'll have trouble getting away from him. Plus he'll have done 40 damage, which is almost enough to bloody a 17th level mage. The next turn, they move away from him and take a basic melee attack for their trouble, which does an additional 20 damage and your squishy is in serious trouble.

And your vampire lord, despite not being able to turn into a wolf, is still a serious threat. He can dominate someone (with a -2 to save) as a minor action, then smack someone else and lower his AC by three so his minions can more easily pile on the damage. Try statting up a 12th level party and running the suggested encounter against them and see what happens before you start throwing powers on the guy.

 

[Sitara]

Yeah but that deathknights fireball is an immolation centered on him. He can't really toss it out to range.

 

[Surgoshan]

Yeah, but he's meant to be a soldier rather than artillery. His job is to lock people down on him and dish out damage rather than stand in the back and lob out damage at a distance.

 

[keterys]

Sure, but how is that a problem?

You could always have deathknight "mages" or "clerics" if you want a more random set of powers.

 

[eleran]

Yeah but that deathknights fireball is an immolation centered on him. He can't really toss it out to range.

I would suggest that the old Deathknight was poorly conceived, and has now been brought into line and improved.

There was never really a good reason why a Daethknight, a soldier basically, was lobbing fireballs. It seems incongruous in retrospect.

I also miss the shapeshifting ability of the Vampire Lord. But I would hesitate to beef up their attacks if you give them a wolf form. The whole idea of shifting into a wolf or a bat was for 2 reasons, recon and to get the heck out of a jam pronto. The wolf form could provide a trip attack to knock foes down to help him escape and of course as a wolf he would have a faster speed than normal.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Personally I think this represents a downside of shoehorning all monsters into a particular combat role. Some creatures clearly used to have more than one 'role' and I wonder how easy or practical it will be to re-include multi-role creatures into D&D

 

[hong]

A deathknight with fireball and wall of ice is dumb. If 4E removes fireballs and walls of ice, then this is good.

 

[Lizard]

Personally I think this represents a downside of shoehorning all monsters into a particular combat role. Some creatures clearly used to have more than one 'role' and I wonder how easy or practical it will be to re-include multi-role creatures into D&D

Probably better to build a variant monster for each role.

So if you want a fireball hurling Deathknight, build it as an archer who shoots arrows which erupt "with necrotic flame" where they hit.

I "get" why 4e does it the way it does it. In 3e, a perfectly balanced encounter was against one monster of the same CR (in theory), so that it needed to be able to cover a lot of ground, especially at high levels. A CR 15 monster with no ranged attacks, or a low AC, was very vulnerable. 4e, other than "Solo" monsters, you're expected to face multiple creatures, each of whom has a niche and covers for the others. I didn't expect to like this, but in Actual Play (tm), I saw it worked very well, and I am having a lot of fun working out Cool Creatures for the inevitable 4e campaign. (I figure my current game has at least 6-9 months left in it, though I am ever the servant of my player's demands.)

Of course, we'll have to see how Pathfinder is shaping up by then...

 

[Lizard]

A deathknight with fireball and wall of ice is dumb.

Only if you think too hard about fantasy.