In the Works: February and Beyond

[Barastrondo]

The evil and weaknesses of the classic gothic vampire (garlic, needs to be invited in, sunlight, etc.) are not inherent to the thing as much as they are useful for a particular end. In this case, the end being a horror villain in a story. Vampires in that case work well with a good weakness, since it allows the protagonists to be clever when they're up against an indomitable power. Not being able to cross running water isn't any more "canon" than sparkles (and it's a fair bet more people know the latter than the former).

Yeah, exactly. The needs of a puzzle monster are different than the needs of a protagonist.

I like a diverse way of dipping into it, but it can get weird. Vampire-Dhampyr-Vryloka-Revenant? I'm not necessarily against it, but it seems...um...like a lot of Vampire for one character. It's weird, but maybe it's fine.

Heh. Basically, when I write down things like race and class I am sometimes just grudgingly paying tribute to the book-names. The goliath bard in one of my games is neither "goliath" nor "bard" in-character: he's one of the Graystacks, the immense and quiet denizens of the Library, and he thinks of himself as a human librarian. Human is simply a... more inclusive term in that setting. Similarly, my feylock is neither fey-pacted nor a warlock: he refers to himself as a "tenebrous adept", and is fond of the phrase. My wife selected "half-elf bard" in the character builder, but we both know that she's a strategist by trade, and a fox-blooded human by birth.

A Vryloka with Dhampyr and Revenant bloodline feats and a vampire class is a pile of vampire, but really it's all about the skinning. I'd assume this guy is a gray-skinned, gentlemanly beast with a ravening appetite, whereas a simple "human vampire" is closer to the blush of life, even if he does pursue his vampiric abilities as a path to power. But it would depend!

 

[Camelot]

To me, a class makes the most sense. When a being is transformed/infected/whatever their abilities/powers/senses are heightened/altered to those of a vampire but they may still have pointy ears, be short, etc. .

Then why didn't they go the route of the revenant? You choose another race and you gain the average height, weight, and size of that race, but you still have a class (and the DM could decide if warforged or other races could be allowed to be vampires). If a fighter gets bitten by a vampire, does he lose his combat training? And why are certain races better at "being a vampire" than others (assuming that this vampire class has key abilities)?

As a class, it seems like it should be "Vampiric" instead of "Vampire." I hope to be pleasantly surprised.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Heh. Basically, when I write down things like race and class I am sometimes just grudgingly paying tribute to the book-names. The goliath bard in one of my games is neither "goliath" nor "bard" in-character: he's one of the Graystacks, the immense and quiet denizens of the Library, and he thinks of himself as a human librarian. Human is simply a... more inclusive term in that setting. Similarly, my feylock is neither fey-pacted nor a warlock: he refers to himself as a "tenebrous adept", and is fond of the phrase. My wife selected "half-elf bard" in the character builder, but we both know that she's a strategist by trade, and a fox-blooded human by birth.

This is exactly how I deal with material whose fluff is not appropriate to my campaign world. Keep the mechanics, toss the fluff.

There are no Dragonborn, Tieflings (per se), or Deva in my world, but that's no reason to exclude those choices from being used. Just fluff it so that it works for the world, and I'll let a player do pretty much anything in any book.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Heh. Basically, when I write down things like race and class I am sometimes just grudgingly paying tribute to the book-names. The goliath bard in one of my games is neither "goliath" nor "bard" in-character: he's one of the Graystacks, the immense and quiet denizens of the Library, and he thinks of himself as a human librarian. Human is simply a... more inclusive term in that setting. Similarly, my feylock is neither fey-pacted nor a warlock: he refers to himself as a "tenebrous adept", and is fond of the phrase. My wife selected "half-elf bard" in the character builder, but we both know that she's a strategist by trade, and a fox-blooded human by birth.

When I was thinking of how they could do a "Gothic Horror 4e," what with the problem including the more monstrous races, I was thinking that the races in 4e are not necessarily physical descriptions as much as they are variaitons on the theme. There's no reason a dragonborn's stats can't be used to play a human.

But still, I rely on the published game materials to get a "first blush" impression that I do rely on. Someone who plays a Revenant with a Vryloka past life choice and Dhampyr bloodline feats and a Vampire class...what is such a creature? And why does it join up with Conan, Aragorn, Merlin, and Drizzit to kill goblins?

That's not a mark against it, of course. To me, it's an interesting question to explore. Though I'm sure to some DM's, this is the peak of silliness, akin to 3e's axiomatic titanic half-troll half-golem level 5 mind flayer template wackiness.

Then why didn't they go the route of the revenant? You choose another race and you gain the average height, weight, and size of that race, but you still have a class (and the DM could decide if warforged or other races could be allowed to be vampires). If a fighter gets bitten by a vampire, does he lose his combat training? And why are certain races better at "being a vampire" than others (assuming that this vampire class has key abilities)?

I look at it this way:

There are different things in the world called "vampires." Some of them are spawn. Some of them are victims of other vampires. Some of them are monsters in need of slaying. Some of them are lightly touched player characters. Some of them are a tribe of humans. Some of them are a full class.

If you get bitten by a vampire and turned into a vampire, maybe you just gain a "Vampiric Spawn" racial trait that subsumes your own. Maybe then you decide to take Dhampyr feats or multiclass into Vampire. Maybe not.

There's different tools with this "vampire" label, used for different levels of vampire-dom.

It can be a bit confusing, but once you sift out the right vampire for your needs, it should be fairly effective.

 

[Barastrondo]

Then why didn't they go the route of the revenant? You choose another race and you gain the average height, weight, and size of that race, but you still have a class (and the DM could decide if warforged or other races could be allowed to be vampires). If a fighter gets bitten by a vampire, does he lose his combat training? And why are certain races better at "being a vampire" than others (assuming that this vampire class has key abilities)?

Totally theoretical here, but here's how I'd approach it if it were me:

The class approach gives more vampire powers. A 10th-level vampire-class probably has up to a dozen specifically vampiric powers to use in a fight. A 10th-level fighter has one racial encounter power; possibly a couple others if he used feats to substitute out fighter powers for racial powers.

So the vampire-as-a-class approach gives you a character that is doing something vampiric every turn. Vampire-as-race gives you a character that looks like a vampire all the time, but takes a specifically vampiric action probably once per fight, and spends the rest of it hitting things with a sword or casting spells. Both approaches are intriguing, but I think vampire-as-class scratches an itch that cannot be otherwise scratched, whereas vampire-as-race is already modeled.

Does a fighter who is bitten by a vampire lose his fighter powers? Not necessarily: if the player wants to play a fighter first and vampire distant second, then the dhampyr rules should suffice. But if the player wants to use vampire powers primarily, then maybe the fighter does let his mortal skills atrophy, as he focuses his attention on mastering these new facets of his nature. Or maybe the traumatic nature of being turned, since it involves dying, requires him to relearn how to move and fight -- in this case, like a vampire.

Why are certain races "better at being a vampire?" Well, I have yet to see the execution, but I would hazard a guess that in most campaigns you see certain races as vampires more often than others anyway; humans and elves probably much more than dwarves and half-orcs. It suits the aesthetic. I wouldn't be surprised if it panned out similarly thanks to mechanics. (Though if dragonborn and warforged turn out to be the ideal races for vampires, that should suggest some interesting worldbuilding possibilities!)

 

[Scribble]

But still, I rely on the published game materials to get a "first blush" impression that I do rely on. Someone who plays a Revenant with a Vryloka past life choice and Dhampyr bloodline feats and a Vampire class...what is such a creature? And why does it join up with Conan, Aragorn, Merlin, and Drizzit to kill goblins?

Uhhh... To take their stuff... Duh!

 

[Barastrondo]

When I was thinking of how they could do a "Gothic Horror 4e," what with the problem including the more monstrous races, I was thinking that the races in 4e are not necessarily physical descriptions as much as they are variaitons on the theme. There's no reason a dragonborn's stats can't be used to play a human.

Yeah, though what I've done in some settings is say instead that they're spartoi: warriors grown from a dragon's tooth. (There was a Dragon article on the topic way back when that really stuck with me.) Look mostly like humans, strong, charismatic, oh hey, breathe fire. I usually need a secondary theme (like Greek myth) to mash together with a stat block to make something compelling yet not like the original.

But still, I rely on the published game materials to get a "first blush" impression that I do rely on. Someone who plays a Revenant with a Vryloka past life choice and Dhampyr bloodline feats and a Vampire class...what is such a creature? And why does it join up with Conan, Aragorn, Merlin, and Drizzit to kill goblins?

That would be preposterous! Clearly it would be doing its goblin-hunting with Elric, Lirael Abhorsen, Felix and Gotrek instead.

(Well, okay, bad example. Gotrek would probably try to murder the hell out of Elric the first excuse he got.)

That's not a mark against it, of course. To me, it's an interesting question to explore. Though I'm sure to some DM's, this is the peak of silliness, akin to 3e's axiomatic titanic half-troll half-golem level 5 mind flayer template wackiness.

Essentially, yes. I admit it looks pretty silly on paper, which is why I try to go for my mind's eye first. What I really want to see is what he'll do, and then I'll know much more.

 

[the-golem]

...my mind's eye...

I see what you did there, Mr. White Wolf.

Very tricky, very tricky indeed.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Vampire as a theme would have been far better. Then there would be more diversity of choices between fighter vampires, mage vampires, etc. I just do not think a vampire class is called for, but when vampires are so big in popular culture like they are these days, well, go with the flow.

 

[Solvarn]

Ow

Minus two. A PC that rages against his enemies by drawing their blood? A cursed hero who must sate his thirst? Sounds fun. No-one's even seen this thing and most people here are already writing it off.

How about a hero that explodes into a cloud of ash when exposed to sunlight? How are they taking care of that?

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...screen&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&tbs=isch:1&um=1&itbs=1

I suppose our monsters are different and the Vampire class isn't relegated to nighttime excursions and subterranean adventuring?