This is why I will change it from being a vampire class to being a blood mage or something. Vampires are inherently monsters. They're evil, which is fine if you're playing an evil campaign. I like the monstrous races such as shifters and revenants, because they let you play "monsters" without being a member of an inherently evil race. I like damphyr, and the idea of the new vryloka, because they're not restricted to everything a vampire is. Vampires have certain weaknesses that define their being. And PCs having too many weaknesses goes against 4e design. Thus the result is a vampire without those weaknesses, which just means it's not a vampire. It's a wannabe vampire. And now I want to play Munchkin.
I think some people are getting too caught up in definitions.
Vampires have meant different things to different people over different cultures in different time periods. From Vlad Dracul to Nosferatu to Bela Lugosi to Castlevania to Goth Kids to Team Edward to hopping vampires, even working in various blood-sucking undead from around the world, we've got a lot of mutually exclusive things under that umbrella.
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).
I'd imagine the vampire created as a class will be a vampire suitable for use as a D&D character. That is, a heroic protagonist, who can go on any adventure alongside the rogue and the fighter, and bring his own unique powers to bear. It'll harken back to various vampire archetypes, but it won't be tethered to them. It won't need an invitation from the evil overlord to go into his palace and kill him, it won't force the party to go attack the dragon at night since he'll die in sunlight, and it won't consume party members in their sleep.
It might summon clouds of bats, fly around, shroud enemies in darkness, and grow stronger by killing things. It might have a charming gaze. It might turn into a wolf. It might climb walls. It might have a lot of grabs and do ongoing damage from bleeding. It might gain bonuses for attacking bloodied enemies.
And that's fine. That can be a vampire, too. I could even see running such a vampire up against am ore "classic gothic vampire" threat. Of course, if he's in a party with a Killoren, a Warforged, a Shardmind, and a Genasi, I'm not sure any of them will ever be considered prey (unless perhaps the vampire has a thing for maple-syrup-flavored blood in the case of the killoren).
Should it be an either/or situation? With both approaches available, each group can decide whether playable werewolves are weak (shifter rules), or strong (werewolf class rules), or even that there's a marked difference between a shifter and a werewolf. I see it as more of the half-orc/barbarian split, really: do you want your character's barbaric nature to be a minor aspect (half-orc race), or the source of most of their power (a full class with rages), or even both?
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.
At the very least, it's not Shadowmage-Shadetouched-Darkshadow-Shadowborn. Horrah for better naming conventions!
![:]](http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png "Devious :]")
