The vampire starts with just 2 healing surges

[Incenjucar]

NOT running a ton of encounters that are just traps with no monsters and skill challenges that eat surges is extra work?

Having to actively avoid starting the day off with an epic trap room can be extra work, yes. Having to add vampire food to the game to make sure that one of the characters won't drag the rest of the party down can be extra work, yes. Having to make sure that I never start an adventuring day with a skill challenge or monsters that drag in surges can be extra work, yes. It limits my freedom as a DM in ways that no other class does, not even Knight and its horrible lack of function around anything with a good push power.

Then again, a player should also know what kind of campaign they are getting into. A slayer would also do poorly in that campaign, as unlike a number of other strikers he doesn't get a bunch of skills, and utility powers, that would be useful in all these trap/skill challenge encounters.

You can break most traps with damage. Slayers do fine against traps. Skill challenges simply utilize skills most of the time, and while I don't have that book, I'm willing to bet that slayers have access to skills roughly on-par with the fighter. Athletics, acrobatics, and endurance are all extremely useful in many skill challenges.

A vampire is something that isn't just about to pop up anywhere. I did say a player can play a drow vampire in my Dark Sun campaign if he really wants to, but he has to be named Ash. As in Pile of.

That's your bias. At worst, I tend to allow just about anything if someone's willing to reflavor it.

Regardless, a DM should at least know what his party is like AND a player should know what the DM and/or campaign world is like. A Charisma based Paladin may be solid in an expected fight, but when he finds out the party is spending most of it's time fighting at sea, the "no strength, no athletics, plate armor and heavy shield" suddenly doesn't seem like such a good idea. [The vampire, on the other hand, doen't care if he sinks to the bottom of the ocean, he can't suffocate].

While heavy armor is not the best in a nautical setting, it's incredibly easy to overcome. Worst case scenario, give the paladin a floating shield ASAP.

 

[Grabuto138]

You know this is a really interesting point you bring up. The vampire has its advantages, but as I've mentioned several times it has some specific disadvantages as well that really penalize the class considerably. These disadvantages uniquely penalize the vampire a lot and make those encounters considerably more lethal than they are for - well - just about anyone else. The question you've raised is interesting: If a class is poorly designed for a significant part of the game, should I change the game to fix the poorly designed class or fix the poor designed class' issue?

Personally I prefer to think that when nothing else in the game is as uniquely susceptible to these things: The problem is the class. I am not going to design the game differently because Wizards makes a poorly designed class. Instead, I'll try to fix the actual problem or find a solution. It turns out that durable is a really viable solution. Another solution - a soft one at that - is to pace encounters/skill challenges with a very easy encounter (or soft enemies that can be easily hit) before or immediately after. Letting the vampire easily regain surges that may have been lost before they would run into trouble or get them out of it. This is something I often do anyway, just in case PCs suffer a bad day from the trap or skill challenge in the first place. The previous shipwreck encounter -> Skill Challenge -> Trapped Room of Doom was followed by an EL-2 encounter. Not enough to threaten the PCs, but could be hairy if they had a bad day on any of the three elements before hand. For a vampire a soft encounter like that would be almost perfect to get back on their feet and again, I designed that well before I even knew Wizards would release a class that worked like the vampire*.

But of course you can just have a bad day. For most classes this is just a session spent frustrated. The problem with the core of the vampires design is this is a session spent making a new character. Because without durable, when the vampire goes wrong it goes really wrong. It's also very frustrating for the party leader to have to heal a guy from unconscious for a whole 1 HP. Only to just to go down again and anyone who has seen a leader have to do this, knows how frustrating it is for the players in question.

In the end, I won't design the game differently just because of the vampire. The vampire will have to live with the considerable in built disadvantage and find a workaround. It does exist and even if it didn't, I would certainly houserule the vampire to 4 surges or something similar anyway if a PC wanted to play one.

*Edit: Sometimes I do like to think I am psychic.

My first question would be, "does a vampire character make sense in my campaign?"

I am very accomodating so if the player can justify it (and if the other players are cool with it) the answer is probably yes.

Next I would let the character play out as written.

If the character dies then so be it. Make another character. Next time don't play a Vampire.

If the rest of the party is annoyed becasue the character is sucking resources we get together as adults and solve the problem. I imagine in most cases it would be up to the Dm to Adjust the encounters.

If it complicates things but the players like the chemistry I adapt and overcome.

If it complicates things and the players don't like it I say "no."

It really is not that complicated.

 

[Incenjucar]

Unless you are talking RPGA adventures I am not sure what you mean.

The "outlaw biker" party I DMed for a while back was fun. A Warforged STR Cleric, A Dwarf big-ass hammer Fighter, a half-orc brutal Rogue, A gnoll charging Barbarian and a shifter two-weapon Ranger.

They were melee gods but at range absolutely useless. Since we all got together to have fun and stuff I created encounters that challenged them, let them play to their strengths, challenged their weaknesses (with environmental events that might make the battlefield even) and otherwise made it fun for everyone.

Are you honestly suggesting that the ideal is that any assemblage of character should be able to plug into any adventure? What is the DM for?

The ideal for DESIGN is to work within the assumptions of the game so that when a DM wants to move away from those assumptions they have a uniform structure to work with and can thus do a minimal number of things to deal with the change of assumptions.

 

[Incenjucar]

If it complicates things and the players don't like it I say "no."

It really is not that complicated.

Is this something you have had to consider for someone playing a fighter, a wizard, a cleric, or a rogue?

 

[Grabuto138]

The ideal for DESIGN is to work within the assumptions of the game so that when a DM wants to move away from those assumptions they have a uniform structure to work with and can thus do a minimal number of things to deal with the change of assumptions.

You capitalized "design" as if we were building bridges or power plants. If you were creating an adventure for publication I imagine you could assume a party of leader, defender, striker, striker, striker or controller. In reality your adventures are for whatever party happens to be sitting in your living room willing to play. Beyond that, aside from compuer games, I am not sure what you hope to achieve. A good Dm improvises, adapts and overcomes.

 

[Incenjucar]

WotC is creating classes for publication. A good game company reduces the number of things that a good DM has to overcome.

This is getting closer to that whole "rules mastery" nonsense.

 

[Aegeri]

A good Dm improvises, adapts and overcomes.

Good game designers make options that are just as competitive with the others - yet still have their own unique mechanics. For some time now, this is something that 4E has been successful at actually doing. I don't view something that is inherently broken in certain core parts of the system it was built for as good game design. Can I get over that easily yes, yes I can (in this case the PC can take a feat to fix it). So should I have to directly design around whatever ill thought out elements Wizards introduces into 4E? The answer is no - Wizards shouldn't be doing that in the first place IMO. In the entire time since 4E has been released I have not had to do anything to the system except my own odd personal preferences and the odd fix (Hero of Faith pre-errata for example). I can build whatever encounters I want and generally speaking, some characters find it harder and some characters find it easier - but everything works around a roughly similar level. I like this about 4E and it's something I enjoy immensely. My design isn't focused on fixing stupid things that wizards have done or poorly designed elements, it's entirely focused on making interesting, fun and dynamic encounters.

In this case, no class in 4E is punished as absurdly much by a skill challenge or trap as the Vampire is. It's absolutely exceptional in the system compared to every other class. As I've argued, I feel it's not something that ever needed to be like that in the first place. That's my real objection.

 

[Grabuto138]

Is this something you have had to consider for someone playing a fighter, a wizard, a cleric, or a rogue?

Of course!

My current party is an elf bard, an elf druid, a human battlemind, a dwarf ranger, and a human hybrid rogue/sorceror. If someone wanted to step on another player's shtich they would have to clear it first. If the leader died and he wanted to play a striker we would have to work it out. So yeah, actions have consequences. Among adults we work those consequences out.

What do ou do?

 

[Grabuto138]

Good game designers make options that are just as competitive with the others - yet still have their own unique mechanics. For some time now, this is something that 4E has been successful at actually doing. I don't view something that is inherently broken in certain core parts of the system it was built for as good game design. Can I get over that easily yes, yes I can (in this case the PC can take a feat to fix it). So should I have to directly design around whatever ill thought out elements Wizards introduces into 4E? The answer is no - Wizards shouldn't be doing that in the first place IMO. In the entire time since 4E has been released I have not had to do anything to the system except my own odd personal preferences and the odd fix (Hero of Faith pre-errata for example). I can build whatever encounters I want and generally speaking, some characters find it harder and some characters find it easier - but everything works around a roughly similar level. I like this about 4E and it's something I enjoy immensely. My design isn't focused on fixing stupid things that wizards have done or poorly designed elements, it's entirely focused on making interesting, fun and dynamic encounters.

In this case, no class in 4E is punished as absurdly much by a skill challenge or trap as the Vampire is. It's absolutely exceptional in the system compared to every other class. As I've argued, I feel it's not something that ever needed to be like that in the first place. That's my real objection.

But have you played a Vampire or DMed one? Google "mystic theurge."

Edit: I am sorry for being obscure. During the 3e era there was a time when the Mystic Theurge was the "sky is falling" "so totally overpowered" " broken" character. Then people actually played it.

 

[Incenjucar]

Of course!

My current party is an elf bard, an elf druid, a human battlemind, a dwarf ranger, and a human hybrid rogue/sorceror. If someone wanted to step on another player's shtich they would have to clear it first. If the leader died and he wanted to play a striker we would have to work it out. So yeah, actions have consequences. Among adults we work those consequences out.

What do ou do?

Assuming you mean schtick, you've shifted goal posts. There's vast gulf between "are vampires okay for this campaign" and "do we need another defender."