The vampire starts with just 2 healing surges

Mengu

First Post
Vampires better have a huge bonus to endurance, or they will not survive some of the skill challenges I throw at my PC's, not to mention traps and surge draining creatures like wights.

It's also going to be a bit of a pain to keep track of surges spent for purposes of various magic tattoos when your surges are constantly on the flux.

I'll reserve judgement though, till I see the whole thing. At high heroic and paragon levels, the vampire's surges might last longer than anyone else's during a long adventuring day.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

MrMyth

First Post
Why should they be penalized for the Vampires terrible design choices? Also the vampire would arguably need 3 surges - 1 to reach full health and then another 2 so he isn't at 0 surges and basically a walking casualty.

For the same reason they cast Comrade's Succor when my 6 surge rogue is out of surges halfway through Encounter 2. :)

Honestly, I'll wait to see this in action before giving final judgement. I can see the potential for problems, but they seem to have done a decent job of addressing them, between regen and the ability to drain surges in combat and out of it. We already have strikers who would have these sorts of issues, so this isn't anything new. This guy would be a bit more frail per combat but potentially able to go for many more combats over the day. I can see it working.
 

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
Why is god's name would we want a Vampire that's easy to play? You're a freaking undead... traditionally evil... with uncontrollable need for blood and a potentially disasterous vulnerability to sunlight. The last thing we need is to make this class a simple cakewalk that any idiot can play, not ever needing to worry about the implications that playing a VAMPIRE should have.

If you're going to try and roleplay the social and physical implications of being a Vampire... having to actually take time to consider the ramifications of how you get into and operate in combat is the least you should do. I for one applaud WotC for putting in class design mechanics that will actually require the player to think about what he is doing and how he behave in combat, just as he should be doing out of combat.

Playing a Vampire should not be easy. And designing mechanics that are more complex in order to be truly effective is a choice I wholeheartedly am in favor of. Because maybe just maybe this will weed out the huge swath of player-base who would all want to play Vampires because they're "kewl roxor!"
 


Nemesis Destiny

Adventurer
I'm curious to see what this class looks like in full with all its vampiric powers and how they're balanced for levels and the action economy. Stuff like turning to mist, wolf or bat form, etc.

In a 3.mess game I DMed, I had a player undergo a transformation into a vampire-like shadow creature, and have yet to see how I could pull this off in 4e, should I ever decide to pick that game up where I left off.

Does that seem odd that my primary interest in this book is to see how I might houserule stuff for a conversion of a 3.x campaign I haven't played since 2004 and might not ever return to under 4e?
 


Solvarn

First Post
In play

I'd have to see it in play, but I don't really think vampire classes belong in any book with "heroes" in the title. It seems like an awkward attempt to shoehorn material that was designed for the Ravenloft game they were going to put out.

I think the concept overall would have been better served with a theme rather than an entire class, particularly since vampires aren't born, they are made. An evil vampire antagonist infecting a hero with vampirism and then creating situations where they are tempted to use their powers would be pretty cool. The more they succumb to the temptation to use their powers the more they change would be neat. A sort of race against time to defeat the villain and destroy them so that the PC can be saved.

The vampire as a class thing is part of a different sort of game altogether, and perhaps might have been better as a Savage Species type book, which was popular at release and would undoubtedly be a popular addition and sell well for them.

From play experience I know they did a good job on the executioner but that again is really just published in this book as filler as it has been previously available.

Retreads from Insider content and poorly conceived classes don't bode well to me. I'm typically excited about the book releases. I thought the last two Essentials books were very well done. I may buy the book for the blackguard bit, it seems well done from all accounts but I will be ignoring a lot of the rubbish in the book. Color me disappointed.
 

mneme

Explorer
The Executioner was always a preview, Solvarn.

Re vampire: it's a bit odd, otoh, there is a history of heroic vampires, from Elric to Blade.
 

Herschel

Adventurer
Why is god's name would we want a Vampire that's easy to play? You're a freaking undead... traditionally evil... with uncontrollable need for blood and a potentially disasterous vulnerability to sunlight. The last thing we need is to make this class a simple cakewalk that any idiot can play, not ever needing to worry about the implications that playing a VAMPIRE should have.

If you're going to try and roleplay the social and physical implications of being a Vampire... having to actually take time to consider the ramifications of how you get into and operate in combat is the least you should do. I for one applaud WotC for putting in class design mechanics that will actually require the player to think about what he is doing and how he behave in combat, just as he should be doing out of combat.

Playing a Vampire should not be easy. And designing mechanics that are more complex in order to be truly effective is a choice I wholeheartedly am in favor of. Because maybe just maybe this will weed out the huge swath of player-base who would all want to play Vampires because they're "kewl roxor!"

Must spread XP.
 

MrMyth

First Post
The Executioner was always a preview, Solvarn.

That's not remotely true. A playtest version was posted last... September, I think? With all indications that it was remaining a DDI-exclusive class. In November, the 'final' version was posted, which upon receiving heavy criticism, WotC announced that it was still undergoing revisions and the final final version was still on the way. And in December, it was posted: "This month, D&D Insider presents the actual final version of the executioner assassin."

Then, a month or two later, it was mentioned that the Executioner would be posted in Heroes of Shadow. This was only discovered when the DDI version didn't show up in the Character Builder or Compendium, and we were told that wouldn't happen until after it was released in Heroes of Shadow.

Now, it is possible that the HoS version will be identical to the December version, and so that was truly the final version... but it also serving DDI subscribers as duplicate content with a product being released a few months later. Much like the former PHB3 previews, only having been promoted as actual content (and a good portion of the entire content for the month!) rather than as a preview.

Alternatively, the HoS version will have further revisions, resulting in the DDI version being yet again unfinished despite the assurances of the staff.

Either way, the Executioner was never supposed to be a preview, and its existence in Heroes of Shadow wasn't known until a month or two after its December release as the "actual final version". Either way, WotC didn't exactly treat DDI subscribers well with how the whole fiasco has been handled.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top