Vampire in play

[Aegeri]

Mithreinmaethor, I've already been playing the vampire to test various things and seen it in play now. I wonder what tier you've seen these at? Because by paragon tier a 2 surge vampire isn't getting very far. Even in my own games, without durable vampires haven't done very well whatsoever at heroic tier - in fact a good deal of them haven't got through the one shot adventures we run without durable (bad luck and 2 surges makes me sad ). In my own games, I tend to use a good deal of skill challenges and traps to mix up encounters, neither of which provide vampires with options for getting back surges. So durable was pretty much a must have feat otherwise they really struggled very hard.

Personally though with durable as a safety net, I've yet to see a vampire have the same "Oops, I had a bad day and it is time for a new character". So I have no problem giving vampires in my games durable for free as a houserule and calling it a day. 4 surges is still pretty sucky, but because of their mechanics for getting back surges it works out very well. Also it means by paragon they actually have surges to spare for throwing onto their powers for extra damage. Given how incredibly poor the vampires damage compares to other strikers by paragon, this is a much needed boost to their ability to function as a striker.

 

[Thagdal]

Here is the problem. Wizard's is the one that singled out your character, not the group. They implemented a mechanic that essentially feeds off of the other characters and requires their cooperation.

So now it is your responsibility to let the other player's know and they can decide if they want to play with you or not, or if they will allow you to drain a surge.

The main point is, don't bring a vampire to a game and automatically expect that you will be able to play it. If the vamp didn't have that mechanic then there would be no problem.

I'm sure some would still have issues with Vampire PCS even without that one gaming mechanic.

I dont see how losing that one thing would equal no problems.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Here is the problem. Wizard's is the one that singled out your character, not the group. They implemented a mechanic that essentially feeds off of the other characters and requires their cooperation.

So now it is your responsibility to let the other player's know and they can decide if they want to play with you or not, or if they will allow you to drain a surge.

The main point is, don't bring a vampire to a game and automatically expect that you will be able to play it. If the vamp didn't have that mechanic then there would be no problem.

So, you actually read my whole post? I'm wondering because I already answered this. Making a 'Smurphpire' class because the real thing might., GASP!, offend some hypothetical uptight player somewhere is the good design choice.

Sorry, that would just be stupid. Do I get to kick and scream about your devil-pacted warlock? Your ASSASSIN (yeah, the guy who's whole shtick is based on murdering people)? Come now.

Don't get me wrong, the vampire is clearly someone you can potentially have issues with. However, that can be FUN. As other people have already pointed out there are plenty of different sorts of backstory and character interrelationships which can be worked out such that the players can create an acceptable justification for why ANY particular group of adventurers might band together. Heck, literature, movies, TV, etc are replete with these kinds of stories.

So, yeah, if I come to the table with MY character, then I mostly expect the other players to accept that. Likewise, I don't go out of my way to make it hard for them to play their chosen concepts even when it means I have to bend a little either. I've been playing RPGs for a LONG time, almost as long as they've existed. When I sit down at the table to run a game I expect the players can be mature and reasonable enough to make it work and make it fun. If we're going to do a game where certain character concepts won't fit in then I'm going to make sure the players know that up front. In all those years I have yet to see that fail to work.

I'd also finally note that you didn't see WotC tossing vampires out there as a major character concept on day one. 3 years into the run of 4e they've covered all the nice safe standard hero themes (and a good bit more). So, they now include rules for some things they don't expect a lot of people to consider as their most obvious character choice. Yet it is a valid choice that can add an interesting dimension to the game. They're now bad game designers because they're willing to open up the range of options enough for this kind of thing? Sorry, I'm just not buying it. Don't play it if you don't want to, don't even allow it at your table if you're that bent about it, but really, some of us are capable of handling it and having fun.

 

[KidSnide]

Here is the problem. Wizard's is the one that singled out your character, not the group. They implemented a mechanic that essentially feeds off of the other characters and requires their cooperation.

So now it is your responsibility to let the other player's know and they can decide if they want to play with you or not, or if they will allow you to drain a surge.

The main point is, don't bring a vampire to a game and automatically expect that you will be able to play it. If the vamp didn't have that mechanic then there would be no problem.

That's a feature, not a bug. Vampires are supposed to be the sort of characters where you can't automatically expect a group of normal "good" PCs to want to adventure with you. Mechanics that reinforce this dynamic is a laudable design goal.

-KS

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Ok so let's go back to day 1... First 4 e game your group ever played... Play a and b sat down and made a half elf cleric of pelor and an elf paladin of pelor (half brothers) and player c made a non discript trifling wizard... And player d made a human infernal pact warlock... Then I will be the
Dm...


When they sit down and the cleric and paladin why they would ever travil with a demon, and someone who sold ther soul to one... Who is the problem:

A divine players
B other 2 players
Or
C wotc



Now what if we swap out paladin for avenger and cleric for invoked then swap the wizard for a volyka vampire... And the infernal lock for a dark pact lock What does it change?

 

[Mithreinmaethor]

Mithreinmaethor, I've already been playing the vampire to test various things and seen it in play now. I wonder what tier you've seen these at? Because by paragon tier a 2 surge vampire isn't getting very far. Even in my own games, without durable vampires haven't done very well whatsoever at heroic tier - in fact a good deal of them haven't got through the one shot adventures we run without durable (bad luck and 2 surges makes me sad ). In my own games, I tend to use a good deal of skill challenges and traps to mix up encounters, neither of which provide vampires with options for getting back surges. So durable was pretty much a must have feat otherwise they really struggled very hard.

Personally though with durable as a safety net, I've yet to see a vampire have the same "Oops, I had a bad day and it is time for a new character". So I have no problem giving vampires in my games durable for free as a houserule and calling it a day. 4 surges is still pretty sucky, but because of their mechanics for getting back surges it works out very well. Also it means by paragon they actually have surges to spare for throwing onto their powers for extra damage. Given how incredibly poor the vampires damage compares to other strikers by paragon, this is a much needed boost to their ability to function as a striker.

I have played between 35 and 40 sessions with a Vampire or playing a Vampire. Only about 5 or 6 of those were in Paragon (11th and 12th).

Edit: To answer bargle0 I am currently unemployed and am a VT Beta tester. So I have had the ability to play a lot

 

[Herschel]

Personally though with durable as a safety net, I've yet to see a vampire have the same "Oops, I had a bad day and it is time for a new character".

I think it's not only dependent on the game but the player's attitude also. I can definitely see two surges being a big issue, I can also see it not being one easily enough. In the game I'm most likely to face one, well, lets just say they aren't the most attached to their characters anyway.

Were I to play one, I'd want the safety net but that's just me as a player.

 

[Rel]

So because you say you had no trouble with the vampire then that means everything is okay?

Wow that deserves the ignore list.

This is pretty rude. If you want to put somebody on Ignore then feel free to do so. There is no need to go rubbing it in their face.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

So in some groups the vampire works without durable, in some groups it does not. And durable as a buffer most surely helps.

Looks like any other class... Many casters need to take unarmored agility, some dtrikers need to get chain... There are some good feats for most classes, that could be considered must haves.

I personally would not give it out for free, as you will see a lot of players reasoning, why class xx needs just this one feat to become viable...

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Would the vampire become a better striker if it were able to add it's riders more often during battle because it has more healing surges to burn?