Vampire in play

[Kinneus]

Failure of imagination is not a failure of mechanics.

Also; part of the problem is that people who really love vampires expect vampires to be good at everything. So... vampires should be strong and know everything about history, in addition to being preternaturally fast, able to mind-control foes, turn into giant black dogs and swarms of bats, turn into mist to escape a foe, jump twenty feet high without a running start, never age, have unnatural toughness and the power to regenerate by feasting on the blood of others... where does it stop?

All-powerful vampires are okay in a setting like Vampire: The Masquerade, where everybody is a vampire, but in D&D, if the vampire in question is expected to share the limelight with some lowly, warm-blooded mortals, they should be prepared to accept some mechanical drawbacks. Not being super-smart and not being super-strong (in exchange for having tons of shapeshifting powers, regeneration, and super-speed) seems fair and the most themeatically consistant of all possible drawbacks.

 

[Dausuul]

I think at least part of this was probably issues with the player, not the class. A "hundreds of years old" vampire is at minimum Paragon tier, possibly even Epic. A level 5 vampire has been around the block a few times, but he is just starting to get into his grove. By the time the same character is in early paragon many more of those classic vampire abilites would have appeared.

This is exactly right. Playing a 1st-level vampire and saying "I'm centuries old" is like playing a 1st-level cleric and saying "I'm the high priest of my religion," or playing a 1st-level fighter and saying "My armor is made from the scales of the elder dragon I killed." It is not the fault of the mechanics if your heroic-tier stats can't back up your epic-tier concept.

 

[ppaladin123]

I can certainly imagine a centuries old vampire who, suffering from ennui and alienation, essentially abandons his ties to the world and stops paying attention to the trifling affairs of mortals. Such a vampire might have a quite poor grasp of history; it never seemed worth his time.

 

[Nork]

A party really must fit, thematically, for it to be lelievable or even functional, on a role playing level. For example I can't imagine a Vampire living for more than the first few rounds, if he tries to join a party with a Cleric and Paladin of Kelemvor in it. Want to play a Vampire? Then it likely belongs in a darkly-themes party of Assassins, Rogues, Warlocks....

At first glance yes, but at second glance no.

The problem with 'I am going to attack you because your evil!!!!!' paladins and clerics is that they wouldn't last two microseconds in a group of people. People might not like someone, even have deep reservations about their character/goals, and they might argue constantly or even have it escalate into a fist fight in a particularly bad point, but it is a quantum leap to anything beyond that.

It is a quantum leap because being the one to actually turn on a member of a group is going to get you backballed by that group so fast it will make your head spin. So if a group has a vampire and a paladin, and the vampire can keep their hands to themselves and the paladin can not, then the group has a vampire. The one thing that a group or an organization will not tolerate is a traitor.


As for how to explain a vampire in a party, well that is honestly pretty easy. Adversity makes strange bedfellows, and once someone has proven their loyalty it takes a lot to break that bond (i.e. turning on the others, and if the paladin does it first, the paladin is done). Even if none of them can stand each other.

 

[Ryujin]

At first glance yes, but at second glance no.

The problem with 'I am going to attack you because your evil!!!!!' paladins and clerics is that they wouldn't last two microseconds in a group of people. People might not like someone, even have deep reservations about their character/goals, and they might argue constantly or even have it escalate into a fist fight in a particularly bad point, but it is a quantum leap to anything beyond that.

It is a quantum leap because being the one to actually turn on a member of a group is going to get you backballed by that group so fast it will make your head spin. So if a group has a vampire and a paladin, and the vampire can keep their hands to themselves and the paladin can not, then the group has a vampire. The one thing that a group or an organization will not tolerate is a traitor.

As for how to explain a vampire in a party, well that is honestly pretty easy. Adversity makes strange bedfellows, and once someone has proven their loyalty it takes a lot to break that bond (i.e. turning on the others, and if the paladin does it first, the paladin is done). Even if none of them can stand each other.

But just HOW is that 'undead creature' a part of the party? It isn't necessarily about the character being evil, as much as it is about it being unnatural. The characters who are morally opposed to the idea of the undead aren't necessarily against them, based on an alignment difference.

I could perhaps see such characters seeing a need to help a treasured friend, to overcome his 'curse', but how do you explain the vampire who just walks into a party (pardon the expression) cold? It just ain't gonna happen. At best, he'll be turned away; worst, he'll be set on fire. That's not "turning on a member of the group" because he most definitely isn't a member of the group, in role playing terms.

You're making an assumption that the vampire somehow has ties to the party that simply don't exist, unless they've somehow been built. I would say that it's the duty of the player who wants to play such a character, to come up with a reasonable background as to why he would be accepted.

Failure of imagination is not a failure of mechanics.

Also; part of the problem is that people who really love vampires expect vampires to be good at everything. So... vampires should be strong and know everything about history, in addition to being preternaturally fast, able to mind-control foes, turn into giant black dogs and swarms of bats, turn into mist to escape a foe, jump twenty feet high without a running start, never age, have unnatural toughness and the power to regenerate by feasting on the blood of others... where does it stop?

All-powerful vampires are okay in a setting like Vampire: The Masquerade, where everybody is a vampire, but in D&D, if the vampire in question is expected to share the limelight with some lowly, warm-blooded mortals, they should be prepared to accept some mechanical drawbacks. Not being super-smart and not being super-strong (in exchange for having tons of shapeshifting powers, regeneration, and super-speed) seems fair and the most themeatically consistant of all possible drawbacks.

Oddly enough my experience with "Vampire: The Masquerade" had the completely opposite effect, on my belief in the invincible vampire. The characters were the weakest things around, aside from regular humans. I lost count of the number of times that other vampires or weres tossed me through a wall, leaving me inches from torpor. No matter who you are, there's always someone tougher.

*EDIT* Oh, and spam reported.

 

[wayne62682]

In a normal campaign I could see some issues with a vampire PC. But in LFR it's basically a mismatched assortment of oddballs every time, so a vampire doesn't strike me as that odd unless the party also had a religious type of Kelemvor who might not like the walking dead being around them.

The OP's post sounds more like a problem with a group that were all like "Lawl new Vampire class what a scrub". Now the class itself might be underpowered but all I got from the initial post is that the other players (keep in mind this was an LFR game so it's random who turns up) were being stupid and trying to come up with reasons to screw over the vampire PC simply because he was a vampire PC.

 

[TwoSix]

I find that people who cant think outside the box are the ones who have trouble adapting play. This could be an undue legacy of video games (you do this or this, and NOTHING ELSE!!!!!). What it comes down to is concentrating less on what is written in the description and more on how you can perceive it. I think there was a great series of articles describing how martial at wills could "work" but for the life of me i dont remember where they are. I also think that people are trying to force the vampire concept from what they see in movies and such (sparkly, evil, etc) when there is a plethora of odd and extravagant ways to reskin your vampire. I love the idea of the cannibalistic rogue, hell, in a dark sun game your Halfling Vampire wouldnt even get noticed until he turns into a bat!

Yea, calcified expectations are everywhere. I know several old-school players who can't handle things like Book of Nine Swords for the same reason (fighters can't use spells!).

 

[Obryn]

The OP's post sounds more like a problem with a group that were all like "Lawl new Vampire class what a scrub". Now the class itself might be underpowered but all I got from the initial post is that the other players (keep in mind this was an LFR game so it's random who turns up) were being stupid and trying to come up with reasons to screw over the vampire PC simply because he was a vampire PC.

I'm sure it was much more jarring than all the Rogues and Thieves who picked up proficiency in a weapon they will never use to qualify for a paragon path they mostly won't use in order to get its L16 feature and nothing else.

I mean, that makes a lot more sense than a vampire!

-O

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I wonder what those same palidns that hate undead did when revrents entered the party??

or worse, what if oneplayer hadan infernal warlock... i mean they draw power from a deal with devils...big nono

or OMG a Drow Dark Warlock...

or heck a drow anything... becus ethose guys get such good press in the realms.


Good thing the vampire is the first time WotC published something that made players have to work with things not perfectly in line with there characters... or we would have hd 3 years of problems...


This is really starting to bug me now. If I want to play angel (who was far from a historian, even being hundreds of years old) and you are playing a paliden who hates undead... maybe your being he problem not me. I showed up with my character to have fun, you chowed up with yours dislikeing BOTH an excaptable race and Class...



Infact If I were running an LFR game I would ask the paliden to leave the table or switch to a non disruptive character... becuse being ANTI another player is bad form. Now if there are no Drow PCs and you hate drow, fine... but if there are other PCs playing drow then check that at the door.

 

[pauljathome]

Right, which is EXACTLY why 4e calls the skill 'Perception' and not 'Listen' or 'Spot Hidden', etc.

Obviously there are going to be some people that have a problem coming up with a background/fluff that works well with their character, but this is not a vampire issue. At best you might complain WotC could give more ideas on that score, but actually they do a pretty good job.

Replying to several posts at once :

I disagree with this. Yes, the player could have gimped his character and bought up wisdom and intelligence a little and bought skills that don't actually synergize with the mechanics of a striker very well.

And if he'd done that he'd STILL be worse at perception than the human cleric who trains in perception and STILL be worse at history than the human wizard who trains history.

Personally, I find it hard to accept fluff that says "I have this really, really good sense of smell" when the rules say "No, you actually don't".

And I find it hard to believe that my vampire character is strong when he can't smash open a door or open a jar of peanuts .

As for that WOTC article, suddenly because there is a Vampire PC the world shifts and my 5th level character with Arcana and Religion as trained skills doesn't know anything about vampires? Yeah, right.

I definitely understand that vampires are the in thing right now. I (mostly) think that implementing them as a class wasn't the right design choice. I think the old 3rd edition method of applying a template was just better (albeit it had lots of problems). And yes, this DOES mean that a starting 1st level character cannot be a vampire. Deal.