Vampire in play

[Saracenus]

Since people like anecdotes: Tonight, at Encounters, the DM killed the first PC he has EVER killed after years of gaming. The halfling vampire. While fighting an even level skirmisher.

My badly-designed Evoker who started the encounter off adjacent to a +2 level lurker that moved with him (thus making him unable to with more than a stick) survived and was vastly more effective.

So yay to anecdotal evidence.

On the flip side, at my table I had 5 temp hp, an extra surge to heal with if need be. I killed on animated gargoyle and set up the party Paladin to finish off a 2nd. My vamp was never touched.

Granted, the Paladin had 7 hp left by the end of the encounter and my wife's blackguard was bloodied (which she milked for more damage on each hit). I think the Executioner was also untouched and the poor binder had his shadow sucked out and was hurting...

Yay anecdotal evidence...

 

[WalterKovacs]

A couple things:

(a) You still need to get C/A for suprising charge. Sure, there are easy ways to get it, but charging into C/A does make it a little more difficult (you need to be able to move into position if you intend to charge into a flank, or get the enemy alone for cunning stalker).

(b) Gouge + Suprising Charge is, like the twin strike + immediate reactions/minor actions, sort of set the DPR standard at ridiculous levels. When basically optimization for a striker is: Can you charge? Ok, then you need 17 Dex, multiclass into fighter or rogue (preferably fighter 13 STR/WIS to get the immediate reaction attack in order to increase the DPR) and take suprising charge with a gouge (unless you need to use a light blade, in which case rapier is fine) ... OR go with two weapons, get twin-strike as an elf, multiclass into something that gives you access to more minor/interupt/etc attacks than your class gives you natively ... That's a bit absurd. And thus, if the striker doesn't use weapons, it really has no hope.

Really, not matter WHAT they give a striker, if it's impement based, they aren't going to get Gouge Charging or multi-attacking DPR. The best they can hope for is going the monk/sorceror direction and getting lots of damage via attacking tons of targets. I don't think the vampire stood a chance, especially when they didn't want it to turn into an axe wielding charger or a whirling dervish.

One of the big questions is what exactly is the 'expected' DPR for strikers and the like? In June they are doing an "official" rules update, and sooner or later we'll see the ranger (with his twin strike, etc) getting some updates as well. It's possible that the Vampire is expected to have DPR that while a bit on the low side, but that the top end DPR will be brought down to be more in line with the 'expectation'. It does seem that with the 1/rnd quarry damage/sneak attack/curse and the "no ability modifier" damage for twin strike that they underestimated the value of multi attacks and off standard attacks (the ranger is one of the best DPR in the game and that has pretty much NOTHING to do with their quarry striker mechanic ...) Heck the ammount of nerfing put onto multi-attacks (especially ones that target the same person on each attack) has been nerfed a lot.

 

[Aegeri]

A couple things:

(a) You still need to get C/A for suprising charge. Sure, there are easy ways to get it, but charging into C/A does make it a little more difficult (you need to be able to move into position if you intend to charge into a flank, or get the enemy alone for cunning stalker).

This is actually rather trivial. Cunning stalker will 9/10 do the trick and enemies that group up are asking to be wrecked by controllers. Anything else there is flanking and status effects. Getting CA a lot of the time is actually pretty easy. It's also not like it makes a huge difference to them in the end. It's delicious icing on an incredibly delicious cake: Not a required part of abusing charging (just adds to it).

Really the reason the slayer builds for charging is because they are strength/dex and have a stance for +2 accuracy on charging (which is where they get most of their DPR in reality - accuracy). The +2 accuracy, combined with +1 for charging is what makes it absurd. When you're getting 80%+ chances to hit and this is before any CA, you know there is trouble.

Really, not matter WHAT they give a striker, if it's impement based, they aren't going to get Gouge Charging or multi-attacking DPR.

Which is why they need much bigger bonuses! It's difficult to determine what the expected DPR the vampire should be doing is, but it is pretty clear now that when the vampire is failing to out-damage many non-strikers - there is a massive problem.

Sadly even with the rules update coming, there isn't much hope this edition for fixing the problem with multiple attacks against single ones. It's a flaw that is baked into the system and would take a huge rewrite to fix. I would expect something to be done about twin strike, because it's a highlighted problem again and again (especially half-elven avengers pinching it to abuse crit fishing). Charging is something I hope will get a serious look at though.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Now you're saying what I do about the binder! Which is basically that the original Warlock does everything it does, with better control and more damage. That's what makes the binder awful, because it just doesn't do anything in the game that another class doesn't do better. At least the Vampire unequivocally deserves its own little unique niche in the game.

Plus the Warlock is about to get a boost to its damage dealing power soon anyway!

Except it doesn't make the binder 'awful'. In fact the binder isn't a bad class at all, it has more coherent theme than the original warlock. It really could use more power choices in my opinion, but that's my tastes more than anything. I could go into what I think the binder illustrates about the game, but we're already far off topic here.

This is actually rather trivial. Cunning stalker will 9/10 do the trick and enemies that group up are asking to be wrecked by controllers. Anything else there is flanking and status effects. Getting CA a lot of the time is actually pretty easy. It's also not like it makes a huge difference to them in the end. It's delicious icing on an incredibly delicious cake: Not a required part of abusing charging (just adds to it).

Really the reason the slayer builds for charging is because they are strength/dex and have a stance for +2 accuracy on charging (which is where they get most of their DPR in reality - accuracy). The +2 accuracy, combined with +1 for charging is what makes it absurd. When you're getting 80%+ chances to hit and this is before any CA, you know there is trouble.
Which is why they need much bigger bonuses! It's difficult to determine what the expected DPR the vampire should be doing is, but it is pretty clear now that when the vampire is failing to out-damage many non-strikers - there is a massive problem.

Sadly even with the rules update coming, there isn't much hope this edition for fixing the problem with multiple attacks against single ones. It's a flaw that is baked into the system and would take a huge rewrite to fix. I would expect something to be done about twin strike, because it's a highlighted problem again and again (especially half-elven avengers pinching it to abuse crit fishing). Charging is something I hope will get a serious look at though.

I doubt there's much chance they will do huge surgery on either charging or multi-attacking. It is possible Twin Strike might get hammered on, but I'm even a bit skeptical about that, it is very iconic at this point and they could have nerfed it in the very first PHB1 errata as it was already quite obvious in week 2 of 4e that it was out of line. The problem with charging is that there's no one thing to nerf. Horned Helm, Badge of the Berzerker, Surprising Charge, the Gouge, etc etc etc pretty much all have to get the hammer because you can stack up many different combinations of those elements to stupid levels. OTOH they did nerf down orbizards and the situation was similar, but that one WAS game-breaking whereas high damage output for a specific build type is crappy but doesn't have quite the same impact. There are also a lot of ways to thwart charge-centric builds tactically. It was almost impossible to thwart the old "I cast sleep through my orb of Inescapable consequences..."

 

[Aegeri]

Except it doesn't make the binder 'awful'. In fact the binder isn't a bad class at all, it has more coherent theme than the original warlock.

This is irrelevant. If there are two identical choices (and really that's what we're talking about as they share the same powers and general theme) and one is worse than the other, then yes, it is awful. The binder actually isn't as good a controller as the original striker warlock. That's how sad it is!

I mean if we have Class A, who does everything you do, have the same general flavor/theme, is a better controller than you (your primary role), can pinch your best thing (your at-will power, which is pretty damn great TBH), gets better encounter power choices than you and to add insult to injury to all this deals a whole crapload more damage, awful is indeed the only good description of it.

I could go into what I think the binder illustrates about the game, but we're already far off topic here.

That's easy, it shows the designers don't actually pay attention to the options they have added into the game! Unfortunately like the Vampire, I am not hopeful of the binder getting support to boost it over the original warlock. So sadly it will end up stuck in the "Why does this exist and is inferior in every way to being just a regular warlock (or Hexblade, who BTW is a GOOD example of adding a neat new option to Warlocks)" category of classes in 4E

The problem with charging is that there's no one thing to nerf. Horned Helm, Badge of the Berzerker, Surprising Charge, the Gouge, etc etc etc pretty much all have to get the hammer because you can stack up many different combinations of those elements to stupid levels.

You gave the example of save ends things, but they haven't been unafraid to do this with surgeless healing as well as another example (and that errata'ed a ton of stuff). I wouldn't put it out of the realm of possibility of dealing with a few of those items at least.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This is irrelevant. If there are two identical choices (and really that's what we're talking about as they share the same powers and general theme) and one is worse than the other, then yes, it is awful. The binder actually isn't as good a controller as the original striker warlock. That's how sad it is!

I mean if we have Class A, who does everything you do, have the same general flavor/theme, is a better controller than you (your primary role), can pinch your best thing (your at-will power, which is pretty damn great TBH), gets better encounter power choices than you and to add insult to injury to all this deals a whole crapload more damage, awful is indeed the only good description of it.
That's easy, it shows the designers don't actually pay attention to the options they have added into the game! Unfortunately like the Vampire, I am not hopeful of the binder getting support to boost it over the original warlock. So sadly it will end up stuck in the "Why does this exist and is inferior in every way to being just a regular warlock (or Hexblade, who BTW is a GOOD example of adding a neat new option to Warlocks)" category of classes in 4E
You gave the example of save ends things, but they haven't been unafraid to do this with surgeless healing as well as another example (and that errata'ed a ton of stuff). I wouldn't put it out of the realm of possibility of dealing with a few of those items at least.

As I said before, I don't want to derail this thread with a discussion of the evolution of 4e design philosophy and the reasons why the binder was created in the first place, etc. We can talk about it elsewhere and I'd be happy to do that.

As for nerfing charging, it is possible. It depends on whether they see it as an issue that is really disrupting the whole basis of the game or not like lockdown builds and surgeless healing were. Those both HAD to be reigned in as they were undermining the workability of the game in general. Charge builds are an annoyance, but all they do is create some high DPR situational builds that don't actually do anything you couldn't achieve in other ways before they came along. Still, they may tone them down some, and I'd be in favor of that. Just not SURE it will happen. I won't be surprised either way.

 

[Neonchameleon]

1) The vampire has no native accuracy boosting feature, unlike the Slayer and Rogue (who gain a natural +1 bonus to pretty much everything they want to do). The vampire does get its choice of NADs, but the Thief can turn all of his attacks into targeting reflex and with his ridiculous accuracy as well.

For the record, this is false. The Vampire's native accuracy booster is a full-spectrum choice of NADs (including a +2 damage vs will). A smart vampire can always pick their target's low defence.

3) The vampires secondary damage mechanics don't scale anywhere near that of essentials strikers.

In exchange the Vampire gets daily powers (unlike the Thief, the Slayer, and the Scout - leaving just the Hexblade which IIRC scales notably worse than the other three).

The vampire could use a lot of support and does in fact really need it at paragon and above. This is about the time that the OAssassin becomes laughably bad as well (coincidence? I think not).
...
But in fairness, at least the vampire isn't the binder!

Agreed on both points. And unlike either the Binder or IMO the OAssassin, there's something the Vampire does better than any other class in the game; goes into a small fight that should drain healing surges despite being nothing more than a speed bump, and comes out the other side having lost absolutely nothing. EL+3 or +4 fights they really suffer in. But a string of fast EL-1 fights or a PC campaign of harassment and hit and fade and the vampire works wonders.

That said, it's normally the EL+3 that are the important ones...

 

[Aegeri]

For the record, this is false. The Vampire's native accuracy booster is a full-spectrum choice of NADs (including a +2 damage vs will). A smart vampire can always pick their target's low defence.

This isn't false in any way. Targeting NADs is not truly equivalent to a bonus to accuracy for a striker and neither does it significantly boost the vampires DPR. I do see what you're aiming at, but it doesn't work out this way in practice especially when you need to use your temp HP granting power (particularly in difficult encounters). They do at least target reflex with their biggest damage die (1d10), but then again they really rely on the temp HP at-will in my experience and that targets fort. Fort - coincidentally - is the worst NAD in the game to target.

In exchange the Vampire gets daily powers (unlike the Thief, the Slayer, and the Scout - leaving just the Hexblade which IIRC scales notably worse than the other three).

If these dailies actually did decent damage this might have been a good point, but unfortunately they don't

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I guess the EL+3 encounters are those, which will immediately end the adventuring day. So the vampire just has to survive... He can actually spend 1 surge for increased damage, and be healed durring the fight and regenerate to bloodied afterwards, when he, if needed get a surge from an ally.

Also, the vampire can suck dry a person he happen´s to meet. If it is a noncombatant, he can get it without taking blood... but news will be spread, that a vampire is around... or if the person is a nonminion, he will be able to pick a fight, possibly killing a good person. (Don´t tell me this is bag of rats... I would not allow such things if it did not have in game consequences that could get very rough. Sucking dry actual rats won´t give surges, btw...)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This isn't false in any way. Targeting NADs is not truly equivalent to a bonus to accuracy for a striker and neither does it significantly boost the vampires DPR. I do see what you're aiming at, but it doesn't work out this way in practice especially when you need to use your temp HP granting power (particularly in difficult encounters).
If these dailies actually did decent damage this might have been a good point, but unfortunately they don't

I think we should wait and see what kind of ongoing support the Vampire class gets before we become too exercised. From a design standpoint there are a couple of things to observe. It is a LOT easier to start off conservatively with something that is a fairly significant departure from existing mechanics and build on it than it is to start off overpowered and try to figure out how to bring something back down to size. This is especially true with Essentials style designs where often scaling the design back involves changes to basic class features as opposed to just nerfing a power or two. Notice how things have gone with Psionics where the core mechanic itself is OP. Has it been fixed? No. Will it ever be fixed? No. It really isn't fixable without fairly drastic surgery. Give WotC some credit for learning from their mistakes.

I'd also point out that the Vampire is a bit unique. I don't think they WANT it to be an option that you take in order to create an optimal build. That would lead to a situation where vampires are crawling out of the woodwork and would be a big annoyance to a lot of people. The design goal would be more to make it a viable middle-of-the-road option that someone who's already intending to work with that concept won't be suffering terribly for picking. In heroic tier and into low paragon it is already pretty much there. At higher levels it needs a little tweaking, but that can be accomplished with some added options. I wouldn't assume the class isn't pretty close to where the designers were aiming for at this point in time. They have concerns that transcend any one specific mechanic. They may also have goals and directions they wish to go in of which we are totally unaware that will put current design decisions more in context over time.