Vampires: Mathematics Proves WotC is (un)Dead wrong

[airwalkrr]

Am I the only one who is amazed that it took a "researcher" to figure this out?

Besides all that, his assumptions are all wrong so this is utter crap.

Vampires exist. Deal with it.

 

[Angel Tarragon]

From Today's Yahoo News:

<snip>

:\ I doubt that who ever wrote that has ever seen any of the Blade movies.

 

[Cthulhudrew]

Vampires exist. Deal with it.

Not when I get through with them, they won't.

 

[FireLance]

I don't think any game I've ever been in has had a vampire successfully execute a grapple blood drain. Then again, there weren't any commoners in the room either. 1d4 Con probably isn't going to kill anyone, and any sucker worth staking should have a bunch of thralls to keep him fed without needing to slaughter 3-5 a week.

I thought that too, until I checked the SRD and discovered that vampires and vampire spawn did Constitution drain, not Constitution damage. You don't recover ability drain without magical help, so a vampire who doesn't want to create spawn generally won't be able to feed on the same person more than two or three times. :\

I think it really ought to be Constitution damage, but them's the RAW.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

According to Megadeth, it's "Youthanasia"

Amazing. I applaud this, really. Those researchers could waste their time by applying their knowledge of maths to solving some of mankind's real problems, but they keep it real by applying their magic to debunk legends (and not even whole legends, just one version of it).

Now he has to really engage his brain to prove how it's impossible for World of Darkness-grade Vampires to exist. You know, those who just have to get some blood out of a mortal each day, without (necessarily) killing him, and who have to make a conscious effort to create another vampire. I think there's some serious algebra involved in that, but I'll wait.

 

[pawsplay]

The researchers failed to take into account the number of radiant servants of pelor and hunters of the dead constantly curtailing the population.

Apart from that, though, vampries don't produce spawn by one bite. According to Dracula, someone becomes a vampire by drinking the blood of the vampire over a period of days. Even in D&D, a single drain attack won't kill a victim.

Now, the wight situation is different. A vampire spawn doesn't create vampires. Thus, anyone killed by their slam attack rises some time later as a wight. And wights create spawn in 1d4 stupid rounds. So if a vampire kills a few people in a major town, it's going to be Dawn of the Dead a few days later.

 

[silentspace]

What a load of bunk. Doesn't he know of the werewolf / vampire wars? Or the slayers? I mean come on, what kind of researcher is this?

 

[Herzog]

Why belief in vampires is dangerous...

I'm just wondering why the popular belief in these things is at "dangerously high levels."

I mean, I think it's pretty silly myself to believe in such things, but where exactly is the danger?

Because anyone who knows anything about vampires also knows how to kill them: a wooden stake through the hart.

Unfortunately, that is also quite fatal to normal human beings.

Herzog

 

[Doug McCrae]

It's pretty obvious that Professor Costas Efthimiou is a disinformation agent in the pay of the Vampire Conspiracy. Or possibly even a vampire himself. I'm off to stake him through the heart.

 

[Psion]

Sheesh.

This is one of those situations in which you need to revert to 2e. The VanRichten's Guide to Vampires explicitly states how vampires break maul the corpse of kills or throw them in running water so they don't rise to become competitors.

So to the researcher, don't you think vampires know this?

Amateurs!