D&D 4E Why Vampires Suck in 3.X, and How 4e Can Fix Them

[Imaro]

It heard it's kinda scary and painful to get your blood sucked out of you. And some people don't like turning into ash when exposed to sunlight. Some people believe turning into an undead monster makes you unpopular in your local village. Others think it's incompatible with their belief in the sun god.
Oh, and it's kind of annoying to get chased by angry mobs.


There are lots of reasons why a character wouldn't want to be a vampire. There are fewer why a player wouldn't want to play one. But you need DM consent anyway (someone needs to turn you into a vampire), so it shouldn't be too problematic.

Emphasis mine: That's what I'm talking about...You can throw all the roleplaying justfication you want out there, but in the end the player has gained more power in a game sense, for loosing a fight to an undead. Why am I fighting against him again?

Yeah you need DM consent, sort of...but what stops you, except heavy-handed tactics by the DM, if you go looking for a vamp.

 

[Hella_Tellah]

Sounds good...until you realize these very specific weaknesses do little to balance against it's bonuses over longterm play. Sounds like a power gamer's fantasy come true. You seem to have the impression that anyone who seeks this out will play the angst ridden, corrupted, anti-hero...now what happens when he decides to flex his new found power (like most players in the real world will) and punks the rest of the party, making them thralls?

I don't in the least expect that everyone will play the angst-ridden anti-hero, and I rather dislike the trope myself. You'll note I've made mention of embracing the darkness and such, because I'd much rather DM for a player who is joyfully playing a vampire. I probably wouldn't even try to make someone's character a vampire unless I knew the player would enjoy it and play it to the hilt. So, what would I do if the player starting "punking" all the other players? The same thing I do with all problem players: explain that "the game we are playing is about the fun of everyone at the table, and would you kindly stop being a twelve-year-old." Now, if the vampire is roughly as powerful as all the other characters, as I'm proposing, he'd be hard-pressed to take on the whole party on his own anyway, but that's another matter altogether.

Also, "very specific weaknesses?" The need to spend half the day in a coffin is pretty substantial. I haven't proposed any specific, numerical benefits to being a vampire, so why would you assume that those benefits would outweigh a vampire's weaknesses?

 

[Green Knight]

Vampires get powerful abilities, and an evil PC should be able to choose that path

So munchkinism should be encouraged?

Put me in the camp that says that vampires should be monsters, only. You want to play a vampire, do it in a White Wolf game. But in D&D, there's way to much payoff in comparison to the penalties. If becoming a Vampire becomes a playable option, then you'll have PC's hoping they'll run into vampires, so they can be turned into one, and get a major boost to their abilities.

Nor are they comparable to Lycanthropes. You risk contracting Lycanthropy just by being bitten by a Lycanthrope, which occurs easily enough in a combat. Vampires, however, have to go through some convoluted rigamarole to create a vampire, and that sort of thing doesn't actually occur during combat. In some cases they simply have to drain a person of every last drop of blood, killing them. And no vampire is gonna stand there just draining one person while the rest of the party is wailing away on him with Magic Missiles and Flaming Longswords. And that's the easiest way. The other way is the vampire has to drain them to near death, and then force the person to drink his vampiric blood. That's something which DEFINITELY doesn't occur in combat. Who knows which method WoTC will choose for the 4E vampire, but no matter which, it makes no sense for someone to become a vampire just from fighting a vampire.

I wouldn't mind seeing a Dhampir. That makes more sense, as it's a race which you're born into. It's much better to have a character like that, which is balanced with the rest of the party from the start, then have a character who's balanced with the rest of the party, and then he becomes a vampire, and suddenly he eclipses every other party member. That's crap. And if a PC who becomes a vampire doesn't eclipse other party members, well, that's crap, too. Vampires aren't a prestige class. They should be preternaturally strong and fast from the moment they become vampires. And their power should advance by age, not level.

So yeah, when a PC becomes a vampire, he should become an NPC. Best to keep vampires as they should be, inhuman monsters who relish in feeding on humanoids. The last thing I want to see is a plague of moody, goth vampires who're trying to fight their inherently dark nature but occasionally succumb to their thirst (Usually when they need a power-up before they fight the Big Bad).

 

[WayneLigon]

Yeah you need DM consent, sort of...but what stops you, except heavy-handed tactics by the DM, if you go looking for a vamp.

The vamp himself stops you; that's not a heavy-handed tactic. Vampires generally are very careful about who they turn and in general the kind of person who comes looking for it isn't the type of person you want. So the vampire says, sure, serve me well for 10 years and I'll make you a vampire. I think we see in movies how that generally turns out: after the PC has betrayed everything he ever loved and is basically a crawling, begging tool of the vamp, the vampire says 'Man, you mortals do amuse me'. *necksnap*.


I'm still not following the arguement of the OP, nor what the general point is, unless it's 'It's not easy enough for a PC to become a vampire'. Is that it?

 

[Hella_Tellah]

I'm still not following the arguement of the OP, nor what the general point is, unless it's 'It's not easy enough for a PC to become a vampire'. Is that it?

The general point is that vampirism in 3.5 is poorly handled, and the fourth edition devs should design vampires to integrate into the game better as PCs.

 

[WayneLigon]

The other way is the vampire has to drain them to near death, and then force the person to drink his vampiric blood.

Just the CON drain; they don't have to do that in D&D unless that's a house rule.

The last thing I want to see is a plague of moody, goth vampires who're trying to fight their inherently dark nature but occasionally succumb to their thirst (Usually when they need a power-up before they fight the Big Bad).

Since the PC instantly becomes Evil, there's no real struggle involved unless again you're dealing with a house rule or different setting than standard. There's a great sub plot in one of the Eberron books (which falls under 'different setting') where a woman becomes a vampire. She fights it for a time, but you can see her becoming more and more evil until she finally goes over the edge.

 

[Green Knight]

The general point is that vampirism in 3.5 is poorly handled, and the fourth edition devs should design vampires to integrate into the game better as PCs.

I think the 3.5 vampire sucks. But if the choice is between keeping it as it is, or changing it so that it makes for a better PC, then I vote for keeping it the way it is. That idiotic Slam Attack is vastly preferable to seeing a host of "Children of the Night" (TM) players doing stupid things in combat with vampires just so they can be turned into one and become an Uber-Killy Vampire of Doom. And it's also better then seeing a watered down and cheapened version of the vampire in order to keep it from making any turned PC's from becoming grossly more powerful then the rest of the party.

Just the CON drain; they don't have to do that in D&D unless that's a house rule.

I was talking about vampire turning methods from books, not D&D (Although I'd prefer that method, myself, because otherwise, the world would be quickly overrun by vampires). Either way, whichever method they decide to adopt should they decide to change vampires in 4E, it still isn't something that would occur in combat. Vampires create other vampires by getting their victims alone, dominating them (or simply holding them down with their inhuman strength), and then drinking their blood. They don't do it while they're being peppered with sword hits, arrow shots, and spell blasts.

 

[frankthedm]

I'm still not following the arguement of the OP, nor what the general point is, unless it's 'It's not easy enough for a PC to become a vampire'. Is that it?

His argument seemed to be "The 4E decent into vampirism should be a smoother transition than 3E had for those who would like to follow such a path"

 

[WayneLigon]

The general point is that vampirism in 3.5 is poorly handled, and the fourth edition devs should design vampires to integrate into the game better as PCs.

OK, if that's the point, then no, it isn't poorly handled. It's handled exactly correctly. It should be a bad thing that this occurs.

If you want alternate D&D PC vampires, check out Monte Cook's World of Darkness; Vampires there start off with four hit dice like everyone else and a small set of abilities other than their stats and a few of their other powers. Most of the classic vampire abilities are things they have to work up to.

 

[Shortman McLeod]

So...you are complaining that a PC that become infected with vampirism is unplayable as a PC?

I have to say that I don't have a problem with this.

IMO, Vampires are evil, horrible creatures of the night that prey on the innocent and the upright and are known to ally themselves with the foulest of forces arrayed against civilization--the undead and the fiendish powers. They are predators. People are tools and cattle.

But in 4e it will be KEWL to play an evil character. Witness Warlock and Tiefling in the core rules . . .