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

[Anthtriel]

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?

I think the basic premise of this thread was to give the newly vampirised PC only very minor if any vampire ability, and let him pay for them just as he would for normal class/race abilities. There is nothing they absolutely need from a flavor perspective, except for disadvantages.

Of course you don't want to encourage munchkins to become vampires.

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.

Well, who says you find a vampire or that if you do, the vampire is currently in need of a spawn and doesn't just kill you?
If a DM doesn't consent to a vampiric PC, he has no reason to make one.

 

[Shortman McLeod]

It's fluff.

ARGH! FLAVOR! FLAVOR! FLAVOR!

 

[Deset Gled]

Isn't this thread about soliciting ideas for making such a concept work in the 4e environment?

If that's what the OP's after, he needs to start from a 4e standpoint, not just making general complaints that go against the very nature of how vampires have worked in the past. For example, how do you make the transitions described work in a system where monsters will not be following the same rules and creation system that PCs do? Or, how can you describe vampires as a talent tree? How can you fit vampires into any of the flavor that we've seen? What part role can a vampire fit, and how are vampires supposed to work in the new settings?

Making vampires work as described by the OP in any edition of D+D is, to me, essentially the same as trying to make Battletech style mechas or Star Wars style space battles work in D+D. Sure, you could if you want to muck around enough. But I don't think it should be a primary design consideration for a new edition.

I stand by my original stance that the OP doesn't need 4e, they need a different base system.

 

[Hella_Tellah]

I stand by my original stance that the OP doesn't need 4e, they need a different base system.

I want a 4e that supports a basic tenant of what vampires are. If vampires can't turn the PCs into vampires, why call them vampires? If vampires can turn the PCs into vampires, then the mechanics for that transition should work better than they do in 3.5. It's obviously possible to have a PC who's been turned into a vampire become an NPC, but that just makes it an alternative death effect. I don't find that a particularly compelling game mechanic.

I propose that D&D 4e can and should have a good set of mechanics for vampires, lycanthropes, liches and ghosts as PCs, since they are all acquired templates. My proposal is just one, and I'd like to hear others.

 

[Arkhandus]

Vampirism is an affliction. If you're afflicted with it, you become a vampire. You don't choose to just become a little bit vampire. You become a frikkin' vampire. It isn't unreasonable for the complete process of transformation to be gradual, but it is entirely unreasonable for it to be handled as a matter of choices at level-up.

If acquiring the 'template' takes several levels, then contracting vampirism should make it a requirement that the character's next X number of levels must be taken in the Vampire template class or whatever, which probably grants weak hit dice/basic stats but various increases to ability scores and new special abilities, along with undead traits (loss of Constitution score, gaining immunity to critical hits and sneak attacks, etc.). It should not be a choice to become more vampiric or not, or when to do so, if the character is afflicted with vampirism.

They might get a choice later on as to whether or not they want to pick up additional vampiric Talents or whatnot, but their development into a full, basic vampire should be automatic. Only afterward, in full vampiric form, might they choose to specifically pursue additional vampiric powers by embracing their new, undead nature.


And only living creatures should have Constitution scores, far as I'm concerned. Otherwise all objects should possess Constitution scores as well. And that'd just be wierd since objects don't normally have ability scores. But constructs and undead are really just objects that have been magically animated (in the case of undead, formerly-living-creatures that have died and been reanimated, but still very much dead flesh).

 

[Sammael]

I maintain my position that vampires, lycanthropes, liches, and ghosts are wholly inappropriate as PCs in a party with regular humans, elves, and dwarves, and should not be allowed at the table. Such PCs will INVARIABLY hog the spotlight away from the other players, regardless of the mechanics used to describe their condition.

If I want to play a vampire, I'll play VtM - where ALL players play such monstrosities. D&D doesn't do those things well, and I don't think it should.

 

[Gundark]

I like your ideas. I think the monster as a Prc isn't a bad idea. Will it be in 4e core? Nope. Will it be an interesting idea to pursue once 4e is released? Sure thing.

 

[Anthtriel]

I
Making vampires work as described by the OP in any edition of D+D is, to me, essentially the same as trying to make Battletech style mechas or Star Wars style space battles work in D+D. Sure, you could if you want to muck around enough. But I don't think it should be a primary design consideration for a new edition.

I stand by my original stance that the OP doesn't need 4e, they need a different base system.

In the latest dungeon article, there are vampire NPC with class levels, so there are definitely some rules for combining vampirism with PC classes out there. If it's done cleverly, I could see "PCs as vampires"-rules detailed in one or two pages.
Nothing fancy and nothing that could come anywhere close to White Wolf's Vampire rules, but enough to cover the classic archetype.

Vampirism is an affliction. If you're afflicted with it, you become a vampire. You don't choose to just become a little bit vampire. You become a frikkin' vampire. It isn't unreasonable for the complete process of transformation to be gradual, but it is entirely unreasonable for it to be handled as a matter of choices at level-up.

The character doesn't have any choice, but I don't see why the player shouldn't have one (and explain the flavor behind it however he wants to). Taking choice away from the player tends to be bad design.

 

[Hella_Tellah]

Vampirism is an affliction. If you're afflicted with it, you become a vampire. You don't choose to just become a little bit vampire. You become a frikkin' vampire. It isn't unreasonable for the complete process of transformation to be gradual, but it is entirely unreasonable for it to be handled as a matter of choices at level-up.

If acquiring the 'template' takes several levels, then contracting vampirism should make it a requirement that the character's next X number of levels must be taken in the Vampire template class or whatever, which probably grants weak hit dice/basic stats but various increases to ability scores and new special abilities, along with undead traits (loss of Constitution score, gaining immunity to critical hits and sneak attacks, etc.). It should not be a choice to become more vampiric or not, or when to do so, if the character is afflicted with vampirism.

They might get a choice later on as to whether or not they want to pick up additional vampiric Talents or whatnot, but their development into a full, basic vampire should be automatic. Only afterward, in full vampiric form, might they choose to specifically pursue additional vampiric powers by embracing their new, undead nature.

I wouldn't give the player a choice, either, and would require that they either cure the vampirism or continue taking levels in the vampire "class." I thought that might be an even more controversial stance, though, since it violates the general principle of player choice in terms of class.

But seriously, does anyone else have another idea of how to make acquired templates like lycanthropes and vampires work better? There have been plenty of people proposing that these templates be removed for PCs altogether; does someone have another view of how they could work more smoothly and remain in the game?

 

[Rechan]

If I want to play a vampire, I'll play VtM - where ALL players play such monstrosities. D&D doesn't do those things well, and I don't think it should.

Unless of course you're playing in Eberron and you're playing an Orc, or a Hobgoblin, or a goblin.

Or you're in Ravenloft, where it's just Appropriate.

Didn't Races of the Dragon have Kobolds as an option? OMG MONSTERS END OF THE WORLD.

I once played a homebrew system that had ghosts and ghouls as PC races. It was "There's magic in the modern real world". It worked nicely. Having a PC who's an ancient samurai warrior bound to his sword, who is one of the PCs - works fine.