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

Gort said:
1. Bob the Badass level 8 fighter gets dominated alone by a Vampire Lord, who drinks his blood and turns him into a vampire.

2. Bob the Badass later confronts his erstwhile party and they all go, "Oh no! Bob was a really skilled fighter, how on earth will we defeat him now that he's evil and has all the powers of vampirism at his command?!"

3. Since Bob is still balanced with himself as a level 8 fighter (fewer HD for example) the party defeat him easily, because they are 3 level 8 guys and he is only one level 8 equivalent guy. The party all go, "Oh, that was a lot easier than we expected."
What you describe is how the Vampire works in 3e for NPCs.

It does not address how Vampirism works for PCs.

If Bob the Badass Fighter 8 is turned into a vampire, and attacks the party his CR is 10. So 3 8th level PCs have a harder time fighting a CR 10 opponent. You are describing NPC rules.

If Bob the Badass Fighter 8 becomes a vampire and stays a PC, he's now the equivalent of a 16th level character.

PCs and NPCs work under different rules in 3e..

In 4e, we have been told several times that Monsters do not follow the same rules as PCs. An NPC vampire might be a Minion, or an Elite vampire. A PC however would probably have to deal with gaining their powers over several levels.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Zamkaizer said:
Any character that by it's very nature negatively affects it's allies is unsuitable for players. Undead are sustained by a type of energy diametrically opposed to that which sustains normal creatures. As such, casters able to channel both types of energy must juggle their resources accordingly. Undead are vulnerable to even allied turning, disabling an important weapon in clerics' arsenals. Most undead get weaker if they don't perform rituals that are morally ambiguous at best. Most undead have severe sunlight issues. Most undead can't interact socially without recourse to illusory magic. To say undead are opposites of your typical adventurer is not exaggeration. Any party that finds it fit to include one must bend over backwards to do so.

As for lycanthropes, essentially every folktale concerning their various incarnations has them slaughtering wholesale those closest to them. While a werebeast with control over their curse might make a suitable character - aside from being in grave danger should anyone discover their secret - it would be exceedingly difficult to have player begin to turn without killing an ally or being killed themselves.

A vampire in an evil party, with a cleric that rebukes, would be fine--the cleric would use his turn attempts to bolster the vampire. As for sunlight, plenty of groups include Drow, goblins, and true orcs as PCs, and 4e will almost certainly allow for playing Drow and goblins, at least. They don't necessarily need illusions to interact socially, but they might need ranks in Bluff or Disguise. Most of us will be portraying tieflings as outcasts and untouchables in our campaigns, anyway, so they'll need the same treatment.

These problems aren't insurmountable with well-designed mechanics. The whole point of my original post was that, in 3.X, they are effectively insurmountable, and 4e should rework those monsters so they don't break the game if a PC gets bitten. Do you have any suggestions for how that might be accomplished? The option already exists in the core rules of D&D 3.X, and I propose that those rules should be improved for 4th edition. There are plenty of people advocating their complete removal; is that what you propose?
 

Imaro said:
If a player is turned into a vampire it shouldn't be a reward

<snip>

Why wouldn't characters seek it out? Where is the horror in this, or even the fear in being changed? I really can't get behind the notion that everything in the gameworld should also be available to any player who wants it, especially when I'm rewarding them with cool, new powers for loosing a fight.
Green Knight said:
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.
I think the point of the OP is that vampirism should be a balanced option, so that becoming a vampire is a different choice from those typically available to a player, but does not give that player a more powerful PC.

As to whether or not losing a fight to a vampire would suddenly become a reward rather than a loss - currently there are some PrCs that require the character to have died in a certain way and come back to life, but I don't think that these have created any serious problem with players treating defeats in a fight as rewards rather than losses.

And the PC who was defeated by a vampire still wouldn't get XP for overcoming a challenge.

Anthtriel said:
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.
Good point about keeping the player and the PC separate.

Arkhandus said:
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.
Anthtriel said:
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).
Like Anthtriel said, the PC would not get to choose. The player would - how the outcome is narrated within the context of the game would be up to the player and the GM to work out together.

Sammael said:
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.
This is a strong claim. What's the evidence for it? Is it relvant to this issue that the 1st ed DMG had about a page of rules for playing PC lycanthropes?
 

Hella_Tellah said:
These problems aren't insurmountable with well-designed mechanics. The whole point of my original post was that, in 3.X, they are effectively insurmountable, and 4e should rework those monsters so they don't break the game if a PC gets bitten. Do you have any suggestions for how that might be accomplished? The option already exists in the core rules of D&D 3.X, and I propose that those rules should be improved for 4th edition. There are plenty of people advocating their complete removal; is that what you propose?

The Paragon Path / Prestige Class / Monstrous Progression method is most definitely the way to go with acquired templates for players. But let's confront some other potential issues with vampiric player characters - and some way to solve them - by examining the distinguishing traits of vampires.

Aversion to Holy Symbols - Allied turning is definitely an issue. Most player clerics turn undead, which creates problems if an unfortunate priest's ally is afflicted with vampirism. Should the vampiric adventurer find himself unable to overcome his companion's ill-advised turning attempt, he'll either take holy damage, cower in fear, or flee in terror - perhaps right towards the enemy undead the cleric was attempting to ward off in the first place. This issue can be resolved through careful timing and communication. For instance, perhaps the vampire could turn into his bat form and fly out of range before the power activates, or at least position himself in the manner least likely cause significant injury, carefully avoiding hazards like enemies, traps, and cliffs.

While vampire characters could potentially have abilities to temporarily augment their natural resistance to turning, this would also apply to vampire opponents as well, and as such, be ill advised, as it would spoil clerics' fun.

Being Amongst the Living Dead - Previous editions had a karma-like fiasco where living things were animated by "positive" (Jedi) energy, while aberrant undead were fueled by "negative" (Sith) energy. This made very little sense, since our closest analogue in real life - matter and anti-matter - dictates that undead would explode if they touched anything. We should hope then, that all spells related to this positive / negative malarchy have been scrapped. Instead, powers that affect undead do so because they're unholy affronts to the natural order, not because they're a member of the Confucian version of the Jets or Sharks. By that same token, healing spells should heal anything that has a vaguely organic physiology. Since vampires are, for all intents and purposes, physiologically normal - aside from a distinct lack of digestive, respiratory, and cardiovascular activity, and a whole boatload of unexplainable supernatural abilities - we should give them the benefit of the doubt and say their broken bones and injured moral aren't that different from anyone else's.

Extreme Aversion to Sunlight - Many things in Dungeons & Dragons aren't fond of Mr. Sun. Everyone ignores this fact though, so it's cool. Orc skirmishers ambush your party regardless of the hour of day, as if they were the raider equivalent of Bagel Bites. Your typical Drow adventurer would have a tan if their skin could get any darker. You can't pull that s**t with vampires. Everyone and their grandma knows direct sunlight is what vampires fear most, especially if their grandma is Eastern European. The easiest solution to this problem is having the brilliant light dawn not outright vaporize the unfortunate undead, but instead place immense strain upon the profane mechanism that fuels them, forcing them to feed sooner than they otherwise would. Entirely faithful to the mythos? Hardly. Significantly less annoying? Certainly.

EDIT: To be continued later, due to length and sleep.
 
Last edited:

I think the point of the OP is that vampirism should be a balanced option, so that becoming a vampire is a different choice from those typically available to a player, but does not give that player a more powerful PC.

So make vampires equal to elves and humans? Equally silly. A 3rd-level Vampire Fighter is supposed to be vastly tougher then a 3rd-level Human Fighter. And a Prestige Class for Vampire is ridiculous. Vampires don't get their powers incrementally. They get them all at once. An argument can be made that they get more, later (like turning into a bat, wolf, mist, etc), but a starting vampire should already be superhuman, far beyond any mortal. Not to mention that applying a Prestige Class for a vampire wouldn't make any sense. I'm a vampire, but I don't actually get any vampiric abilities until I gain another 3,000 XP and level into the Vampire Prestige Class?

And everything I said above about a Vampire Prestige Class applies equally to the idea of turning Vampires into a Talent Tree. Once again, you'd still have to wait til a character who's been turned into a vampire gains enough XP to level. Until then, he's a VINO (Vampire In Name Only). And once he becomes a "Vampire", he doesn't become what people expect of a vampire. He instead becomes some cheap imitation of one, and he'll have to advance several more levels before he's FINALLY equal to the newly created generic vampires one finds in literature, who possess those very same powers only days after their transformation.

No, there's no two ways about it. Vampires should NOT be allowed for PC's. If you allow for vampires to be as powerful as they should be starting out, then any character who gets turned into one will be grossly overpowered in comparison to other PC's, and there'll be players actively seeking to become vampires in order to buff up their characters. If you weaken vampires so that they're balanced with other characters, then they're not really vampires, anymore, and you completely destroy the feel of that monster. So yeah, no vampire PC's.
 

Hella_Tellah said:
The Solution

...

In 4th edition, a PC should take on the aspects of a vampire in stages. Initially, the vampire becomes stronger and more resilient, but addicted to the blood of the living and vulnerable to sunlight and holy power. These changes should be balaced against one another as a +0 template in 3.X would be. They should be noticable, but minor enough that they don't replace a PC's core function in the group: a vampire wizard remains a controller, a vampire fighter remains a defender, and so on. From there, the afflicted PC should have the option of pursuing the expansion of his abilities as a vampire as he would take levels in a class. The curse of vampirism opens up to the PC the option of taking levels in a vampire class, each level granting him supernatural abilities and, importantly, hit dice. Dominating mortal minds, commanding the creatures of the night, and transforming into useful animal forms should be the result of a vampire's diligence in focusing on the nature of undeath.

Similar methods should be used for all the iconic templates of D&D.

...

tl;dr: Turn templates into prestige classes.

Your thoughts? How would you reform templated creatures in D&D?

3rd edition had some excellent articles about doing exactly this, but they were only online and maybe most people overlooked them:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sp/20030824a
 

Green Knight said:
A 3rd-level Vampire Fighter is supposed to be vastly tougher then a 3rd-level Human Fighter. And a Prestige Class for Vampire is ridiculous.
Maybe. But why can't a vampire's additional power be a trade-off (eg +2 strength, -2 penalty to all actions while in sunlight) and then later powers be acquired via the talent trees/PrC? After all, we do have a PrC for half-dragons.

Or maybe the vampire abilities could be treated as an equivalent to magic items of the appropriate level.

Zamkaizer said:
Allied turning is definitely an issue. Most player clerics turn undead, which creates problems if an unfortunate priest's ally is afflicted with vampirism. Should the vampiric adventurer find himself unable to overcome his companion's ill-advised turning attempt, he'll either take holy damage, cower in fear, or flee in terror - perhaps right towards the enemy undead the cleric was attempting to ward off in the first place. This issue can be resolved through careful timing and communication.
I don't see how it's any different from the Evoker avoiding fireballing the party's Fighters.
 

Gort said:
Okay, I'll try and illustrate my problem with "balanced vampire PCs".

1. Bob the Badass level 8 fighter gets dominated alone by a Vampire Lord, who drinks his blood and turns him into a vampire.

2. Bob the Badass later confronts his erstwhile party and they all go, "Oh no! Bob was a really skilled fighter, how on earth will we defeat him now that he's evil and has all the powers of vampirism at his command?!"

3. Since Bob is still balanced with himself as a level 8 fighter (fewer HD for example) the party defeat him easily, because they are 3 level 8 guys and he is only one level 8 equivalent guy. The party all go, "Oh, that was a lot easier than we expected."

Vampirism needs to make characters more powerful or you seriously degrade how strong vampires are supposed to be. And if being infected with vampirism makes you more powerful, you're no longer a balanced player character.
You have a good point, but I believe you don't necessarily need the "8th level character turns vampire" -> "8th level character is now effectively 10th level" flavor.

In vampire stories, it's more often the normal citizens who get super powerful by becoming vampires, not necessarily the people who are already super powerful. We still need some kind of "vampire spawn" rule like in 3E, so the lowly citizen is covered anyway.
That only leaves heroic characters, and if you still want to have them return stronger than they were before you can just handwave it and give NPCs, but not PCs, a faster levelup upon becoming vampires. That doesn't need any specific rules, just some suggestion in the text for DMs.

Green Knight said:
And a Prestige Class for Vampire is ridiculous. Vampires don't get their powers incrementally. They get them all at once. An argument can be made that they get more, later (like turning into a bat, wolf, mist, etc), but a starting vampire should already be superhuman, far beyond any mortal.
Well, the level 1 commoner who becomes a vampire spawn is suddenly a lot stronger, even superhuman from his perspective. But heroic characters are as strong as ordinary vampires to begin with, so why should they suddenly become so much stronger?
As for vampires becoming stronger and getting access to more abilities over time: That's a very, very old concept, vampires losing their humanity over time, it is in most vampire fiction.

It's also becoming more common place for vampires not to turn into ash when exposed to sunlight, so I could either see an ability that gives you some resistance, or let it be the default assumption for everyone (except vampire spawn) and then have it as a disadvantage for particulary powerful abilities.
 

Maybe. But why can't a vampire's additional power be a trade-off (eg +2 strength, -2 penalty to all actions while in sunlight) and then later powers be acquired via the talent trees/PrC? After all, we do have a PrC for half-dragons.

The Half-Dragon doesn't have centuries of myth behind it saying that when one becomes a Half-Dragon, he goes all in. The vampire does. When someone becomes a vampire, they don't just become a little stronger with a niggling dislike of sunlike, and slowly gain their strength, reflexes, and vulnerabilities over the course of weeks or months. They go all in. They die, they rise again as vampires, and they immediately get the whole shebang. Superhuman strength (+2 Str doesn't qualify as superhuman. That doesn't even make them as strong as an Orc), superhuman speed and reflexes, invulnerability to most threats except for things like wooden stakes and fire, burned to death by the sun, etc. Vampires are supposed to become ridiculously powerful from the moment they get turned. If you're gonna make make them so that they only become a little bit more powerful at a time, then what's the point? You may as well call them some other name, because they sure as hell aren't vampires.

Or maybe the vampire abilities could be treated as an equivalent to magic items of the appropriate level.

That just throws up another problem. For that to work, vampires would have to be barred from using magic items. Otherwise, you'd have a guy who's a vampire as well as all the usual equipment for a character of his level, and once again he's overpowered. But on the other hand, there's no justification whatsoever for saying that a vampire can't use magic items.
 

Green Knight said:
Superhuman strength (+2 Str doesn't qualify as superhuman. That doesn't even make them as strong as an Orc), superhuman speed and reflexes, invulnerability to most threats except for things like wooden stakes and fire, burned to death by the sun, etc.
You cannot do that with stats enhancements. If you already have Strength 20, then I don't see why you should suddenly have Strength 26 instead, yet the lowly scholar with Strength 6 is now at Strength 12 and still no stronger than the average Orc.

For the "vampires are suddenly a lot stronger" flavor, the vampire spawn rules are pretty much perfect. For more powerful individuals, you need something different. And I realize that it would seem pretty odd if the 12th level vampire had less strength than the lowly vampire spawn, but it could be argued that low-level people are so weak the "beast" overcomes them immediately and they lose their humanity and will entirely, whereas stronger vampires remain in control.
That would also help explain why vampire spawn are slaves of their masters, yet more powerful vampires are not.
 

Remove ads

Top