# The vampire starts with just 2 healing surges



## Neverfate (Apr 6, 2011)

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Vampire)

Linked article ^. 

New article for Design and Development.


----------



## Aegeri (Apr 6, 2011)

Vampire shades would hilariously have 1 surge, unless the number is absolutely fixed and not subject to any modifiers.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Apr 6, 2011)

Good article. 

I won't go into the whole hit point stuff and such as it is an old argument, but the idea of bloodsucking a monster enough to get a HS does not sit well with me, unless the monster is at least bloodied, or even better unconscious. But that is a big restriction.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Apr 6, 2011)

Aegeri said:


> Vampire shades would hilariously have 1 surge, unless the number is absolutely fixed and not subject to any modifiers.




you know that could be a blessing, at level 3 you can suck 2 surges during a fight, then during the short rest lose the surges over max to heal to full...


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 6, 2011)

GMforPowergamers said:


> you know that could be a blessing, at level 3 you can suck 2 surges during a fight, then during the short rest lose the surges over max to heal to full...




Just gotta make sure that you are never ever hit two rounds in a row. Ever.


----------



## Kinneus (Apr 6, 2011)

Level 1 vampires are going to be hilariously frail.

Last night, my level 18 Hybrid Swordmage/Artifcer with something like 22 Constitution got alpha-striked by basically an entire githyanki army. By the end of the fight, he'd burned 6 surges, 3 after the first round. What would a vampire do in that situation?

I'll tell you what he'd do. He'd die. Hard. And rather hilariously.

Methinks this is a bigger weakness than the designers intended, but I'm willing to withhold judgement until I see it in actual play.


----------



## Aegeri (Apr 6, 2011)

I don't think the Vampire is going to enjoy later levels, where several creatures can tear through around 2 surges worth of healing instantly. Not to mention that enemies with surge draining powers are going to make him _really_ cry.


----------



## kaomera (Apr 6, 2011)

Aegeri said:


> I don't think the Vampire is going to enjoy later levels, where several creatures can tear through around 2 surges worth of healing instantly. Not to mention that enemies with surge draining powers are going to make him _really_ cry.



I'd think more of the first than the second, as I'd expect surge-draining enemies to worry PCs that don't regen and can't get more surges a bit more... OTOH, the vampire may end up having a reverse "bossy leader" issue, he's going to have to hit before he can get a surge so you can heal him. Attack-granting is pretty win in that situation (assuming he hits).

And I think that's going to be an issue right there. While the regen should help, a vampire that misses two or more rounds in a row (or just one critical round) is going to be in some serious trouble.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Apr 6, 2011)

Good point. Watching the vampire run around trying not to get hit when he is low on hit points and cannot hit with vampire melee attacks could be amusing. 

"I have 5 hit points and no surges left, but I gotta get in MELEE with AND HIT that solo soldier so I can heal. Yeah, right."


----------



## Aegeri (Apr 6, 2011)

kaomera said:


> I'd think more of the first than the second, as I'd expect surge-draining enemies to worry PCs that don't regen and can't get more surges a bit more...



Regeneration doesn't function when you're on zero HP and so is pretty irrelevant - believe me without being able to be healed effectively you *will* end up there. Especially when the healer looks at you with 0 surges, there is _very_ little they can do about it with the immense amount of nerfs to surgeless healing in 4E.



> Attack-granting is pretty win in that situation (assuming he hits).



So the leader is basically forced to not only grant attacks to him, over say a thief or rogue who might be in a better position - but also make sure they heal them.



> While the regen should help, a vampire that misses two or more rounds in a row (or just one critical round) is going to be in some serious trouble.



Or is prevented from being able to attack in the first place - such as stunned, dominated or dazed in a difficult scenario (for example). It's _really_ swingy as a class and I honestly can't see it working very well. There has to be something really great to the vampire to make this structure work.


----------



## kaomera (Apr 6, 2011)

Aegeri said:


> Regeneration doesn't function when you're on zero HP and so is pretty irrelevant - believe me without being able to be healed effectively you *will* end up there. Especially when the healer looks at you with 0 surges, there is _very_ little they can do about it with the immense amount of nerfs to surgeless healing in 4E.



Except that any other character at zero surges (say because you're fighting surge-draining enemies) is pretty well stuck there. The vampire can stock back up, to some degree at least.


> So the leader is basically forced to not only grant attacks to him, over say a thief or rogue who might be in a better position - but also make sure they heal them.



Yup. Pretty much exactly what I said. Instead of the leader getting all bugged because you didn't do what she wanted so that she could use her powers, the vampire is getting all bugged if the leader isn't catering to him... Not a good thing in either case (obviously).

Oh, and even better, it has to be a vampire at-will, so an MBA may not cut it (there may be a way around that - we'll have to see).


> Or is prevented from being able to attack in the first place - such as stunned, dominated or dazed in a difficult scenario (for example). It's _really_ swingy as a class and I honestly can't see it working very well. There has to be something really great to the vampire to make this structure work.



Oh, I agree. It's the tradeoff for having potentially unlimited surges per day. The thing is, it's not actually going to work out for you, at least not every time, and possibly not even most of the time. It's going to require some really cagey play to make work, and even then I can see the DM having to work to keep you from just going down all the time, and IMO that's no fun for the DM.

I don't even think stunned / dominated / dazed is really that "difficult" of a scenario. They're all pretty common even in paragon. Vampire needs some really good at-wills and the paragon paths had better be really dandy. I do think the class is going to be more of a "lurkery" striker instead of a more "skirmisher" one, but I also think it's going to be somewhat niche just in that the rest of the party needs to be prepared to deal with your special brand of... specialness...


----------



## Aegeri (Apr 6, 2011)

kaomera said:


> Except that any other character at zero surges (say because you're fighting surge-draining enemies) is pretty well stuck there. The vampire can stock back up, to some degree at least.



The difference is other characters don't start the day on 2 surges and rely on having to hit to get themselves out of trouble. Even I - who runs a pretty lethal campaign apparently - have never ever been able to drain a defender or even a striker to 0 surges in the first encounter of a day. In fact, I cannot *think* of the last time I managed to accomplish this feat. On the other hand not only could I drop a vampire to 0 surges in one encounter, it's very possible he might be starting the _next encounter_ on 0 surges. Possibly even 0 surges and just a few HP over bloodied. So effectively you have half of a striker on the battlefield.

Which is just plain sad in many ways.


----------



## Mengu (Apr 6, 2011)

So, vampires suck. What's new?


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 6, 2011)

kaomera said:


> I do think the class is going to be more of a "lurkery" striker instead of a more "skirmisher" one, but I also think it's going to be somewhat niche just in that the rest of the party needs to be prepared to deal with your special brand of... specialness...




The last "lurker" class they produced was the original assassin.


----------



## Aegeri (Apr 6, 2011)

I am really curious to see the whole class now. It's either going to be rampantly terrible or it might - in some insane manner - actually work out. Do their at-wills count as MBAs for OAs and such forth? That could really help out.


----------



## Kinneus (Apr 6, 2011)

I want to run a game with two vampires, an Artificer with Comrade's Succor, and the world's grumpiest high-Con Defender who carries the whole dang team.

(Hopefully not literally... though after the first combat, he might have to.)


----------



## WalterKovacs (Apr 6, 2011)

Aegeri said:


> On the other hand not only could I drop a vampire to 0 surges in one encounter, it's very possible he might be starting the _next encounter_ on 0 surges. Possibly even 0 surges and just a few HP over bloodied. So effectively you have half of a striker on the battlefield.




So, if at the end of the first encounter, and the vampire was at 0 surges, his allies would not only go on to the next encounter but refuse to give up a single surge to get the vampire up to full HP? Tough group.

Also, there is always durable. A single feat doubles his banked surges. Yes, it's forcing you to take a feat to work around a weakness (if you feel it is a weakness), but it's hardly the first class that wants to grab a feat early on to make them more durable (cloth only classes grabbing leather armor or unarmored agility). Of course, the vampire also wants unarmored agility, so it's a bit annoying that he has a couple of feats he wants to grab early to make him sturdier.


----------



## Aegeri (Apr 6, 2011)

WalterKovacs said:


> So, if at the end of the first encounter, and the vampire was at 0 surges, his allies would not only go on to the next encounter but refuse to give up a single surge to get the vampire up to full HP? Tough group.



Why should they be penalized for the Vampires terrible design choices? Also the vampire would arguably need 3 surges - 1 to reach full health and then another 2 so he isn't at 0 surges and basically a walking casualty. Unless I missed something that he can use 1 surge to recover fully between encounters (it says you can use a surge to heal fully, but does that also give the vampire back 2 surges?).


> Also, there is always durable. A single feat doubles his banked surges. Yes, it's forcing you to take a feat to work around a weakness (if you feel it is a weakness)



You think starting with only 2 surges is a strength? I think there really is only one word we can adequately use to describe it 

As for feat taxes, a class that is this desperate to actually hit things has a lot more problems feat tax wise than unarmoured agility. You'd pretty much need expertise and any other accuracy boosting feats as a priority. Every missed attack in a hard encounter is doubly punishing, because it can be the difference between being able to heal or not.

And then when we get right down to it, the vampire also relies on surges to boost his powers and similar at the same time. Good luck with that.


----------



## kaomera (Apr 6, 2011)

WalterKovacs said:


> So, if at the end of the first encounter, and the vampire was at 0 surges, his allies would not only go on to the next encounter but refuse to give up a single surge to get the vampire up to full HP? Tough group.
> 
> Also, there is always durable. A single feat doubles his banked surges. Yes, it's forcing you to take a feat to work around a weakness (if you feel it is a weakness), but it's hardly the first class that wants to grab a feat early on to make them more durable (cloth only classes grabbing leather armor or unarmored agility). Of course, the vampire also wants unarmored agility, so it's a bit annoying that he has a couple of feats he wants to grab early to make him sturdier.



The way this limitation is described I'm not certain if durable would even apply. "Drinking" from the party is a nice trick, I actually hadn't noticed that on my earlier read of the article. The question is: if you drop to zero hit points (or below) and have no surges, then what? Unless they have included something to cover that situation (topping off from a willing ally might still be possible, between encounters, but it still wouldn't help for the rest of the fight)

I think the class is still going to be pretty dicey. I foresee a lot of vampires using an action point in the first fight of the day (unless it's just a pushover) either to set a hit in or to use second wind after one... Another issue is that the regen when bloodied (I believe that's what they're talking about?) would disincentiveize actually healing the vampire while he's bloodied. Maybe they get primal-level hit points? Or maybe the class comes with enough built-in healing (or thp generation) that it won't really be crippling? I guess we'll see in a few weeks... (I really kind of want to get the book just to see how they do this now, but that's just more pressure on really, since I'll be pretty disappointed in WotC if it ends up being junk...)


----------



## kaomera (Apr 6, 2011)

Aegeri said:


> Why should they be penalized for the Vampires terrible design choices?



I think it could be argued that you're a bit too ready to assume that they're terrible design choices. I mean, you could be right, but at this point it seems to me to be a bit pointless to get this worked up about it. We'll know in a few weeks, but until then we haven't see the whole thing. It's not like the books aren't already on their way from the printers at this point. So it seems to me that it's too early to make really specific complaints, and if it's junk it's too late to fix it anyway.

It seems to me that, to work, the class is going to need to be designed to function, at least at some minimum level, without any surges. So I don't think it's going to rely on surges to boost it's powers, so much as want them. I'm kind of hoping it's not something like augmentable at-wills. It could end up being either a balance issue, or too weak to be anything but a joke, or it could be just right; we just don't know for sure how that's going to work. Likewise the healing thing. The more I look at this, the more I'm thinking that you'd want a situation where aside from emergencies you'd not want to be spending your surges in-combat for heals.

And I don't think giving up a surge to heal the vampire (by my reading I'm thinking that would be _all_ that ability would do, I don't think it would actually allow just transferring surges) would be a big deal for most groups. You're liable to have one or two characters at any time who are using a disproportionately low number of surges. And if you aren't putting yourself at great risk I would think that you could throw an at-will the first turn or two (especially one that's going to do an extra +1d10 on a hit) and get a surge built up and be ok. And I'm hopeful that said at-will should also do something cool. Swarm of Shadows is not bad, and stuff like that should tend to both discourage and mitigate getting ganged up on. I dunno, I think it could work. (I've got my fingers crossed at least.)


----------



## Truename (Apr 6, 2011)

I'm having trouble seeing the mechanical problems here. The designers are obviously using the mechanics to promote a certain flavor--something I approve of. They want the vampire to be desperate for blood, which it surely will be.

At the same time, it doesn't seem unbalanced. Assume a typical party only has one leader. That's just two healing surge uses per combat across the whole party, so two surges should be enough for the vampire to get through a combat. (In my campaign, at least, the players almost never use second wind. No dwarves.)

That leaves the question of whether the vampire will have enough surges at the beginning of each combat. Well, the blood-drinking power triggers on a hit, and the vampire gets multiple uses of it. Unless the vampire never hits in a combat, it seems pretty straightforward to me. We also don't know other feats or powers the vampire gets that also help.

The vampire's a bit fragile, but I think he's fragile in a fun way, with flavorful options for mitigating that fragility. 

(PS: Aegiri, I respect your usually thoughtful commentary and design knowledge, and I'm bugged by the speed at which you've been jumping to declare previews as 'broken' lately. You don't have the whole picture yet.)


----------



## Aegeri (Apr 6, 2011)

The problem with the Vampire class is we're shown a house, but we don't see the foundations of that house except for the terrible muddy bog that the house is supposed to be built on. This class has some _severe_ drawbacks and unless the foundations of the house are _really solid_ it's going to collapse pretty easily into the swarmp. Wizards might then go and build a new house on the swamp, but that's no good if you don't learn from why your first house fell over into it in the first place. While it's unlikely that a vampire will go through an encounter never hitting it is possible that it will happen due to circumstance (enemies stun/dominate the vampire, he ends up stuck somewhere) or just poor luck. Remember that the vampire doesn't have to miss all encounter - he can simply miss round one and get hammered into negatives by an unlucky start and be on the back foot an entire adventuring day. So a class like the vampire is swing town: It could be very effective, hitting a lot and managing to be missed so burning surges often to boost their other powers. The problem is the alternative.

When this class fails it's going to fail so dramatically and so badly it probably won't be able to recover. Really, that puts a big burden on the parties resources in surges and in combat healing - assuming the vampire doesn't wind up on 0 surges which is "utterly useless" territory. This isn't terribly hard to end up on with only a couple of very unlucky moments. The other problem comes if the vampire relies on spending surges for its powers to be an effective striker - we don't know this for sure - then it's going to _really_ suck if its desperate for them just for basic healing.

You might think "Well it's fun to play a swingy character" but is it so much fun for anyone else at the table? Varying between "Kind of useful in some circumstances" and "Terrible" isn't really that great a deal for people playing with you. 

Really my problem is that if the foundations of these things like the Vampire were sound, I have to wonder why on earth we've not seen them. In the past for many new classes, even those that added fairly complicated new mechanics like the monk and psion we got entire playtests. We could see the logic from the ground up and comment on it. I am not convinced that without a _really strong_ foundation the vampire is going to be a viable class. Right now, given that Wizards have released one of the worst races in HoS, an epic destiny that was absolutely terrible and a bunch of really underwhelming features/powers - I'm not convinced the foundation in this book is good. 

I really do hope that Kaomera is correct and that the full class in the book will be a lot better - but the sheer "swing factor" of this class has me extremely worried.

Edit: To be honest, I have been ragging on most of the elements in this book for a long time now and because I've seen so many poor or outright incomprehensible design decisions in it I just assume the worst by default. I would like to be wrong, but the more I see of the book the more I'm 100% certain I am going to really dislike it.


----------



## FireLance (Apr 6, 2011)

Aegeri said:


> Edit: To be honest, I have been ragging on most of the elements in this book for a long time now and because I've seen so many poor or outright incomprehensible design decisions in it I just assume the worst by default. I would like to be wrong, but the more I see of the book the more I'm 100% certain I am going to really dislike it.



This is probably better discussed at the "balance" thread, but I get the feeling that WotC is slowing moving away from a "balance first" mindset to a "flavor first" mindset. So yes, if you are looking at the new material from a "balance first" perspective, then the design decisions are going to look poor or incomprehensible. 

Personally, I think that it's a perfectly fine step to take. The "Classic" PH1 & PH2 are already there for those who favor a "balance first" game. Starting with PH3 and then Essentials, WotC has been making the balance of game slightly looser, in order to deliver mechanics that are more strongly tied to the flavor. At the end of the day, it's a trade-off between balance and flavor, and it's one that I, at least, and quite willing to make because the increase in flavor adds more to the game (for me) than the reduction in balance takes away.

However, it is probably hyperbole to say that the balance has gone out the window. It might have backed towards it a little, but it's still very much in the same room. Again, to me, at least.


----------



## Aegeri (Apr 6, 2011)

FireLance said:


> This is probably better discussed at the "balance" thread, but I get the feeling that WotC is slowing moving away from a "balance first" mindset to a "flavor first" mindset. So yes, if you are looking at the new material from a "balance first" perspective, then the design decisions are going to look poor or incomprehensible.



I think it is possible to do both inherently and "Flavor first" is a terrible excuse for poor mechanics. For example the Barbarian changed things a lot at the time when it was announced in PHB2. We may also have got a playtest of it at the time but I can't remember. Especially as it introduced the idea of encounter long daily stances into 4E for attacks. At the time that was just pure bananas as an idea, but it worked well and ragestrike proved an effective mechanic for making those other dailies useful if you had them while raging. You had interesting flavor, big [W] dice mechanically and something that fit with the system.

Throwing out balance and going with some "We're doing this for flavor!!!" excuse is just terrible. It's also - I'm going to get mean here so I do apologize - the lazy easy way out instead of answering hard questions on how to do both effectively (Like how the Monk and Barbarian turned out). Quite frankly, I'm not going to be keen on 4E much longer if future player books feel the need to throw crap onto a wall and hope things stick to it in a manner that kind of works. Thus far in 4E I've had an almost hands off time for near *three years*. The amount of powers and feats that I've house-ruled has amounted to about *six*. One of them didn't even manage to get into play because Wizards fixed it before compilation in Dragon (the original succubus - oh boy was that broken).

I'm getting to the point where I'll be happy not to _allow_ any books post-essentials into the game anymore. I'm still going to buy the absolutely fantastic sounding Threats to the Nentir Vale of course and the Shadowfell boxed set sounds equally splendorous. I can totally live without the current obsession with adding infinite options to mages, breaking core design tenants of 4E like adding racial penalties and just how poorly thought out half this stuff seems to be. I cannot fathom they would deliberately try to make the book look this bad in their previews (like the absolutely wretched ED) just to hide away all their best stuff. It's possible, I just don't understand that.

I'll still buy HoS - because it deserves a fair go when all is said and done. But It has to really answer my problems with it in a reasonable manner for me to consider buying any more of the PC options books again - or allowing their content into any of my games.


----------



## FireLance (Apr 6, 2011)

Aegeri said:


> I'm getting to the point where I'll be happy not to _allow_ any books post-essentials into the game anymore. I'm still going to buy the absolutely fantastic sounding Threats to the Nentir Vale of course and the Shadowfell boxed set sounds equally splendorous. I can totally live without the current obsession with adding infinite options to mages, breaking core design tenants of 4E like adding racial penalties and just how poorly thought out half this stuff seems to be. I cannot fathom they would deliberately try to make the book look this bad in their previews (like the absolutely wretched ED) just to hide away all their best stuff. It's possible, I just don't understand that.



I think it's simply a case of one man's meat is another man's poison. I for one find it quite intriguing that WotC is willing to challenge and ignore its own guidelines in order to experiment with new mechanics. And to my mind, they've probably floated some of the more controversial design decisions to generate discussion and provoke the interest of players who might be jaded with "Classic" 4E.


----------



## delericho (Apr 6, 2011)

This sounds like a truly woeful idea. Seems like a really quick way to get back the "15 minute adventuring day".

(In fact, I'd say there's an argument for giving characters _unlimited_ surges, with only their quota of Dailies as an impediment on them just proceeding indefinitely.)



FireLance said:


> This is probably better discussed at the "balance" thread, but I get the feeling that WotC is slowing moving away from a "balance first" mindset to a "flavor first" mindset.




If true, this is yet another Really Bad Idea. You can have flavourful material that also has balanced mechanics.

Plus, if PC options aren't balanced (or close to it), one of two things happens: either it's so good that everyone takes it (in which case, everything else is wasted text), or it's so bad that nobody takes it (in which case, why bother?).


----------



## FireLance (Apr 6, 2011)

delericho said:


> This sounds like a truly woeful idea. Seems like a really quick way to get back the "15 minute adventuring day".



A vampire has two sources of healing surges: enemies (1 to 3/encounter) and allies. In a way, his healing surges scale with the number of encounters he participates in. If the party defender does a good job of keeping enemies off the vampire's back, he might end up with more surges than anyone else in the party, especially at higher levels. When tapping on his allies' healing surges, he will likely target those who would have ended up with excess healing surges at the end of the adventuring day, anyway, so it might not be so significant a drain on party resources.



> If true, this is yet another Really Bad Idea. You can have flavourful material that also has balanced mechanics.
> 
> Plus, if PC options aren't balanced (or close to it), one of two things happens: either it's so good that everyone takes it (in which case, everything else is wasted text), or it's so bad that nobody takes it (in which case, why bother?).



Flavor first doesn't mean balance is ignored or goes out the window, in much the same way that freedom doesn't mean anarchy.


----------



## Aegeri (Apr 6, 2011)

Let's have some examples:

The original PHB Wizard (Can choose between a couple of dailies each day, being more flexible than others somewhat)
The Barbarian (Daily Stance Rages, trades additional rages for fixed large [W] damage)
The Monk (With his movement + attack powers)
Psionics (Replacing encounter powers with a power point system - it's not perfect by any means but it works well enough now with the odd wonky power. But then again everything has wonky powers somewhere)

None of these needed to ignore balance to get terrific unique flavor and interesting new mechanics to the game. Why since essentials has the "brains" behind the design of classes been thrown out with the baby AND the bathwater? Classes have been adding interesting new mechanics while still being balanced for several years now. Why are the current designers suddenly incapable of doing this?

And most importantly, why are PCs getting worse and monster design keeps getting better?! There is only ONE conclusion. An anti-PC Illithid has taken over Wizards and is deliberately trying to spite players and give DMs more brutal ways to dispatch them. _This is the only logical explanation_.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Apr 6, 2011)

delericho said:


> Plus, if PC options aren't balanced (or close to it), one of two things happens: either it's so good that everyone takes it (in which case, everything else is wasted text), or it's so bad that nobody takes it (in which case, why bother?).




I believe there can be both fluff and mechanics, but it is true it is a fine line to walk.

If you are an optimizer and play with optimizers. 

If you are not, and do not play with them, this is much less of a problem, and the fine-edge balance is far less difficult.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 6, 2011)

I hope it is worded that a vampire has always 2 surges and no feat or race feature can change it.
Otherwise it is hard to balance.

I like the design principle for the vampire, but i can understand that this is not for everyone. Calling it a bad design is a bit early.

And the previews of the vampire do show a good concept and good mechanics to back it up. So this time I really can´t see why there are cmplains about not enough info. With powers that we have seen, a level 1 vampire should work...


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 6, 2011)

Aegeri said:


> Let's have some examples:
> 
> The original PHB Wizard (Can choose between a couple of dailies each day, being more flexible than others somewhat)
> The Barbarian (Daily Stance Rages, trades additional rages for fixed large [W] damage)
> ...



I can´t follow your reasoning against the vampire... I guessed that the vampire only has 2 surges 2 weeks ago...


----------



## wedgeski (Apr 6, 2011)

This is one of the more interesting concepts I've seen out of the game lately. I doubt I'll ever get a chance to play one but I'd certainly want to try.


----------



## Nullzone (Apr 6, 2011)

You all haven't fought enough werecreatures if you think Regeneration isn't enough to make up for the low surge count.  Regeneration makes stuff insanely powerful for its level; I've TPK'd more than once on what was otherwise a really strong party just due to the staying power it created for those creatures.


----------



## ragingpeanuts (Apr 6, 2011)

So would you allow the bloodsucking ability on a bloodless creature, for example a skeleton, ooze, metal golem or wraith? How would that work storywise? The vampire would respectively suck bonemarrow, jello, oil or simply (dark) air?

I do think it's a fun mechanic though. And the regen is probably pretty good. Vamps are lurkers, not meant to be hit all the time (or atleast, that's how I imagine them in this class). Hide, strike and move.


----------



## Obryn (Apr 6, 2011)

Like with so many other things, I will withhold judgment until we're looking at the actual class, but color me skeptical.   If this class out-sucks the Seeker, I will be disappointed.

A strong rate of regeneration would probably do the trick, honestly.  Regen 5 won't cut it, but Regen Surge would.  Add in a way to avoid some missile attacks, and then it's up to the player to avoid the enemies ganging up on him.

-O


----------



## webrunner (Apr 6, 2011)

I dunno, the flavor's good but they could take it further.

Where's the "toss goblet of blood on floor" power?

Where's the "open cape and shoot three fireballs out of it" power?

Where's the Vunerable 15: Whips?

Mankind ill needs a class such as this.  It doesn't belong in this world.


----------



## Nullzone (Apr 6, 2011)

webrunner said:


> I dunno, the flavor's good but they could take it further.
> 
> Where's the "toss goblet of blood on floor" power?
> 
> ...




What is a man? A miserable little pile of secrets.

Edit: Hmm, I posted because my xp comment didn't seem to take, but now that I added the post I see the xp...


----------



## Zaran (Apr 6, 2011)

Don't forget that the first preview said that other party members can share surges with a vampire.


----------



## Kinneus (Apr 6, 2011)

Zaran said:


> Don't forget that the first preview said that other party members can share surges with a vampire.



"Other party members can pick up the slack!" is not a selling point for a class.


----------



## brehobit (Apr 6, 2011)

I think it will work.

With the ability to use a surge from a party member to get to full HP, I think things will be largely okay.  Toss in the Regin when bloodied (I'm guessing it will be an amount equal to the primary or secondary stat so 3-5 at first level and probably +3/+6 or so at each tier) I think the character will be playable--it's pretty rare that some character isn't doing just fine on healing surges you can steal.  I do worry about only being able to steal one surge in combat at 1st level though...

That said, a number of other issues arise.  

Can we subdue monsters to "eat" them later?
Can we steal from undead?  The unliving (constructs?), etc?

We'll see...


----------



## Mengu (Apr 6, 2011)

Vampires better have a huge bonus to endurance, or they will not survive some of the skill challenges I throw at my PC's, not to mention traps and surge draining creatures like wights.

It's also going to be a bit of a pain to keep track of surges spent for purposes of various magic tattoos when your surges are constantly on the flux.

I'll reserve judgement though, till I see the whole thing. At high heroic and paragon levels, the vampire's surges might last longer than anyone else's during a long adventuring day.


----------



## MrMyth (Apr 6, 2011)

Aegeri said:


> Why should they be penalized for the Vampires terrible design choices? Also the vampire would arguably need 3 surges - 1 to reach full health and then another 2 so he isn't at 0 surges and basically a walking casualty.




For the same reason they cast Comrade's Succor when my 6 surge rogue is out of surges halfway through Encounter 2.  

Honestly, I'll wait to see this in action before giving final judgement. I can see the potential for problems, but they seem to have done a decent job of addressing them, between regen and the ability to drain surges in combat and out of it. We already have strikers who would have these sorts of issues, so this isn't anything new. This guy would be a bit more frail per combat but potentially able to go for many more combats over the day. I can see it working.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Apr 6, 2011)

Why is god's name would we want a Vampire that's _easy_ to play?  You're a freaking undead... traditionally evil... with uncontrollable need for blood and a potentially disasterous vulnerability to sunlight.  The last thing we need is to make this class a simple cakewalk that any idiot can play, not ever needing to worry about the implications that playing a VAMPIRE should have.

If you're going to try and roleplay the social and physical implications of being a Vampire... having to actually take time to consider the ramifications of how you get into and operate in combat is the least you should do.  I for one applaud WotC for putting in class design mechanics that will actually require the player to _think_ about what he is doing and how he behave in combat, just as he should be doing out of combat.

Playing a Vampire should not be easy.  And designing mechanics that are more complex in order to be truly effective is a choice I wholeheartedly am in favor of.  Because maybe just maybe this will weed out the huge swath of player-base who would all want to play Vampires because they're "kewl roxor!"


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Apr 6, 2011)

I'm guessing the Vampire would be very grateful to have any class which provides Surgeless Healing in the party.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Apr 6, 2011)

I'm curious to see what this class looks like in full with all its vampiric powers and how they're balanced for levels and the action economy. Stuff like turning to mist, wolf or bat form, etc.

In a 3.mess game I DMed, I had a player undergo a transformation into a vampire-like shadow creature, and have yet to see how I could pull this off in 4e, should I ever decide to pick that game up where I left off.

Does that seem odd that my primary interest in this book is to see how I might houserule stuff for a conversion of a 3.x campaign I haven't played since 2004 and might not ever return to under 4e?


----------



## MrBeens (Apr 6, 2011)

Just be a dwarven vampire with Durability (and dwarven durability at level 11) to have 6 surges


----------



## Solvarn (Apr 6, 2011)

*In play*

I'd have to see it in play, but I don't really think vampire classes belong in any book with "heroes" in the title. It seems like an awkward attempt to shoehorn material that was designed for the Ravenloft game they were going to put out. 

I think the concept overall would have been better served with a theme rather than an entire class, particularly since vampires aren't born, they are made. An evil vampire antagonist infecting a hero with vampirism and then creating situations where they are tempted to use their powers would be pretty cool. The more they succumb to the temptation to use their powers the more they change would be neat. A sort of race against time to defeat the villain and destroy them so that the PC can be saved.

The vampire as a class thing is part of a different sort of game altogether, and perhaps might have been better as a Savage Species type book, which was popular at release and would undoubtedly be a popular addition and sell well for them. 

From play experience I know they did a good job on the executioner but that again is really just published in this book as filler as it has been previously available. 

Retreads from Insider content and poorly conceived classes don't bode well to me. I'm typically excited about the book releases. I thought the last two Essentials books were very well done. I may buy the book for the blackguard bit, it seems well done from all accounts but I will be ignoring a lot of the rubbish in the book. Color me disappointed.


----------



## mneme (Apr 6, 2011)

The Executioner was always a preview, Solvarn.

Re vampire: it's a bit odd, otoh, there is a history of heroic vampires, from Elric to Blade.


----------



## Herschel (Apr 6, 2011)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Why is god's name would we want a Vampire that's _easy_ to play? You're a freaking undead... traditionally evil... with uncontrollable need for blood and a potentially disasterous vulnerability to sunlight. The last thing we need is to make this class a simple cakewalk that any idiot can play, not ever needing to worry about the implications that playing a VAMPIRE should have.
> 
> If you're going to try and roleplay the social and physical implications of being a Vampire... having to actually take time to consider the ramifications of how you get into and operate in combat is the least you should do. I for one applaud WotC for putting in class design mechanics that will actually require the player to _think_ about what he is doing and how he behave in combat, just as he should be doing out of combat.
> 
> Playing a Vampire should not be easy. And designing mechanics that are more complex in order to be truly effective is a choice I wholeheartedly am in favor of. Because maybe just maybe this will weed out the huge swath of player-base who would all want to play Vampires because they're "kewl roxor!"




Must spread XP.


----------



## MrMyth (Apr 6, 2011)

mneme said:


> The Executioner was always a preview, Solvarn.




That's not remotely true. A playtest version was posted last... September, I think? With all indications that it was remaining a DDI-exclusive class. In November, the 'final' version was posted, which upon receiving heavy criticism, WotC announced that it was still undergoing revisions and the final _final _version was still on the way. And in December, it was posted: "This month, _D&D Insider_ presents the actual final version of the executioner assassin."

Then, a month or two later, it was mentioned that the Executioner would be posted in Heroes of Shadow. This was only discovered when the DDI version _didn't _show up in the Character Builder or Compendium, and we were told that wouldn't happen until after it was released in Heroes of Shadow. 

Now, it is possible that the HoS version will be identical to the December version, and so that was truly the final version... but it also serving DDI subscribers as duplicate content with a product being released a few months later. Much like the former PHB3 previews, only having been promoted as actual content (and a good portion of the entire content for the month!) rather than as a preview. 

Alternatively, the HoS version will have further revisions, resulting in the DDI version being yet again unfinished despite the assurances of the staff.

Either way, the Executioner was never supposed to be a preview, and its existence in Heroes of Shadow wasn't known until a month or two after its December release as the "actual final version". Either way, WotC didn't exactly treat DDI subscribers well with how the whole fiasco has been handled.


----------



## Skism (Apr 6, 2011)

MrBeens said:


> Just be a dwarven vampire with Durability (and dwarven durability at level 11) to have 6 surges




Make it a Mul Vampire, take Mul's Stamina, Durability and, eventually, Dwarven Durability and enjoy 8 surges.


----------



## Ourph (Apr 6, 2011)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Because maybe just maybe this will weed out the huge swath of player-base who would all want to play Vampires because they're "kewl roxor!"



Yeah, because God knows you wouldn't want huge swaths of your player-base to actually be excited about using the material you are trying to sell them. That way lies disaster.


----------



## gyor (Apr 6, 2011)

A vampire gets +charisma regen. With rapid regeneraton feat it would have +charisma and +constitution regen when bloodied. There are I believe other feats that boost regen.

So at level one a vampire with 20 charisma would have 5 regeneration. At 28 charisma je would have 9 regen. At that level if he had a con mod of 3 that is regen 12 with rapid regeneration.

Anything that grants temps rocks with vampires. Thps don't interfere with regen.

Also a half elf vampire with dil as twin strike(archery). Use vampire powers for blood drink and where else appritate as well as dailies. Use twin strike when you wish to back away from melee in order to allow your regen to catch up. Twin strike is its own striker feature in a sense so missing out of unnatural might is no biggy.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Apr 6, 2011)

Ourph said:


> Yeah, because God knows you wouldn't want huge swaths of your player-base to actually be excited about using the material you are trying to sell them. That way lies disaster.




If all that mattered was class popularity to widest swath of audience with no care of story concerns... D&D's original classes would be 'Pirate', 'Ninja', 'Vampire', 'Werewolf' & 'Zombie'.  But they AREN'T... because we all know that placating the lowest common denominator in ANYTHING tends to produce crap that might blow up for about three months... but then flame out quickly.

So while WotC most certainly created a Vampire class because they're the current flavor of the year and will help sell books... they know as well as we know that these ARE NOT meant to be as wide-spread as say the fighter or rogue should be (barring Ravenloft or Gloomwrought campaigns of course).  So what better way to stem the tide of crappy, cheap, Mary Sue character ripoffs that make absolutely no sense in the game world by unimaginative players than to make the Vampire class be one where you actually have to _think_ to play?

I have no problem occasionally seeing a Vampire in the game... but I'd want to at least know that the player who is playing it has actually put some _thought_ into designing him, trying to find reasons and ways to make him fit.  And by making the class require some thought in combat... it hopefully will eliminate most of those bad players right off the bat.  Those players can go back to making crappy, cheap, Mary Sue character ripoff rogues... but at least the rogues will usually make a bit more sense in the game world.


----------



## Mengu (Apr 6, 2011)

DEFCON 1 said:


> I'd want to at least know that the player who is playing it has actually put some _thought_ into designing him, trying to find reasons and ways to make him fit.  And by making the class require some thought in combat... it hopefully will eliminate most of those bad players right off the bat.




Sadly, it's those players who aren't as mechanically and tactically inclined, that end up wanting to play a gnome runepriest, a tiefling seeker, a shadar-kai ardent, etc. I guess a shade vampire can join that crowd and do well.

I don't really expect the system to protect you from making sub-optimal choices (build or tactical). I make plenty of those when building and playing characters. But a certain degree of competency is expected in most groups. The poorly built and played rogue who runs out of surges in the second encounter of every day makes most leaders and defenders rather unhappy. I only hope the vampire doesn't run into this problem more often than the rogue.


----------



## Hellzon (Apr 6, 2011)

DEFCON 1 said:


> If all that mattered was class popularity to widest swath of audience with no care of story concerns... D&D's original classes would be 'Pirate', '*Assassin*', '*Vampire*', '*Werewolf*' (95% likely to be in the upcoming Feywild book) & '*Revenant*'.




You're right, there's no Pirate class yet.


----------



## Erudite Frog (Apr 6, 2011)

I dont really like this class. Why is it a class? It should have been a template.


----------



## Aegeri (Apr 6, 2011)

DEFCON 1 said:


> So what better way to stem the tide of crappy, cheap, Mary Sue character ripoffs that make absolutely no sense in the game world by unimaginative players than to make the Vampire class be one where you actually have to _think_ to play?



I was just thinking to myself this morning that 4th edition didn't have enough suboptimal trap options in it.

Clearly Wizards design on this book has been paramount in addressing that important issue.

Edit: On thinking about things, my temptation to gut the rot out of the this class and change it into a theme is intriguing me.


----------



## IanB (Apr 6, 2011)

This actually looks pretty fun on the surface of things, to me at any rate, which is a big surprise. I had expected the class to go down the 'modern' vampire road, I'm glad they went with the Hammer-style vampire for the theme instead.

Beyond that I think people are getting way, way too ahead of themselves in terms of speculating about how terrible/awesome/whatever the mechanics are going to be. We simply don't know enough.


----------



## Matt James (Apr 6, 2011)

I spoke about the Vampire in an article I just put up. It would have been better as a _template_ that is applied to an existing character.

Loremaster - Game Design: Foundational Layers for 4e


----------



## RavenBlackthorne (Apr 6, 2011)

You're going to hate the paragon path that grants radiant resistance due to their own personal sparkle (usable only in daylight)


----------



## webrunner (Apr 7, 2011)

Erudite Frog said:


> I dont really like this class. Why is it a class? It should have been a template.




They've been trying a long time to emulate templates some how for players but never really got it right.

They decided to go Class here because teh vampire they're looking at is defined by all their powers and abilities.. what a vampire DOES, and not who the vampire IS, which would be a racial thing.


----------



## kaomera (Apr 7, 2011)

Truename said:


> I'm having trouble seeing the mechanical problems here. The designers are obviously using the mechanics to promote a certain flavor--something I approve of. They want the vampire to be desperate for blood, which it surely will be.
> 
> At the same time, it doesn't seem unbalanced. Assume a typical party only has one leader. That's just two healing surge uses per combat across the whole party, so two surges should be enough for the vampire to get through a combat. (In my campaign, at least, the players almost never use second wind. No dwarves.)



Hard fights happen, though. I've seen a fight, second in the day, where two leaders worth of words (so four total), a multiclass word, three potions, and 5 uses of second wind got used. One of the two characters who where down at the end of the fight (no fatalities, fortunately) didn't get her second wind off before she dropped. Admittedly we did manage to "pull" two encounters and a trap before we where done (so, in other words: _totally worth it_), but it is quite possible to run out of healing.



> That leaves the question of whether the vampire will have enough surges at the beginning of each combat. Well, the blood-drinking power triggers on a hit, and the vampire gets multiple uses of it. Unless the vampire never hits in a combat, it seems pretty straightforward to me. We also don't know other feats or powers the vampire gets that also help.



It's going to depend a bit, IMO, on the at-wills (blood drinker _only_ triggers on a vampire melee at-will). At first level (and IMO probably throughout heroic) I think you can expect to have only one use of blood drinker per encounter. And that's the point when, IME, it's easiest to go from full hit points straight through bloodied to the point that you're "teetering" with less hp left than an average hit is liable to do. Three of those surges in the encounter I mentioned above (which was at second level) happened in rapid succession just after the rogue detected the trap with his face, causing him to grant combat advantage to the goblins who merrily piled on him until he was left with 3 hp. If he had only two surges at that point, he would have been OK. If he only had one, or worse didn't have one and needed a hit to gain one, then the single heal would not have been enough to save him and we most likely would have had a fatality.


> The vampire's a bit fragile, but I think he's fragile in a fun way, with flavorful options for mitigating that fragility.



I've got my fingers crossed.

Actually, I kind of wonder if this kind of discussion wasn't somehow the whole purpose of these previews... I bet even Aegeri is anxious to see what we end up with here, and personally I've been waffling between being interested in this book or not since it was first announced...


----------



## Aegeri (Apr 7, 2011)

Personally I pity the vampire who faces a surge draining skill challenge first up more than anything else. Without anything to attack for their surge regaining mechanic, their focus on skills is actually even more essential than normal. A vampire who can't make endurance checks - probably due to dump statting con - is going to be one of the saddest things ever in some difficult skill challenges. Could easily lose a ton of surges and then start taking direct HP damage (costing further surges) and start an encounter below bloodied in a bad situation (as some endurance skill challenges lead directly into combat in my games).

I'm really keen to see the book and note if the foundations have improved. Unfortunately I know enough about the classes core features to know there isn't really any "miracle" bullet in there. I would love to know how the surge aspect is worded though, which will be the killer to me. If the vampire can just take durable that will save the class, as 4 surges is terrible but it's not so crippling that I would say "God that's useless" like I am now. If it's worded that they *cannot* gain surges from features and similar, then the class is just so swingy that I can't see it working well. Especially again, if you're the kind of DM (and I am) who likes a bit of trap based encounters and endurance skill challenge based hazards.

Edit: I knew I wasn't going crazy with my house/foundation comparison. With the exception of the wording on the surge restriction, all of the vampires features are listed here in a previous preview. So there isn't really anything in the book to see actually beyond the wording. If it is worded to prevent feats like durable doing anything to improve their surge value, I don't see this class having a great deal of stickability in any game. Maybe if the at-wills are damn amazing...


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Apr 7, 2011)

Erudite Frog said:


> I dont really like this class. Why is it a class? It should have been a template.



I think a Theme would have suited vampire nicely, if that's not already what you meant by 'template'.

That way you could choose just how vampiric you wanted to be. Then again, supposedly Vryloka will have a similar mechanic, so maybe that will work, but a theme can apply to any race, which would be nice.


----------



## webrunner (Apr 7, 2011)

Aegeri said:


> Personally I pity the vampire who faces a surge draining skill challenge first up more than anything else. Without anything to attack for their surge regaining mechanic, their focus on skills is actually even more essential than normal. A vampire who can't make endurance checks - probably due to dump statting con - is going to be one of the saddest things ever in some difficult skill challenges. Could easily lose a ton of surges and then start taking direct HP damage (costing further surges) and start an encounter below bloodied in a bad situation (as some endurance skill challenges lead directly into combat in my games).




I think either we'd end up with a situation where the Vampire needs the help of the party to stay alive through a difficult desert passage, driving home the curse of being a vampire..

or the DM takes pity and lets them use group skill checks instead


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Apr 7, 2011)

Aegeri said:


> I was just thinking to myself this morning that 4th edition didn't have enough suboptimal trap options in it.
> 
> Clearly Wizards design on this book has been paramount in addressing that important issue.




Every class is a suboptimal trap if it's played by a moron.

The only difference is that morons will flock to the Vampire (and Necromancer for that matter) 'cuz itz kewl' and they can get out all their 'dark evil bastard loner' fantasies... whereas they wouldn't do that with the Warden.

*Mod Edit:*  Here's a hint for everyone - insulting name-calling is against EN World Rules.  Targeting a vaguely defined group doesn't make it acceptable.  If you can't treat your fellow gamers with respect, then you probably shouldn't be posting.  ~Umbran


----------



## Matt James (Apr 7, 2011)

webrunner said:


> They've been trying a long time to emulate templates some how for players but never really got it right.




I'm curious what your thoughts are on what they did not get right. Taking it a step further, is developing a new class a better solution? If you get a moment, read an article I just put up today -> Loremaster - Game Design: Foundational Layers for 4e


----------



## Kinneus (Apr 7, 2011)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Every class is a suboptimal trap if it's played by a moron.
> 
> The only difference is that morons will flock to the Vampire (and Necromancer for that matter) 'cuz itz kewl' and they can get out all their 'dark evil bastard loner' fantasies... whereas they wouldn't do that with the Warden.



I think this is really, really condescending and I just don't get it. Why are "dark evil bastard loner" fantasies any more moronic than "I can control matter with my brain" power fantasies? Or "I'm going to play a Fighter with 20 strength haha who's the jock stuffing nerds into lockers now" fantasies? Or "I'm going to play a bard with 20 Charisma, can I make a roll to seduce the elven princess" fantasies?

Why is one person's preferred flavor of fantasy fun less valid than yours?


----------



## Matt James (Apr 7, 2011)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Every class is a suboptimal trap if it's played by a moron.
> 
> The only difference is that morons will flock to the Vampire (and Necromancer for that matter) 'cuz itz kewl' and they can get out all their 'dark evil bastard loner' fantasies... whereas they wouldn't do that with the Warden.




Call me crazy, but I often play things 'cuz itz kewl' 

There are many things I don't understand in this world. Chief amongst them include:



Why does it matter what other people at the table choose to play, if what they chose is fun for them and not disruptive?
Why do some people need to vilify _how_ others choose to the play the game (D&D)?
Why am I not wearing any pants?


----------



## webrunner (Apr 7, 2011)

Matt James said:


> I'm curious what your thoughts are on what they did not get right. Taking it a step further, is developing a new class a better solution? If you get a moment, read an article I just put up today -> Loremaster - Game Design: Foundational Layers for 4e




Well, look at all the ways they've been doing it:

1- Paragon Paths/Epic Destinies (ie, archlich) - 
2-Sseparate class -this has it's own problems, obviously
3- Themes are only choosable at level 1, and haven't yet been "grandfathered in" to D&D core rules.
4- Feat sequences - hard to make them worth all the necessary feats

None of them really do the same thing as templates - allow a player to be modified later at an arbitrary time.

I'm not saying classes are better, but I'm saying they determined to do it for vampire because none of their other options really fit as well.


----------



## Matt James (Apr 7, 2011)

I should clarify-- the themes/templates would be applied at the given time, not unlike how a players chooses a paragon path at level 11. In fact, it would still be called a paragon path. Multiclassing, similarly, would still be _multiclassing_ (etc...)

As for why they chose to do the Vampire the way they did, I cannot say. Somewhere in a design meeting, they decided to go this way. I'm not arguing against it, I am just of the opinion that a theme/template-based solution might have been more equitable. In all honesty, when I take a deeper look at this new class, I might get a better understanding of why it was done this way. I'm not attempting to rebuke their decision--rather offer an alternate view and present some of the benefits of doing it this way. I have no dog in this race other than to present a different view on design implementation. 

I'm not sure who designed the Vampire, but I recall someone saying it was Mearls? That guy is a genius in my book, regardless of what some might say about him. I've followed him since Iron Kingdoms and he is a proficient and talented game designer (and above all, a friend).


----------



## triqui (Apr 7, 2011)

I think they went with full class instead of theme becouse they wanted to experiment with the 2 healing surges thing. A theme that add things feels nice, but a theme that *subtract* things from your character might be harder to "sell" to the fanbase. 

And honestrly, a high Con Warden with bloodsucking ability to soak up more healing surges might be a little bit over the top 

EDIT: however, something akin to the Dhampyr, or Vryloka, might easily do the trick for other classes with vampiric theme.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Apr 7, 2011)

triqui said:


> EDIT: however, something akin to the Dhampyr, or Vryloka, might easily do the trick for other classes with vampiric theme.




I like the layers of options... X class y race with a feat chain... X class and a vampire race or vamp class and y race...

Add a vampire theme and every option will be there


----------



## pauljathome (Apr 7, 2011)

*Am I the only one who finds the flavour wonky?*

A lot of people are praising the flavour of the vampire class. 

But it seems very, very off to me that the expectation is that the other party members will ALLOW THE VAMPIRE TO DRAIN THEIR BLOOD.

Sure, from a game mechanical view point you're just giving up a healing surge and it is no different from giving one to an artificer or a ritual.

But from the flavour perspective it seems incredibly different to me.

I know that a great many characters that I play would be quite willing to give a healing surge via magical means but NOT by offering up my neck for a vampire to suck.

Part of that, of course, is a trust issue. Maybe after I'd adventured with the guy for 10 levels I'd change my mind. But at first level? Or after just meeting him? No way.


----------



## triqui (Apr 7, 2011)

pauljathome said:


> I know that a great many characters that I play would be quite willing to give a healing surge via magical means but NOT by offering up my neck for a vampire to suck.



Or just cut your hand, put the blood in a vial, and give it to him. It's not really something that never happens in vampiric stories: the mortal friend giving blood to his fellow vampire and all that.

Sure that doing it in *every* encounter is a bit overdoing it


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Apr 7, 2011)

Kinneus said:


> I think this is really, really condescending and I just don't get it. Why are "dark evil bastard loner" fantasies any more moronic than "I can control matter with my brain" power fantasies? Or "I'm going to play a Fighter with 20 strength haha who's the jock stuffing nerds into lockers now" fantasies? Or "I'm going to play a bard with 20 Charisma, can I make a roll to seduce the elven princess" fantasies?
> 
> Why is one person's preferred flavor of fantasy fun less valid than yours?




Actually... all the fantasies you pointed out are just as moronic.  

Hell, EVERY fantasy is moronic to a certain extent.  I have no wool over my eyes thinking that when sit around a dining table speaking in a funny voice and acting as though I'm a scion of a merchant house with a magical mark upon my face that allows me to affect the weather... that it isn't just _slightly_ stupid in the grand scheme of things.  Most hobbies often are.  I'm not afraid to admit it.

But that doesn't change the fact that *IF* you are going to do it... actually do it.  Take some time with it.  Consider it.  Think about it.  Use your brain, and your creativity, and your imagination and actually WORK at it.  Become a more productive member of our gaming community.

And I know we hate to admit it to ourselves... but we ALL know those players who are giving our game and ourselves as gamers a bad name.  And if what I post here can affect even a single person to not reflexively want to play a Vampire for no other reason than "VAMPIRES KEWL ROXOR BADASS!", but choose to play a Vampire because of the interesting roleplaying challenge that being this kind of character represents... then I feel better about being a member of this community.

I don't want my fellow gamers to be morons.  I want to help them learn.  This game is so much better when you actually understand it.  And if that makes me a bad guy that I don't want my fellow players to spend their lives sitting in the darkness of the mindless pop culture vacuum of space... then so be it.  I'll take my slings and arrows from you all.

_(Of course, let's be honest, I probably deserve those sling and arrows anyway, because the cynic in us all knows quite well that the people for which my posts apply will read them and say "Pff! That's not me!" and ignore it anyway.  So I'm basically peeing into the wind here.  But at least I realize it and can laugh it off as being a pointless exercise.  The important thing here is that it's keeping me from being bored at work.)_


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Apr 7, 2011)

triqui said:


> Or just cut your hand, put the blood in a vial, and give it to him. It's not really something that never happens in vampiric stories: the mortal friend giving blood to his fellow vampire and all that.
> 
> Sure that doing it in *every* encounter is a bit overdoing it




I love the idea of letting an old friend... But I agree with the last post, not someone I just met. 

I think the "kiss" of a vampire is a intamit act


----------



## pauljathome (Apr 7, 2011)

triqui said:


> Or just cut your hand, put the blood in a vial, and give it to him. It's not really something that never happens in vampiric stories: the mortal friend giving blood to his fellow vampire and all that.
> 
> Sure that doing it in *every* encounter is a bit overdoing it




I admit that my basic view of vampires now mostly comes from Buffy, which is hardly canonical.

But I think some of the tropes from there are fairly common.

Vampires drinking human blood tends to be bad. It makes them harder to control, more feral, etc.

And they develop a taste for the person who's blood they drink.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Apr 7, 2011)

Maybe be fed on by a vampire in the party is like how being fed on by a vampire in Vampire: the Masquerade/Requiem is where it's usually pleasurable, but bad for your health.

On the subject of leaders with healing powers that don't require healing surges, I think it's the Ardent that has the most of those.  Somehow I think any that Ardent which ends up in a party with a vampire should probably take the Siphon paragon path, which is basically the psychic vampire path.


----------



## Ourph (Apr 7, 2011)

defcon 1 said:


> but we all know those players who are giving our game and ourselves as gamers a bad name.



qft.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Apr 7, 2011)

Kobold Avenger said:


> On the subject of leaders with healing powers that don't require healing surges, I think it's the Ardent that has the most of those.  Somehow I think any that Ardent which ends up in a party with a vampire should probably take the Siphon paragon path, which is basically the psychic vampire path.




Nah, I think clerics with all the cure .... wounds are better with surgeless healing.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Apr 7, 2011)

One interesting note on the "friend giving blood to vampire" thing ... the vampire gets a daily utility at 16 to return the favor. He can lose a surge to give an ally 1 hp, their bloodied value in thp, and a saving throw with a bonus. Sort of an interesting thing ... it gives just enough to revive someone that is unconcious, but mostly just temorary vitality.


----------



## gyor (Apr 8, 2011)

WalterKovacs said:


> One interesting note on the "friend giving blood to vampire" thing ... the vampire gets a daily utility at 16 to return the favor. He can lose a surge to give an ally 1 hp, their bloodied value in thp, and a saving throw with a bonus. Sort of an interesting thing ... it gives just enough to revive someone that is unconcious, but mostly just temorary vitality.




Ironically the character that would benifit the most from that would be another vampire. They're regen would kick in because thps don't count for that and the thps would keep him in the fight long enough to heal back to bloodied while still fighting.


----------



## Jhaelen (Apr 8, 2011)

pauljathome said:


> But it seems very, very off to me that the expectation is that the other party members will ALLOW THE VAMPIRE TO DRAIN THEIR BLOOD.



I think, once you have a party allowing a vampire to join them that will no longer be a problem.

After the vampire goes all sparkly on you, you'll WANT the vampire to suck you dry


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 9, 2011)

I really beleve the revised multiclass rules may make or brake the new class design. I am still crossing my fingers...

Hey, they could easily add a layer: multiclass X as a theme. And specialized themes for other characters. It could even be unearthed arcana. I guess the decision to make it a class with very limited choices is obvious:

Balance is one of the highest held ideals. And things that deviate too much from the PHB1 design principle need to be more or less self contained. Imagine a slayer fighter that could swap power strike with rain of blows...


----------



## Grabuto138 (Apr 10, 2011)

pauljathome said:


> A lot of people are praising the flavour of the vampire class.
> 
> But it seems very, very off to me that the expectation is that the other party members will ALLOW THE VAMPIRE TO DRAIN THEIR BLOOD.
> 
> ...





This is a very good explaination for why a vampire should not be allowed in certain parties. On the other hand in some other party the vampire may elevate the roleplaying experience of the party.

In any case it is good to have the option.


----------



## Grabuto138 (Apr 10, 2011)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Actually... all the fantasies you pointed out are just as moronic.
> 
> Hell, EVERY fantasy is moronic to a certain extent. I have no wool over my eyes thinking that when sit around a dining table speaking in a funny voice and acting as though I'm a scion of a merchant house with a magical mark upon my face that allows me to affect the weather... that it isn't just _slightly_ stupid in the grand scheme of things. Most hobbies often are. I'm not afraid to admit it.
> 
> ...




Emoticons do not make rude statements less rude.

How in the heck does a person become a "productive member of the gaming community?" Start DMing at a soup kitchen? Lobby Congress for "Roleplaying Game Awerness Month?"

I you don't mind, I think I'll just play D&D with my friends without worrying about my social responsibility to the greater gaming community.

And though you claim to want to help other gamers to learn, based on your attitude towards your fellow gamers I suspect you have nothing worth teaching.


----------



## Rel (Apr 11, 2011)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Actually... all the fantasies you pointed out are just as moronic.
> 
> Hell, EVERY fantasy is moronic to a certain extent.  I have no wool over my eyes thinking that when sit around a dining table speaking in a funny voice and acting as though I'm a scion of a merchant house with a magical mark upon my face that allows me to affect the weather... that it isn't just _slightly_ stupid in the grand scheme of things.  Most hobbies often are.  I'm not afraid to admit it.
> 
> ...




DEFCON1 won't be joining us any further in this thread and is taking a short vacation from ENWorld..  When a moderator tells you, "Don't insult people." then it's a VERY good idea not to use the exact same insult in your next post in the same thread.


----------



## Dayte (Apr 11, 2011)

Aegeri said:


> Why should they be penalized for the Vampires terrible design choices?





How about teamwork.

There are things about the vampire (without seeing the book yet) that make it difficult in certain cases and things that help compensate in others and are boons in even other cases.

How about teaming up a vampire with a high-con warlock. They can be some kind of husband and wife adventuring team?

I don't know. When I see different things.. I think cool. This class is different. How can a party make it work and have fun?

For those who think it's such a (pick one or a couple) horrible class / idea / monster / no fun / etc.... Don't play one and try to come up with a consensus in your gaming group as to why noone should play one. Done.

Others who enjoy (pick one or a couple) challenges / new ideas / the flavor / etc. will play it and then decide after play experience if it's fun.

But to dismiss out of hand............    I just don't get it when people come up with scenarios why a class or build would suffer. That's the beauty of DnD. It's a more complicated game of rock / paper / scissor. Other wise I would just keep playing Stratego like I did when I was 12, use the same strategy I came up with like the 20th time I played and just keep beating my little sisters. yeah, what fun.....  uh, now I remember, I got bored and stopped playing that game.


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 11, 2011)

Dismissing it after reviewing its abilities is not "out of hand." It is firmly in-hand, and it is lacking. You can still enjoy it, but your joy in it does not actually make it effective. It's like a three-legged dog. You can still love it, but it's not going to quite match up to a four-legged dog.


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 11, 2011)

Incenjucar said:


> It's like a three-legged dog. You can still love it, but it's not going to quite match up to a four-legged dog.



A dog like that, you don't eat all at once.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 11, 2011)

Incenjucar said:


> Dismissing it after reviewing its abilities is not "out of hand." It is firmly in-hand, and it is lacking.



Reviewed its abilities, or seen the class in play? I don't put much stock in armchair-quarterback analysis of classes in 4E.


----------



## Dayte (Apr 11, 2011)

Incenjucar said:


> Dismissing it after reviewing its abilities is not "out of hand." It is firmly in-hand, and it is lacking. You can still enjoy it, but your joy in it does not actually make it effective. It's like a three-legged dog. You can still love it, but it's not going to quite match up to a four-legged dog.




For those who have a copy of the book and have read it in it's entirety and have given it more than 5 minutes thought, sure it's not quite "out of hand."

I'm referring in general terms to the people who say it's not workable based on less than that.

Even with the above, personally, I still would like to see it play out at a table or two for a few sessions before I say it isn't effective. Kinda like a play-test, which a lot of people say WoTC doesn't do enough of. But, I guess alot of posters are good enough to "play-test" it in their mind through different parties and different enoers and decide it's effectiveness.


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 11, 2011)

The vampire's being a surge sink is pretty much built into the class. In the course of an adventuring day, they might luck out and end up with more surges than they started with, but if they start the day off dealing with an enemy with a damage aura or surge drain, it's going to be a QQ kind of encounter.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 11, 2011)

Ok, armchair analysis... pretty clear...


----------



## WalterKovacs (Apr 11, 2011)

Incenjucar said:


> The vampire's being a surge sink is pretty much built into the class. In the course of an adventuring day, they might luck out and end up with more surges than they started with, but if they start the day off dealing with an enemy with a damage aura or surge drain, it's going to be a QQ kind of encounter.




Everyone in the party is a surge sink, the vampire just occaisionally uses other people's surges.

During the fights that don't involve the vampire being focussed fired upon and unconcious though, it's quite possible the vampire uses none of it's own surges, and more importantly, uses none of the leader's resources. If the vampire, using a combination of his own regenration, temp hit point generation, and perhaps his allies helping him out with some surgeless healing or extra temp hp, he should be able to last an encounter without needing the leader to use one of his minor action 2/encounter heals to keep the vamp upright. So while between encounters the vampire may be a drain (pun intended) on party resources by grabbing a surge off the sturdiest member ... it's still only one surge. He (like the artificer) allows the party to pool their surges to some extent. The adventuring day ends when the first person runs out of surges normally, so if someone else still has tons of surges, those go to waste. The vampire not only helps make those surges useful, but helps the rest of the party in combat by requiring less of the leader's time. Now ANYONE that gets nova'd and drops unconcious is going to be problematic [It may be a good idea to have a Revenant Vampire ... he can avoid unconciousness to at least be able to grab an extra surge at 0hp if he has none] but outside of scenarios set up to screw the vampire over [let's put him into a bunch of encounters in a row with only traps, and have all the enemies focus on him, etc] in a normal encounter, the defender should be defending, and the controller should be controlling and therefore the vampire should be able to at least stay on his feet for most of the fight. 

And while everyone has been comparing the vampire to the Ossassin ... I actually play an Ossassin and while he's got a glass jaw (with our controller being a druid, I'm the one with the lowest hp), my damage spike at the start of the encounter is unmatched. Sure I have to use a number of "one extra surge" feat based powers, and the daily double surge power, but generally I speed the encounter up enough that it doesn't last long enough where I become a liability. We are currently at low paragon (12), but so far I'm outperforming our rogue (now changed to a theif) and ranger (who was admitedly built very poorly). Outside of the Slayer, the Hexblade, the Scout, and the Monk, I've seen just about every striker in play for at least a few sessions. Even the best classes, played poorly, are a drain on the party. For strikers, dpr and ability to spike damage with a nova combo are nice and all, but as long as they are doing solid enough damage, and are self reliant (movement based a lot of time, although having good defenses, self healing options, etc) is also a plus, as the defender/controller/leader have enough time trying to keep each other alive/safe/etc ... that one less person to worry about helps them out a lot.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 11, 2011)

You missed all the discussions about spike damage... it does not count when doing armchair analysises. Only DPR and mutual hacking is the way a strike has to be estimated...
Having powers like shadeform that makes you take half damage for a round also does not count when you have 2 + level less hp than the average striker... especially when taking into account that you also gain vulnerable radiant to add insult to injury...

please keep your experience where it belongs... at the game table... you are disturbing the armchair rants.


----------



## Aegeri (Apr 12, 2011)

There is some beautiful irony in your post UngeheuerLich as this "Armchair ranter" can show you something really funny, that actually happened in an actual game (which actually demolishes any point you may have had while - ironically - armchair ranting yourself ).


			
				UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> Having powers like shadeform that makes you take half damage for a round  also does not count when you have 2 + level less hp than the average  striker... especially when taking into account that you also gain  vulnerable radiant to add insult to injury...



The irony here is that in my own ACTUAL game, the radiant vulnerability is what killed the oassassin. The extra radiant vulnerability effectively negated the benefit of shade form and ensured the oAssassin's death. Without the vulnerability, he would have lived pretty easily but because of it, well - I don't have an oAssassin in the game now .

Speaking of spike damage, the new barbarian the player has does extremely high damage round/round, way outdoing his assassin easily. While having more surges, more HP and more resilience in general. In short: Working infinitely better than a poor, glass cannon striker that couldn't even out damage the paladin. The Barbarian, without needing a single round of building any shrouds that will potentially be wasted - on a crit - almost wipes out an elite of his own level.

As for the vampire, I've been playtesting various encounters with a vampire since all the core "stuff" has been released. There isn't any mystery to what it does anymore for me, because what I've seen in game is that the vampire is _immensely_ swingy. Thus far the vampire is basically required to take durable, or be at risk of a single poor skill challenge from a new character sheet. In fairness after some playtesting, the vampire with durable is really solid. You'll have bad encounters, but you'll have good encounters as well and the net effect is that you can keep up. 4 surges is a pretty big buffer and not even I strip that many surges regularly off one character (except in the most amazingly unlucky circumstances).

So in general the Vampire as "designed" with 2 surges is useless. With durable and later once they get the bonus surge from the PP it looks solid. Damage is underwhelming, due to not having the same tricks, out of turn attack opportunities and similar things that other classes have. At the same time, the Vampire isn't entirely useless despite the low damage (possibly lower than an Oassassin) simply because of two things:

1) Some of the powers are actually really solid control powers. With a good 18/18 starting Dex/Cha (which they do in fairness really need) the cha+2 dominate power is just great. As are some of their other powers/utilities, plus most of their powers have some control effect and they get a few bursts/blasts.

2) With some extra surges to burn - I can't emphasize my amazement that _durable_ makes or breaks an entire class - they can make consistent use of their burn surge mechanics. Getting another entire attack, or just being able to throw on another 2d8 is actually pretty solid.

Where of course vampires can fall apart are adventures that are trap and skill challenge heavy. Normal parties face these pretty fine, but there is a distinct design difference between these encounters and combat encounters to a vampire. If the vampire faces a few encounters in a row without combat, say traps or skill challenges (that drain surges) they can rapidly run into trouble. But again, this is where I emphasize that durable is so important. Any fragile striker (like a rogue for example) who loses 4 surges to traps/skill challenges isn't going to be a lot better off than a vampire either.



			
				WalterKovacs said:
			
		

> And while everyone has been comparing the vampire to the Ossassin ... I  actually play an Ossassin and while he's got a glass jaw (with our  controller being a druid, I'm the one with the lowest hp), my damage  spike at the start of the encounter is unmatched.



It definitely sounds like it to me. What is your build? Because my experience with paragon+ Oassassins is they are practically useless. While I have found that Rogues simply become amazing and Rangers are practically on auto. Unless both of those characters have made absolutely terrible decisions, I can't see how the Oassassin could outdamage them. Unless you're heavily charopped and they are not - which I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case.


Fifth Element said:


> Reviewed its abilities, or seen the class  in play? I don't put much stock in armchair-quarterback analysis of  classes in 4E.



I've done both. Without durable it plays exactly like I said it would play (Horribly). In certain scenarios it's a short trip to a new character sheet, depending on the old encounters I tried as I have been DMing 4E for nearly 3 years, so I have a good chunk of encounters that were successful with real players that I use for playtesting new builds. One of them I tried was of particular interest to points I made about the vampire, the Temple of Dagon. This is one of my earlier 4E adventures, which starts with a ship being attacked by Sahuagin and then a Kraken (Hazard/Trap statted) who sinks the ship, then being sucked down into the temple itself while fending off the Sahuagin underwater (Skill challenge - there was no way 4Es combat rules could make that encounter survivable, so I came up with a skill challenge to represent the vortex + fending off sahuagin/sharks) and then being sucked into the temple itself - where the room shuts and promptly begins flooding (a trap, with bonus lightning!). So that is a combat encounter that gets cut short, because the ship sinks followed by a skill challenge and then a trap. Without durable, a vampire that had an off day in encounter 1 was doomed by the trap. You know, basically exactly what I claimed would happen ages back in the thread without playing the class. It didn't take extensive playtesting to figure out what nearly 3 years of running 3+ games of DnD at a time usually have taught me about how the game works. With durable, I sometimes managed to get all of his surges but the "soft" EL-2 encounter once they escape the trap after the very hardcore "start" to that adventuring day, nearly always got the vampire back on his feet and adventuring again pretty quickly.

So really, when I account for the fact durable is an amazing feat for vampires and I cannot stop emphasizing just how good it is - many of their problems aren't so bad. Is the vampire still a total trap option IMO? Yes, the vampire almost certainly is 4Es biggest trap option. Is it _relatively_ easy for any DM to help a PC fix? Yes it is. Advise the player to take durable and they will do a lot better automatically. If you're really kind hearted, just houserule that vampires get durable for free and get on with life. 

Because IMO, after playtesting and thinking about it, the vampire is actually kind of fun. It does have its merits, but you really have to dig into the hard rock exterior for the little bits of gold it can offer.


----------



## IanB (Apr 12, 2011)

I'm starting to come to the conclusion that surge-burning skill challenges are just way more common in your games than the norm, Aegeri - they're certainly quite rare in all the groups I've played in, but you seem to be working from the assumption that there will be one a session (or maybe even more).


----------



## Aegeri (Apr 12, 2011)

IanB said:


> I'm starting to come to the conclusion that surge-burning skill challenges are just way more common in your games than the norm, Aegeri - they're certainly quite rare in all the groups I've played in, but you seem to be working from the assumption that there will be one a session (or maybe even more).



I don't have 1/session (except in my Dark Sun game) but they are actually decently common in adventures (Dungeon included). Checking many LFR adventures there are numerous examples of such skill challenges. They are also present in official modules (Tomb of Horrors) and traps are also another common way of losing surges. Trap based adventures like Tomb of Horrors emphasize that very well.

Given that I base a lot of what I do encounter wise on official modules - without the long linear hackathon dungeons of course  - I disagree with your assessment. The Dark Sun Encounters series also had a few surge draining skill challenges to. So did some previous seasons of encounters (I have not played the recent one to know though). 

Perhaps you're underestimating how often they might occur  Especially given that to a vampire, a trap is just as bad anyway and there are more than a few trap only encounters in 4E (Keep on the Shadowfells Statue room is a good example).


----------



## IanB (Apr 12, 2011)

Certainly it is possible that the games I've played in are the non-norm, but even so it strikes me as something that will come up less often than, say, the fighter being screwed over by lack of useful ranged attacks, and we don't generally consider the fighter (or barbarian, or str-paladin, etc.) deeply flawed.


----------



## Aegeri (Apr 12, 2011)

IanB said:


> Certainly it is possible that the games I've played in are the non-norm, but even so it strikes me as something that will come up less often than, say, the fighter being screwed over by lack of useful ranged attacks, and we don't generally consider the fighter (or barbarian, or str-paladin, etc.) deeply flawed.



Fighters can get easy ways around that, such as having a simple magic handaxe with the skyrender property or similar. I have had one hilariously bad encounter, it would be in the top 10 worst encounters I ever ran in 4E with a bramble witch (IIRC). The creature immobilized all the melee characters away from it and kept them there. While the Wizard/Sorcerer had a total off day. Due to everyone being resistant to necrotic by a power it meant the druid chipped away at them 3 points of damage a turn (this was pre-MM3 at paragon tier btw). 

It was in many ways _kind of_ funny, but it didn't get anyone anywhere for a long time. It took nearly an hour to kill the thing and I was very tempted to just automatically explode the creature numerous times.

Also in fairness to your point, the fighter is less worried about a flying creature because the wizard can knock it prone then he can attack it. The vampire is uniquely screwed by skill challenges and traps, because his entire class is built around getting back surges from encounters. Durable solves this because it's impossible to have a bad day matter anywhere near as much. You could lose 3 surges going into an encounter and still not be too bad. Lose 3 surges from 2 and go into an encounter, then have a couple of rounds of "off day" rolling and that's the end of you. That's why I commented that it is hilariously swingy, but that durable fixes the swingyness. Additionally the +2 surges are almost like increasing your striker mechanics - able to burn surges for damage/extra attacks really safely/reliably helping you keep up with other strikers. Vampires need all the help they can get there, so durable is almost the most important feat in the game for them.

Personally I think if a vampire started on 4 surges that would have been a lot better than 2. I haven't seen the vampire romp all over any encounters with 4 surges (even 5 once you get the PP). They actually come up to "par" with extra surges to burn and have some interesting mechanics - but again you _really_ need the surges to burn (and 2 is way too little). I guess it's just more bizarre design to me from Wizards (much like the shade) where I don't understand the logic behind the penalty. In play with 2 surges the swingyness is crippling - but you get durable or whatever they play really well. They're also not going to be uniquely screwed by skill challenges or traps anymore, which again makes me wonder what the point of the 2 surges was. They aren't exceptionally powerful in any way or manner, as with surges to burn they deal roughly decent level striker damage for more effort than a thief/slayer/scout/rogue/barbarian does. With extra surges they do become ridiculously resilient, but that's more than accounted for by having a huge and obvious achilles heel that any DM can take advantage of. Incidentally I'm not talking about the silly sunlight thing, which is itself is another example of wizards absolutely schizophrenic design with this class.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Apr 12, 2011)

Aegeri said:


> It definitely sounds like it to me. What is your build? Because my experience with paragon+ Oassassins is they are practically useless. While I have found that Rogues simply become amazing and Rangers are practically on auto. Unless both of those characters have made absolutely terrible decisions, I can't see how the Oassassin could outdamage them. Unless you're heavily charopped and they are not - which I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case.




In the case of the ranger, he's horribly designed.

The rogue (pre changing to essentials) was ok. He had backstabber, and daggermaster, and knockout. He was able to do some good damage on occaision, but the PC is played a bit ... risk averse. So he doesn't get C/A every round. [He is now a thief who has that problem solved.]

As for my Ossassin, it's a changeling with 22 Dex, 20 Cha and is using the bonus damage vs. isolated target build. It's got a shadowblade, iron armbands of power and bloodied guantlets. More importantly, it's multiclassed into rogue, and has both "extra shroud" feats (the generic "get an extra shroud this round" feat, and the "get a shroud when you changeling trick"). So, on the first or second round of each fight, I ussually drop a 3d8+7d6+28 on a target, with the attack being against Reflex and, thanks to c/a, being about +21 to hit. Once per day, with the marked for death daily (and an action point) I'm able to put all four shrouds on a target two turns in a row (my feat enabling 2 ways to do 2 per turn, and each shroud counting double). Often if I'm "out" of easy ways to drop extra shrouds I'll build up shrouds while turning into a pseudo defender with the garotte daily. It does help as well that (a) our party has 3 exceptionally stealthy people and (b) I have the daily utilty to make the entire party stealthy and (c) I took the admitedly 'weak' feat that makes my shrouds unnoticed to people who can't see me. So on a few occaisions, I've been able to build up shrouds before the encounter started, and once or twice was even able to shroud up and coup de gras a sleeping target.

Admitedly, I've seen some powerful strikers, but in terms of damage available every encounter (crit or not), he does have a solid spike. Then again, I would gladly switch him over to the Executioner variant, as the 1/encounter spike is simplified greatly, and the garotte power is made more available. As far as shade form goes, I don't really use it that often, but then, we don't end up with radiant powers thrown at us too often either.

The Ossassin, had it been a vampire, would have been toast at the start of the game though, as we had a skill challenge where I failed at every edurance check costing me surges. It wasn't that my endurance were bad, it was my dice.


----------



## Aegeri (Apr 12, 2011)

I can see how that works actually. I love the irony of making a combination of a poor class and one of the worst supported races work well though! Kudos to that. Albeit I am not surprised to see all the tricks that everyone else can pretty much do to boost damage (Rogue MC has to be one of the best for non-rogue striker, which uses light blades) and the rogue changing to thief will make his life much easier (thieves plain autoplay themselves). At the same time, to show my original point about the oAssassin your damage isn't actually that much more than what the executioner in my Dark Sun game is doing. Bearing in mind he is a lot worse off for equipment as well. His first starting encounter nova is:

Rapier + Surprising Charge (one of the bst feats ever)

2d8 + 1d8 (attack finesse) + 2d10 (Assassin's Strike) + 5 (dex) + 1 (enhancement) + 2 (Flaming Bracers) + 1d6 (Elemental Boon) + 2d6 (sneak attack) + 1d10 (another triggered on hit fire power) + 4 (poison) = 3d8+3d6+3d10+10 = 50 damage or so. 

Due to heroic effort, charging and having CA from cunning stalker that tends to hit 95% of the time. Unless he rolls a 1, just to reroll it due to reckless breakage (DO THIS MORE PCS IN MY GAME).

Your nova does 66 damage average (assuming those are all the relevant numbers you put up), I'll assume it gets pretty high % wise as well (actually 95% to be consistent in my assumptions here). So you will out damage him - but look at the difference. The thing is you are level 12 and he's level... 5. Plus he hasn't got anywhere near the equipment choices (though I make sure my PCs get items that help them, in this case items he can use to add some extra damage). Technically there is also the conditional death strike, which usually  (and very hilariously) commonly ends up 1-2 HP from actually working.  Though that will fix itself with a higher static bonus. I don't really know how to calculate that into his DPR to be honest but it would raise it a bit again.

So he's actually not far off you and has under half your level. This kind of shows just how far off the mark the oAssassin was. Bearing in mind his equipment and weapon choices are much more restricted due to Dark Sun being quite restrictive on magic items. I don't know what he'll do between level 5 and level 12 of course, but depending on his PP he's going to get a pretty big boost to that damage.

It's actually already scaring me to think about what he might end up accomplishing on a critical hit...



			
				WalterKovacs said:
			
		

> The Ossassin, had it been a vampire, would have been toast at the start  of the game though, as we had a skill challenge where I failed at every  edurance check costing me surges. It wasn't that my endurance were bad,  it was my dice.



It's interesting to me you pointed this out, because this is pretty much the argument I made some time ago in the thread. At the same time you *surely* would have taken durable and if you lost more than 4 surges in that skill challenge - well there are bad days and then there are _bad_ days.

Edit: Just to reiterate this, it's a bad day like Walter describes that can make or break a low level vampire particularly hard. This is why I do make a lot of emphasis that durable is really quite a game changer for the class. Even people who agree with me who dislike the vampire, should give them a fair shot with durable as a feat choice. It might just work out!


----------



## Grabuto138 (Apr 12, 2011)

I am honestly baffled by this most recent exchange regarding the Vampire.

In my experience D&D is a collabrative hobby. All the "woulda/shoulda/coulda" walls of text don't recognize that most DMs would run an adventure with the knowledge that a Vampire was in the party and would adjust accordingling to make sure everyone had fun. D&D adventures don't just happen on their own as spontaneous forces of nature. People get together for the sake of having fun.

You won't find Thri-keens or Muls in our game. Right now we are doing a stylized "Age of Sail" game kind of in Eberron where the Korvaire people are the colonialists, the Dragon Marked houses are essentially the trading companies, the elves and tieflings are the natives and the party is in the process of encouraging a slave rebellion among the elves on a distant island. A Vampire could probably fit. A Shardmind has no place here. Sorry Shardmind, move along. 

That stupid Bladeling thing? Why do you exist, exactly? I can see a cool campaign that includes the Shadar-kai. Not this one, though. Freakin' Wilden? What role does that fill that the shifters and elves don't already occupy? As a player my favorite class by far is the Taclord but I just can't get my head around the Genasi enough to play one. I don't get them.

But many of you do. It is great that people have the option and I like options. If they don't fit don't allow them. The more options, the less painful eliminating one option is. 

But by God I freakin' hate the Bladeling. That is the one thing that is so stupid I can't forgive. But if you want to play one and you have a roleplaying hook I would probably make it work.


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 12, 2011)

Well-designed classes generally don't force the DM to do any extra work.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Apr 12, 2011)

Incenjucar said:


> Well-designed classes generally don't force the DM to do any extra work.




NOT running a ton of encounters that are just traps with no monsters and skill challenges that eat surges is extra work?

Then again, a player should also know what kind of campaign they are getting into. A slayer would also do poorly in that campaign, as unlike a number of other strikers he doesn't get a bunch of skills, and utility powers, that would be useful in all these trap/skill challenge encounters.

A vampire is something that isn't just about to pop up anywhere. I did say a player can play a drow vampire in my Dark Sun campaign if he really wants to, but he has to be named Ash. As in Pile of.

Regardless, a DM should at least know what his party is like AND a player should know what the DM and/or campaign world is like. A Charisma based Paladin may be solid in an expected fight, but when he finds out the party is spending most of it's time fighting at sea, the "no strength, no athletics, plate armor and heavy shield" suddenly doesn't seem like such a good idea. [The vampire, on the other hand, doen't care if he sinks to the bottom of the ocean, he can't suffocate].


----------



## Aegeri (Apr 12, 2011)

Grabuto138 said:
			
		

> All the "woulda/shoulda/coulda" walls of text don't recognize that most  DMs would run an adventure with the knowledge that a Vampire was in the  party and would adjust accordingling to make sure everyone had fun.



You know this is a really interesting point you bring up. The vampire has its advantages, but as I've mentioned several times it has some specific disadvantages as well that really penalize the class considerably. These disadvantages _uniquely_ penalize the vampire a lot and make those encounters considerably more lethal than they are for - well - just about anyone else. The question you've raised is interesting: If a class is poorly designed for a significant part of the game, should I change the game to fix the poorly designed class or fix the poor designed class' issue?

Personally I prefer to think that when nothing else in the game is as uniquely susceptible to these things: The problem is the class. I am not going to design the game differently because Wizards makes a poorly designed class. Instead, I'll try to fix the actual problem or find a solution. It turns out that durable _is_ a really viable solution. Another solution - a soft one at that - is to pace encounters/skill challenges with a very easy encounter (or soft enemies that can be easily hit) before or immediately after. Letting the vampire easily regain surges that may have been lost before they would run into trouble or get them out of it. This is something I often do anyway, just in case PCs suffer a bad day from the trap or skill challenge in the first place. The previous shipwreck encounter -> Skill Challenge -> Trapped Room of Doom was followed by an EL-2 encounter. Not enough to threaten the PCs, but could be hairy if they had a bad day on any of the three elements before hand. For a vampire a soft encounter like that would be almost perfect to get back on their feet and again, I designed that well before I even knew Wizards would release a class that worked like the vampire*.

But of course you can just have a bad day. For most classes this is just a session spent frustrated. The problem with the core of the vampires design is this is a session spent making a new character. Because without durable, when the vampire goes wrong _it goes really wrong_. It's also very frustrating for the party leader to have to heal a guy from unconscious for a whole 1 HP. Only to just to go down again and anyone who has seen a leader have to do this, knows how frustrating it is for the players in question.

In the end, I won't design the game differently just because of the vampire. The vampire will have to live with the considerable in built disadvantage and find a workaround. It does exist and even if it didn't, I would certainly houserule the vampire to 4 surges or something similar anyway if a PC wanted to play one.

*Edit: Sometimes I do like to think I am psychic.


----------



## Grabuto138 (Apr 12, 2011)

Incenjucar said:


> Well-designed classes generally don't force the DM to do any extra work.




Unless you are talking RPGA adventures I am not sure what you mean.

The "outlaw biker" party I DMed for a while back was fun. A Warforged STR Cleric, A Dwarf big-ass hammer Fighter, a half-orc brutal Rogue, A gnoll charging Barbarian and a shifter two-weapon Ranger. 

They were melee gods but at range absolutely useless. Since we all got together to have fun and stuff I created encounters that challenged them, let them play to their strengths, challenged their weaknesses (with environmental events that might make the battlefield even) and otherwise made it fun for everyone.

Are you honestly suggesting that the ideal is that any assemblage of character should be able to plug into any adventure? What is the DM for?


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 12, 2011)

WalterKovacs said:


> NOT running a ton of encounters that are just traps with no monsters and skill challenges that eat surges is extra work?




Having to actively avoid starting the day off with an epic trap room can be extra work, yes. Having to add vampire food to the game to make sure that one of the characters won't drag the rest of the party down can be extra work, yes. Having to make sure that I never start an adventuring day with a skill challenge or monsters that drag in surges can be extra work, yes. It limits my freedom as a DM in ways that no other class does, not even Knight and its horrible lack of function around anything with a good push power.



> Then again, a player should also know what kind of campaign they are getting into. A slayer would also do poorly in that campaign, as unlike a number of other strikers he doesn't get a bunch of skills, and utility powers, that would be useful in all these trap/skill challenge encounters.




You can break most traps with damage. Slayers do fine against traps. Skill challenges simply utilize skills most of the time, and while I don't have that book, I'm willing to bet that slayers have access to skills roughly on-par with the fighter. Athletics, acrobatics, and endurance are all extremely useful in many skill challenges.



> A vampire is something that isn't just about to pop up anywhere. I did say a player can play a drow vampire in my Dark Sun campaign if he really wants to, but he has to be named Ash. As in Pile of.




That's your bias. At worst, I tend to allow just about anything if someone's willing to reflavor it.



> Regardless, a DM should at least know what his party is like AND a player should know what the DM and/or campaign world is like. A Charisma based Paladin may be solid in an expected fight, but when he finds out the party is spending most of it's time fighting at sea, the "no strength, no athletics, plate armor and heavy shield" suddenly doesn't seem like such a good idea. [The vampire, on the other hand, doen't care if he sinks to the bottom of the ocean, he can't suffocate].




While heavy armor is not the best in a nautical setting, it's incredibly easy to overcome. Worst case scenario, give the paladin a floating shield ASAP.


----------



## Grabuto138 (Apr 12, 2011)

Aegeri said:


> You know this is a really interesting point you bring up. The vampire has its advantages, but as I've mentioned several times it has some specific disadvantages as well that really penalize the class considerably. These disadvantages _uniquely_ penalize the vampire a lot and make those encounters considerably more lethal than they are for - well - just about anyone else. The question you've raised is interesting: If a class is poorly designed for a significant part of the game, should I change the game to fix the poorly designed class or fix the poor designed class' issue?
> 
> Personally I prefer to think that when nothing else in the game is as uniquely susceptible to these things: The problem is the class. I am not going to design the game differently because Wizards makes a poorly designed class. Instead, I'll try to fix the actual problem or find a solution. It turns out that durable _is_ a really viable solution. Another solution - a soft one at that - is to pace encounters/skill challenges with a very easy encounter (or soft enemies that can be easily hit) before or immediately after. Letting the vampire easily regain surges that may have been lost before they would run into trouble or get them out of it. This is something I often do anyway, just in case PCs suffer a bad day from the trap or skill challenge in the first place. The previous shipwreck encounter -> Skill Challenge -> Trapped Room of Doom was followed by an EL-2 encounter. Not enough to threaten the PCs, but could be hairy if they had a bad day on any of the three elements before hand. For a vampire a soft encounter like that would be almost perfect to get back on their feet and again, I designed that well before I even knew Wizards would release a class that worked like the vampire*.
> 
> ...




My first question would be, "does a vampire character make sense in my campaign?"

I am very accomodating so if the player can justify it (and if the other players are cool with it) the answer is probably yes.

Next I would let the character play out as written.

If the character dies then so be it. Make another character. Next time don't play a Vampire.

If the rest of the party is annoyed becasue the character is sucking resources we get together as adults and solve the problem. I imagine in most cases it would be up to the Dm to Adjust the encounters.

If it complicates things but the players like the chemistry I adapt and overcome.

If it complicates things and the players don't like it I say "no."

It really is not that complicated.


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 12, 2011)

Grabuto138 said:


> Unless you are talking RPGA adventures I am not sure what you mean.
> 
> The "outlaw biker" party I DMed for a while back was fun. A Warforged STR Cleric, A Dwarf big-ass hammer Fighter, a half-orc brutal Rogue, A gnoll charging Barbarian and a shifter two-weapon Ranger.
> 
> ...




The ideal for DESIGN is to work within the assumptions of the game so that when a DM wants to move away from those assumptions they have a uniform structure to work with and can thus do a minimal number of things to deal with the change of assumptions.


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 12, 2011)

Grabuto138 said:


> If it complicates things and the players don't like it I say "no."
> 
> It really is not that complicated.




Is this something you have had to consider for someone playing a fighter, a wizard, a cleric, or a rogue?


----------



## Grabuto138 (Apr 12, 2011)

Incenjucar said:


> The ideal for DESIGN is to work within the assumptions of the game so that when a DM wants to move away from those assumptions they have a uniform structure to work with and can thus do a minimal number of things to deal with the change of assumptions.




You capitalized "design" as if we were building bridges or power plants. If you were creating an adventure for publication I imagine you could assume a party of leader, defender, striker, striker, striker or controller. In reality your adventures are for whatever party happens to be sitting in your living room willing to play. Beyond that, aside from compuer games, I am not sure what you hope to achieve. A good Dm improvises, adapts and overcomes.


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 12, 2011)

WotC _is_ creating classes for publication. A good game company reduces the number of things that a good DM has to overcome.

This is getting closer to that whole "rules mastery" nonsense.


----------



## Aegeri (Apr 12, 2011)

Grabuto138 said:
			
		

> A good Dm improvises, adapts and overcomes.



Good game designers make options that are just as competitive with the others - yet still have their own unique mechanics. For some time now, this is something that 4E _has_ been successful at actually doing. I don't view something that is inherently broken in certain core parts of the system it was built for as good game design. Can I get over that easily yes, yes I can (in this case the PC can take a feat to fix it). So should I have to directly design around whatever ill thought out elements Wizards introduces into 4E? The answer is no - Wizards shouldn't be doing that in the first place IMO. In the entire time since 4E has been released I have not had to do _anything_ to the system except my own odd personal preferences and the odd fix (Hero of Faith pre-errata for example). I can build whatever encounters I want and generally speaking, some characters find it harder and some characters find it easier - but everything works around a roughly similar level. I like this about 4E and it's something I enjoy immensely. My design isn't focused on fixing stupid things that wizards have done or poorly designed elements, it's entirely focused on making interesting, fun and dynamic encounters.

In this case, no class in 4E is punished as absurdly much by a skill challenge or trap as the Vampire is. It's absolutely exceptional in the system compared to every other class. As I've argued, I feel it's not something _that ever needed to be like that in the first place_. That's my real objection.


----------



## Grabuto138 (Apr 12, 2011)

Incenjucar said:


> Is this something you have had to consider for someone playing a fighter, a wizard, a cleric, or a rogue?




Of course! 

My current party is an elf bard, an elf druid, a human battlemind, a dwarf ranger, and a human hybrid rogue/sorceror. If someone wanted to step on another player's shtich they would have to clear it first. If the leader died and he wanted to play a striker we would have to work it out. So yeah, actions have consequences. Among adults we work those consequences out.

What do ou do?


----------



## Grabuto138 (Apr 12, 2011)

Aegeri said:


> Good game designers make options that are just as competitive with the others - yet still have their own unique mechanics. For some time now, this is something that 4E _has_ been successful at actually doing. I don't view something that is inherently broken in certain core parts of the system it was built for as good game design. Can I get over that easily yes, yes I can (in this case the PC can take a feat to fix it). So should I have to directly design around whatever ill thought out elements Wizards introduces into 4E? The answer is no - Wizards shouldn't be doing that in the first place IMO. In the entire time since 4E has been released I have not had to do _anything_ to the system except my own odd personal preferences and the odd fix (Hero of Faith pre-errata for example). I can build whatever encounters I want and generally speaking, some characters find it harder and some characters find it easier - but everything works around a roughly similar level. I like this about 4E and it's something I enjoy immensely. My design isn't focused on fixing stupid things that wizards have done or poorly designed elements, it's entirely focused on making interesting, fun and dynamic encounters.
> 
> In this case, no class in 4E is punished as absurdly much by a skill challenge or trap as the Vampire is. It's absolutely exceptional in the system compared to every other class. As I've argued, I feel it's not something _that ever needed to be like that in the first place_. That's my real objection.




But have you played a Vampire or DMed one? Google "mystic theurge."

Edit: I am sorry for being obscure. During the 3e era there was a time when the Mystic Theurge was the "sky is falling" "so totally overpowered" " broken" character. Then people actually played it.


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 12, 2011)

Grabuto138 said:


> Of course!
> 
> My current party is an elf bard, an elf druid, a human battlemind, a dwarf ranger, and a human hybrid rogue/sorceror. If someone wanted to step on another player's shtich they would have to clear it first. If the leader died and he wanted to play a striker we would have to work it out. So yeah, actions have consequences. Among adults we work those consequences out.
> 
> What do ou do?




Assuming you mean schtick, you've shifted goal posts. There's vast gulf between "are vampires okay for this campaign" and "do we need another defender."


----------



## Aegeri (Apr 12, 2011)

Grabuto138 said:


> But have you played a Vampire or DMed one?



Now that I know what the class does/looks like I've simply inserted a vampire into numerous encounters that I use for playtesting. Or just into my actual maptools games (doesn't take much effort to replace a striker for a striker to see the result). To be honest my own playing around confirms what I suspected in the first place. Without durable you have a fragile glass cannon class that can have its entire adventuring day decided by the first poor encounter/skill challenge/trap. With durable - that slight extra buffer - it becomes really hard to have a bad day. You will always have the odd good encounter to go with the crappy ones, meaning once you get on a bit of a surge roll you're usually fine (plus can spend surges for different striker feature powers more easily and safely).

If a PC wanted to play a vampire, I actually would be quite accommodating now that I've playtested it and seen it isn't so terrible as I thought it would be (especially as they can take durable). They are still weaker against traps/skill challenges, but with 4 surges it's just not crippling enough to make me worry about them. The chance of having the rest of their adventuring day completely screwed by one bad encounter is nowhere near as much.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Apr 12, 2011)

Incenjucar said:


> Having to actively avoid starting the day off with an epic trap room can be extra work, yes.




Unless the epic trap room drains surges or knocks the vampire unconcious ... it's fine. As long as it can stay alive, it has the smallest post-fight clean up of anyone else. So, DEADLY epic trap room to start the day can be bad. Again, it has to take out 2 surges (or more, between durable, racial options, 



> Having to add vampire food to the game to make sure that one of the characters won't drag the rest of the party down can be extra work, yes.




How many adventuring days have multiple encounters that damage and drain surges without any monsters showing up? That's nowhere near conventional, and a corner case that could easily be overlooked. The Vampire's surge gaining drain power doesn't require you use specific monster types. As 'odd' as it may seem, he can drain constructs, undead, etc. If it's an enemy, he can get a surge off it. So vampire food involves having encounters where the characters actually fight something.



> Having to make sure that I never start an adventuring day with a skill challenge or monsters that drag in surges can be extra work, yes. It limits my freedom as a DM in ways that no other class does, not even Knight and its horrible lack of function around anything with a good push power.




A monster that steals surges is going to be more annoying to the rest of the party. The vampire can get those surges back, his allies can't. If it limits your freedom as a DM so much, you can either ban it, or tell the player you won't be pulling any punches and let him play it if he still wants.

Regardless, if you are REGULARLY coming up with situations where the vampire is especially bad, you are already playing something that is very different from what most would expect when walking into a game of 4e.



> You can break most traps with damage. Slayers do fine against traps. Skill challenges simply utilize skills most of the time, and while I don't have that book, I'm willing to bet that slayers have access to skills roughly on-par with the fighter. Athletics, acrobatics, and endurance are all extremely useful in many skill challenges.




And so too does the vampire have access to a lot of skills. And utility powers, paragon path features, etc that make those skills even better. And yet THEY are a horrible albatross on the party because it's possible that if they are in a specific situation AND have some bad luck, they may go into an encounter with no surges (which they have a way of getting around). They may take a lot of damage (which they can heal using a single surge that YES, another character has to contribute, but then in a normal encounter, the vampire can, through thp generation and regeneration NOT take up the leader's time being healed).

In the big picture, the Con based Shaman's horrible AC is a much bigger problem than the vampires' surges. Durable doesn't require you put points into what would likely have been a dump stat, and the different those two surges make it huge compared to getting your AC up to mediocre by grabbing chain. And, maybe it's just me, but generally I see PCs getting into fights with things trying to hit their AC more often than death marches through the forest or rooms of traps. Those things happen (and in my Dark Sun game, once they leave the city, there will likely be more skill challenges than usual), but ultimately, monster fights are the 'norm' ... other types of encounters are just less common.


----------



## Grabuto138 (Apr 12, 2011)

Incenjucar said:


> Assuming you mean schtick, you've shifted goal posts. There's vast gulf between "are vampires okay for this campaign" and "do we need another defender."




Aside from your really classy spelling correction (feel free to also correct my grammar and then somehow compare me to Hitler; after all this is the Internet), I have no idea what you are getting at. 

There are many classes and many races. Some are stupid (curse you Bladeling), many are appropriate for one campaign but not another. I can imagine any number of circumstances were the Vampire would be fun, mechanically interesting and a great contribution to the roleplaying experience. I can also imagine situations where this is not the case.


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 12, 2011)

Having run Essentials, my games are actually more forgiving than the easy-mode of what WotC puts out there, considering their hard-core version is in the works, but based on your claims they're certainly more brutal than your own. Had a vampire PC been in the same position as the halfling rogue in my last session, against a barely above party level encounter, they would have rolled up new characters. After the first encounter of the day. Perhaps you only run pre-MM3 monsters?

In all of those cases, you only need ONE bad encounter to completely erase the vampire. As Aegeri has stated, it wouldn't be as bad if they had a couple more surges as a cushion for when the day starts with lurkers or landslides.

I suspect that they just didn't want vampires to be able to pile up surges for damage purposes - ironically they probably would have given them four surges if not for surge-gain feats, and so instead had to give vampires a penalty and a feat tax.

--

I don't know why you insist on making this into a squabble, but I would appreciate it if you would stop.


----------



## Grabuto138 (Apr 12, 2011)

Incenjucar said:


> Having run Essentials, my games are actually more forgiving than the easy-mode of what WotC puts out there, considering their hard-core version is in the works, but based on your claims they're certainly more brutal than your own. Had a vampire PC been in the same position as the halfling rogue in my last session, against a barely above party level encounter, they would have rolled up new characters. After the first encounter of the day. Perhaps you only run pre-MM3 monsters?
> 
> In all of those cases, you only need ONE bad encounter to completely erase the vampire. As Aegeri has stated, it wouldn't be as bad if they had a couple more surges as a cushion for when the day starts with lurkers or landslides.
> 
> ...




Pity your players. Had a vampire player been in my party...
I don't dont know what to tell you. In my game we are all friends and we make things work. Your examples are totally meaningless. I love killing charaters. Some players like to be killed and others hate it.  I keep that in mind. I make try to make the game fun for everyone involved. I challenge everyone. I accomadate my characters, and the real human being that play the characters.

The "Pity your players." comment above is rude.  It should not be repeated nor should it be responded to.  Thank you. - Rel


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 12, 2011)

No need to pity my players, they were all playing well-designed classes, so they survived and even went on to have another encounter before resting, and only the very Avandra-denied halfling actually needed to rest. He had *two surges* left.


----------



## MrMyth (Apr 12, 2011)

Aegeri said:


> I don't have 1/session (except in my Dark Sun game) but they are actually decently common in adventures (Dungeon included). Checking many LFR adventures there are numerous examples of such skill challenges. They are also present in official modules (Tomb of Horrors) and traps are also another common way of losing surges. Trap based adventures like Tomb of Horrors emphasize that very well.




On the other hand, I wonder if the Vampire's utility powers will provide assistance in dealing with such obstacles - I haven't seen the specific listing, but if they get stuff like turning into mist, bats, etc, that can go a long way toward providing support in certain challenges.


----------



## IanB (Apr 12, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> On the other hand, I wonder if the Vampire's utility powers will provide assistance in dealing with such obstacles - I haven't seen the specific listing, but if they get stuff like turning into mist, bats, etc, that can go a long way toward providing support in certain challenges.




They get basically everything you'd expect in that department (the gaseous form even provides full phasing, making it better than I would have expected.)


----------



## Grabuto138 (Apr 14, 2011)

Grabuto138 said:


> Pity your players. Had a vampire player been in my party...
> I don't dont know what to tell you. In my game we are all friends and we make things work. Your examples are totally meaningless. I love killing charaters. Some players like to be killed and others hate it. I keep that in mind. I make try to make the game fun for everyone involved. I challenge everyone. I accomadate my characters, and the real human being that play the characters.
> 
> The "Pity your players." comment above is rude. It should not be repeated nor should it be responded to. Thank you. - Rel




I am sorry for phrasing my comment in a way that was offensive. 

In my game we create adventures that accommodate the players and the characters.


----------



## Aegeri (Apr 15, 2011)

Your assumption that Incenjucar and myself do not is equally frustrating, especially when you know nothing about the games we do actually run (though mine are posted on this forum). My point is that I will not change the way I design the game, because Wizards introduces poorly thought through and designed elements into 4E. I'll balance my games by what actually works - not account for trap options. Instead of banning trap options, I will manually fix them myself (the beauty of being the DM) so they are on the same level as everyone else.

Vryloka get a +2 to surge value while bloodied. A powerful benefit in heroic tier, but rapidly tapers off towards later tiers. 

Shade ... okay I am lost at what to do here because it really is absolutely terrible. Only a total rewrite of the races mechanics could possibly save it.

Vampire I've decided to just technically hand out durable for free (due to being the feat, it means it can't be taken again. 4 surges seems to work really well for the Vampire from what I've played with it, so I don't think needing to get it again is required).

And with that I'm relatively done. The Vampire with 4 surges is perfectly playable and I think pretty fun (if very limited). The Vryloka are basically already elves with a somewhat situationally weaker racial, but +2 to surge value is a fluffy and interesting perk, while not being out of whack against the Dragonborns constant bonus to his surge value (as an example).


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 15, 2011)

Giving Vampires Durable for free really is probably the best option - I'm still convinced that they gave them such low surges BECAUSE Durable exists, while forgetting that you can give a class free feats as part of the class design (works for the melee ranger).

As for flexibility, I would be tempted to pity vampire players enough to give them access to a theme if nobody else does, and a second theme if themes are already part of the game, just so that they have some choices.

Veiled Alliance/Athasian Minstrel vampire would be pretty sweet.


----------



## Iron Sky (Apr 16, 2011)

Tattoo of the Penitent Martyr + Vampires = Win - assuming they have daily powers that is...(haven't seen the class, so dunno).


----------



## gyor (Apr 17, 2011)

Aegeri said:


> Your assumption that Incenjucar and myself do not is equally frustrating, especially when you know nothing about the games we do actually run (though mine are posted on this forum). My point is that I will not change the way I design the game, because Wizards introduces poorly thought through and designed elements into 4E. I'll balance my games by what actually works - not account for trap options. Instead of banning trap options, I will manually fix them myself (the beauty of being the DM) so they are on the same level as everyone else.
> 
> Vryloka get a +2 to surge value while bloodied. A powerful benefit in heroic tier, but rapidly tapers off towards later tiers.
> 
> ...





The Shade is easy, just allow them to switch out thier racial power for any shade utility power that they are high enough level for.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Apr 22, 2011)

Sorry for the necro, but seeing as now that it's in the builder, I had to at least try to put together a ShadePire 

Anyway, found the item that is _perfect_ for vampires ...

Belt of Raging Endurance. A 9th level belt, gives an extra surge, and an encounter interupt to get resist 15 against a single attack, but you have to take 10 damage at the end of your next turn. So, gain a surge, reduce damage on an attack that could drop you, and don't take the extra damage until AFTER you've gotten your regen, and an opportunity to give yourself thp via one of your at-wills. I know what I'm buying if I get a vampire that starts at level 10 or higher ...


----------



## RangerWickett (Apr 22, 2011)

I'm fond of my 11th level revenant (dwarf) vampire with disciple of justice, disciple of stone, durable, dwarven durability, and cloak of the walking wounded. Plus that feat that lets me use my dwarven racial power instead of the revenant one. 

So when I'm bloodied, I can second wind as a minor action, spend two healing surges, give something like 40 hit points to an adjacent ally, and get 14 temporary hit points for myself.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 22, 2011)

Actually, the number of healing surges is barely relevant for the vampire. His only concern is staying alive in the encounter without using a single surge. To get his complete life back he just needs a single hit with his claw and us his encounter.
So sugeless healing and abities to resist damage while bloodied, and items that elp wth that are most valuable to the vampire.

Also kep in mind, that you should remember to knock foes unconscious and feast on them after th battle with your encounter power. So in regular circumstances, you don´t have to worry about your absolut nuber of surges.


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 22, 2011)

Every class wants to avoid using healing surges, but if they can always do so the DM is failing to challenge the party.

Defeated targets are generally not valid targets for powers that grant benefits, due to the whole "bag of rats" issue.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 22, 2011)

This is not a bag of rats issue for me, but here your mileage may vary...

For the vampire it IS reasonable, not to spend a single surge in an encounter. For other classes, the use of a healing word is generally better than the after encounter healing. The vampire likes to go on the pain train... (after level 3, it should be quite easy to leave the battle with excessive surges... if defenders do their job) At level 1-2, every class is very fragile, and a wizard can run through his surges faster than he may like)


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 22, 2011)

Due to my personal design aspirations, I make it a habit not to break from the RAW, and it wouldn't be helpful for me to discuss my personal houserules when talking about a design topic anyway.

Additionally, you regain both uses of healing word every five minutes, so unless you're being rushed there's no reason not to use them.


----------



## Lostdwarf (Apr 22, 2011)

Question- Vampires regenerate, correct? (I don't have a copy of the book, Im asking) Doesn't that mean they never have to spend surges between combats to heal? By the time everyone else had taken a five minute break shouldn't their regeneration have patched them back together? While I do think that I would pick up Durable early in my Vampire career, and would certainly be happy if the leader had a way to do some surgeless healing, between regeneration, Durable, and the ability to add more healing surges over the course of the day I think a vampire would be more or less ok.


----------



## IanB (Apr 22, 2011)

Lostdwarf said:


> Question- Vampires regenerate, correct? (I don't have a copy of the book, Im asking) Doesn't that mean they never have to spend surges between combats to heal? By the time everyone else had taken a five minute break shouldn't their regeneration have patched them back together? While I do think that I would pick up Durable early in my Vampire career, and would certainly be happy if the leader had a way to do some surgeless healing, between regeneration, Durable, and the ability to add more healing surges over the course of the day I think a vampire would be more or less ok.




The regen only functions while bloodied, so they'd still need to spend surges for the top half of their hp.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 23, 2011)

Incenjucar said:


> Due to my personal design aspirations, I make it a habit not to break from the RAW, and it wouldn't be helpful for me to discuss my personal houserules when talking about a design topic anyway.
> 
> Additionally, you regain both uses of healing word every five minutes, so unless you're being rushed there's no reason not to use them.



Again, it is no bag of rats issue per RAW. Depends how you read it. The whole bag of rats thing is way open for different interpretations.

A goblin was a threat. If you are willing to slaughter a helpless goblin after a battle, so be it... it most certainly won´t make your vampire look non evil however...

And even without using a helpless target as fodder, you usually will have a spare surge left after a battle. Any other character, that is down to 1 hp or so will have a hard time surviving the rest of the day... so it seems quite reasonable for the vampire to have only 2 surges.

Also a surge spent by your ally generally heals you to full if a battle is going wrong, which is worth more than using healing word enhanced surge for the ally.

You are completely ignoring those facts if you say a vampire does not have enough surges on a regular day*.

* 4 encounters means 6 surges at level 1, 10 at level 3. You never have to spend more than 2 surges after a battle since you heal up to bloodied for free.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Apr 23, 2011)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Again, it is no bag of rats issue per RAW. Depends how you read it. The whole bag of rats thing is way open for different interpretations.
> 
> A goblin was a threat. If you are willing to slaughter a helpless goblin after a battle, so be it... it most certainly won´t make your vampire look non evil however...
> 
> ...




Generally speaking, out of combat healing is no problem for the vampire ... odds are the group would probably let you save your surges for fights and let you take one off whoever has the most surges left to get you to full.

The question is in (a) situations where you don't have a chance to gain surges like against traps or skill challenges and (b) healing DURING an encounter, since you can't regen while below 0hp, you can't steal your allies surges, etc.

There are going to be some situations where you need 2 or more surges in a fight ... things can go wrong. And, you should be spending the surge on your one encounter power for the extra damage, so at least one "bonus" surge per encounter is probably going to get used up. You may be able to go without durable, but you could very well end up unconcious and out of surges during a tough fight. And of course, in any other encounter you are now needing to hit and get your surge quickly, before you need to spend it.

Basically, just the 1 or 2 extra surges makes a huge difference ... which is presumably why the class got fixed surges instead of getting a bonus number based on con modifier, since the various feats (and items) are available in a pinch.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 24, 2011)

Of course somethng can go wrong, but it s no difference for different classes... the skill challenge surge losses are problematic, and i´d like to know, why an ally can´t just spend a surge to give you one or 2 of them. Healing your bloodied value and haling to full at an extended rest is narly equivalent fo the vampire.


----------



## Mummolus (Apr 24, 2011)

IanB said:


> The regen only functions while bloodied, so they'd still need to spend surges for the top half of their hp.



Actually, they don't. During a short rest a willing ally can spend a surge to have the vampire regain their bloodied value in hp. 

They might have some difficulty in combat, but they're just about the most efficient healers there are, between fights.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 24, 2011)

I must wthdraw a statement i made earlier. I realy was thnking the vampire got a second use of his HS draining attack at level 3. He instead gets his HS using attack there... so at level 3 it gets actually worse* until it gets better at level 7.

*worse in the sense of: more tempting to burn the extra surge and end the battle with his standard amount of surges.


----------



## bganon (Apr 25, 2011)

I realize anecdotes don't really prove anything, but I ran my own little exercise...

I put a first-level Shade Vampire (yes, really, and without Durable, but not gimped otherwise) through two near-TPK encounters, along with a Vryloka Blackguard and a Revenant Gloombinder.  The first encounter was a kobold ambush with loads of minions, two slingers, a dragonshield, and a nasty trap.  Beforehand I thought maybe the minion-spam would give the Vampire some trouble, but I played the Vampire as if he knew he was "fragile", using the ridiculous Stealth bonus to hide from the slingers while swatting down minions with Taste of Life.  The Binder went down first (taken out by the slingers), the Blackguard one-shotted(!) the dragonshield and was then taken out by the trap, and only then did the few remaining kobolds manage to mop up the Vampire.

To see what would happen *after* the first nasty fight of the day, I decided to have the party be "captured" and that they could use whatever surges were available to heal up.  The Blackguard still had plenty, the Binder had only one left, and the Vampire spent his only surge (and regen'd back to half HP).  They were then promptly disarmed and tossed into a cavern to be fed to a fledgling white dragon who likes his meals with a little fight in them. Long story short: after a quick combat that left the dragon bloodied, the Vampire was the lone survivor (if undeath is alive) due to a lucky death save, several Stealth rolls, and believe it or not, the Shade's racial ability.

Anyway.  What did I learn from all that?  Mostly that kobold slingers are a nasty piece of work.  I was also a bit disappointed that the Binder did not seem to work out in play all that well.  It's a really neat concept, but in practice they get controller damage, mediocre control effects (push 2, whoopee), and a pact boon that almost never triggers.  I really think the Binder was the most fragile of the trio, even with the same Con and nearly the same defenses as the Vampire.  Maybe things get better at high levels.

I also learned that temp hp are super awesome.  The Vryloka Blackguard had two different encounter powers (Lifeblood and Shroud of Shadow) to get them, and put them to good use.  And Taste of Life should absolutely be the bread & butter of every Vampire.  The Slam is for OAs and charges only, and Dark Beckoning is very situational. 

The Vampire's low number of healing surges never really became an issue, though admittedly this was not a typical play session.  But the Binder blew through six out of seven surges in that first fight (healing potion, second wind, 4 more to recover afterward), and it put him in just as bad a spot as the Vampire with none.  And the Binder had no temp hp powers, no regen, nothing to help him when things got bad.

But basically, the end message I got is that Vampires are OK.  Really, it's only that final surge that matters, and as long as it's there a Vampire can pop back up, regen to half HP, and try Blood Drinker again in the next encounter.  That (and Taste of Life) is a lot more than most classes get.  Yeah, they're fragile, but so are Rogues and Wizards (and Binders, it seems).  Damage was never huge, but consistent.  Vampires honestly seem most like Monks, mechanically: specialist strikers with excellent mook-clearing and a side helping of control.


Oh, and PS: Blackguard generic bonus damage plus Fury bonus damage plus Smite damage plus Vengeance Strike bonus damage = one dead dragonshield kobold.  Holy crap, he nova'd and I didn't even realize it was possible until the opportunity was right there.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Apr 25, 2011)

I would say the binder is very much a specific kind of controller. He is very much about keeping melee opponent's out of the fight. Not to mention, without a leader OR a defender, you are going to get pretty whacky results. Vampir and Blackguard do seem like the kind of characters that may be able to survive without a defender or leader (although both is bound to lead to problems), but the binder doesn't really get anything to protect himself outside of shadowwalk. Maybe a necromancer mage with his little bit of thp generation may have worked well. Throw in a battlerager fighter and you could have a party that may be able to run without a leader.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 25, 2011)

[MENTION=60886]bganon[/MENTION] Would XP you again, but i must spread it around...


----------



## bganon (Apr 25, 2011)

As a follow-up: I realized I should've taken into account that the Binder also really did just roll badly.  Bad luck can kill any fragile PC.  Echoing Dirge is actually nice as an at-will since it multitargets without provoking OA, so there is that.

As for the leaderlessness, I gave everyone a healing potion each encounter that they could use, as sort of a leader replacement.  Only one actually saw use, though.  I think there was another important lesson that I already should've known, but forgot the importance of: Waiting until you're bloodied to heal or nova is not a great idea against a creature that can basically twin-strike 1d12+4 attacks and then action point for a breath weapon.  With the new monster math and fixes for brutes, white dragons are a lot scarier than they used to be.

A little off topic, but I also realized that maybe the Shade's racial ability does have a place.  I still think it's a wee bit underpowered, but there _are_ times in combat when a melee character isn't within a move action of a good target, and charging isn't a good idea for whatever reason.  So what do you do with your standard?  Mess around with positioning or try a stunt would be my usual answer (I don't think I've ever actually used total defense), but the Shade has another trick.  It's much better than total defense since you can basically convert any cover at all into total invisibility, and gaining CA next round is just kind of a freebie.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 25, 2011)

There are often times in combat when you can´t do a lot with your standard action if you are a melee character... action economy is good and fine, but a good encounter is not hack, hack...

btw.: I believe, shield of faith as a standard action was actually good enough... as a minor it is almost better than any comparable power. A +2 armor bonus is huge.


----------

