Now, as I understand it, I believe I saw that the class is supposed to be a way to mirror the monsterous vampire, which has a serious flaw in that it is vulnerable to sunlight. Now I'm AFB so I can't remember if they're just vulnerable, or if there is a special trait that makes them take damage from sun light.
but I really hope I don't have to roll my eyes when on PC want to do this and suddenly we're playing WoD where one guy wants to be a vampire... makes the rest of the group suffer for his choice.
Am I not remembering the vampire correctly... has anyone heard news or suspect that they may just be vulnerable radiant?
Monster based classes are always overpowered otherwise you can't capture the power difference with any other class. Because it is imbalancing I'd rather they keep such classes out of games. 4e has a feat that allows you to have dhamphyr (vampire like) skills. Is good enough.
I actually like that feat. combine it with a shadar kai brawling fighter build, and you can get a really bitey feel. if your really brave hybrid with druid. takes some effort, but you can get pretty awesome there. Awesome being flavorful and different of course. you'll be par in effectiveness. but hey, those are the breaks.
Monster based classes are always overpowered otherwise you can't capture the power difference with any other class. Because it is imbalancing I'd rather they keep such classes out of games. 4e has a feat that allows you to have dhamphyr (vampire like) skills. Is good enough.
I actually like that feat. combine it with a shadar kai brawling fighter build, and you can get a really bitey feel. if your really brave hybrid with druid. takes some effort, but you can get pretty awesome there. Awesome being flavorful and different of course. you'll be par in effectiveness. but hey, those are the breaks.
A Essentials Scout has a stance which combined with the vampire feat has a great feel to it as well.
Currently trying to make a Lycan feat similar to the Dhampyr one.
you know, change the role to a firm striker, add the damage bonus to beast powers, continue from there, maybe use shapechanging knacks the same way that other e classes use stances and etc.
but at least with were wolves and such the obstacles are mostly character driven. the beast within and all. The vampire's inate limits are questionable to me...
in all seriousness, i dont think they will gimp the class for being in sunlight, however you may get extra riders for being underground, indoors or at night
my one thing is that vampires have alot of strengths; speed, strength, cunning and hella durability when i think vampire i always think old world of darkness. so how is it that they will implement these things into a balanced Player Class, or if they will insted make the class too weak because they dont want it to be overpowered
as for traditional vampire weaknesses like silver, crosses, sunlight, garloc and stakes (however, it is my understanding that a steak to the heart will kill anything) some of them may just not be implemented, but will they ignore the vampire weaknesses completly?
anything at this point is pure speculation, i would like to see a friggen werewolf though
4E has never had a monster class before, Falstyr, so that's an unfair and unsupportable claim.
In the one edition that did have them, 99 percent of them were pathetically underpowered, so he can't even make a 'legacy' claim.
Monster based classes are always overpowered otherwise you can't capture the power difference with any other class. Because it is imbalancing I'd rather they keep such classes out of games. 4e has a feat that allows you to have dhamphyr (vampire like) skills. Is good enough.
I actually like that feat. combine it with a shadar kai brawling fighter build, and you can get a really bitey feel. if your really brave hybrid with druid. takes some effort, but you can get pretty awesome there. Awesome being flavorful and different of course. you'll be par in effectiveness. but hey, those are the breaks.
A Essentials Scout has a stance which combined with the vampire feat has a great feel to it as well.
Currently trying to make a Lycan feat similar to the Dhampyr one.
Lycan.. its like calling a bussinessman a business.
With the vampire heritage feat you can later on get the power to shape in fog/myst and other vampire related stuff.
Lycan.. its like calling a bussinessman a business.
No it isn't. Lycan is the official and historically correct name unlike the pop-culture designation falsly used. Especialy in a fantasy game where there are werewolves, tigers, bears, rats and any more variations it is only logical to use Lycan as the denominator.
To the person who compared Lycan to calling a businessperson a business, I cry foul as you are comparing a contraction (Lycan) with a conjoined noun (Businessman).
Frankly, I wouldn't be upset if WotC had a collection of classes most people associate with WoD. Wraith and Faerie classes could be fun. :P
Lycan is the official and historically correct name unlike the pop-culture designation falsly used.
wut
Disciple of the Night (class feature)
A Vampire gains +5 resist necrotic and +5 vulnerable radiant.
Lycan is the official and historically correct name unlike the pop-culture designation falsly used.
wut
Indeed. Official to whom? And historically correct, really?
The word lycanthrope is a combination of the Greek word for wolf (can't type in the Greek alphabet, but it essentially reads Lykos) and human (Anthropos). Lykos-anthropos = lycanthrope (wolf-human). Lycan does not equal anything but a shortened version of the word, containing mostly the word for wolf. Hence, it is like calling a businessman a business, since lycan really only means wolf.
Since DnD also has a range of "were" animal people, Therianthropy is a better and more accurate term.
Very true. Lycanthropes are werewolves and only werewolves, I have always hated that the wererat or weretiger are refered to as lycanthropes.
The word lycanthrope is a combination of the Greek word for wolf (can't type in the Greek alphabet, but it essentially reads Lykos) and human (Anthropos). Lykos-anthropos = lycanthrope (wolf-human). Lycan does not equal anything but a shortened version of the word, containing mostly the word for wolf. Hence, it is like calling a businessman a business, since lycan really only means wolf.
Eh, I don't have a problem with the abbreviation, I just think it's hilarious that in the few years since Underworld came out apparently "Lycan" is both "official" (because brand recognition is very important for werewolves) and "historical" dispite being only a decade old.
Oh, and it's better than the "pop-culture designation falsely used" apparently. A word made up for a bad (if admittedly entertaining) vampire movie isn't the definition of "pop culture" I don't know what is.
Anyway, as an abbreviation it's has more in common with "cyborg = cybernetic organism" than "business = businessman" and is suitable for a "that's way cooler" sort of buzz word thing, which is what they were going for. Of everything to have an issue with in that film, shortening Lycanthrope to Lycan is the least of their sins.
Hence, it is like calling a businessman a business, since lycan really only means wolf.
But the 'an' in 'lycan' is from 'anthropos'. Both parts of the original word are accounted for in the contraction. So it's more like calling a businessman a 'busma'.
Unless you instead interpret the 'an' as an adjectival suffix. In which case, 'lycan' means 'wolflike'. Which is like calling a businessman a 'businesslike'. Which sounds odd until you realise that lots of adjectives actually can be used as nouns in just this way: "You are an American", for example. If werewolves are seen as a race or nation, 'Lycan' is a perfectly adequate term for an individual.
Bel
Is anyone else curious how vampires are going to work in conjunction with non-UV alergic PC's?
Now, as I understand it, I believe I saw that the class is supposed to be a way to mirror the monsterous vampire, which has a serious flaw in that it is vulnerable to sunlight. Now I'm AFB so I can't remember if they're just vulnerable, or if there is a special trait that makes them take damage from sun light.
but I really hope I don't have to roll my eyes when on PC want to do this and suddenly we're playing WoD where one guy wants to be a vampire... makes the rest of the group suffer for his choice.
Am I not remembering the vampire correctly... has anyone heard news or suspect that they may just be vulnerable radiant?
4E Vampires don't take damage from sunlight. They can generally cross running water, entered buildings uninvited, eat garlic, and other things as well. It doesn't keep people from starting such rumors and doesn't stop vampires from exploiting the misinformation, however.
4E Vampires don't take damage from sunlight.
Some do. Some don't. Different vampires are different. All the vampires in Monster Vault take radiant damage when exposed to sunlight. Strahd, Kas and Ctenmiir (Open Grave) don't take damage, but can't regenerate in direct sunlight. Spirit vampires (ibid.) are dazed in sunlight. Corpse vampires and vampire muses (ibid.) aren't affected by sunlight at all.
4E Vampires don't take damage from sunlight.
Some do. Some don't. Different vampires are different. All the vampires in Monster Vault take radiant damage when exposed to sunlight. Strahd, Kas and Ctenmiir (Open Grave) don't take damage, but can't regenerate in direct sunlight. Spirit vampires (ibid.) are dazed in sunlight. Corpse vampires and vampire muses (ibid.) aren't affected by sunlight at all.
Bram Stokers Dracula didnt take damage from sunlight -- sunlight .... oooh im burning is holiwood (mispelt on porpoise) and no cooler than sparkles as far as im concerned
Link: www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4...
Waita sec...
When it comes to meshing vampire with another class, you can also use multiclass feats to play a vampire who dabbles in magic or thievery, for instance.
The reverse is more amusing.
Show
"Hi, I'm Theophilus, Warpriest of the great Pelor. May the sun shine brightly upon you, sister! Say... what's your sign, baby?"
"My goodness. Wouldn't the strictures of your vows...?"
"Nah, it's not rough. For example, I dabble a bit in VAMPIRISM."
"Thank heavens! I myself am a full-time Lycan! We may now have a steamy but tragic romance!"
"Huh? What are you talking about? What's a... OH GEEZ. Get a life, lady."
"Hi, I'm Theophilus, Warpriest of the great Pelor. May the sun shine brightly upon you, sister! Say... what's your sign, baby?""My goodness. Wouldn't the strictures of your vows...?""Nah, it's not rough. For example, I dabble a bit in VAMPIRISM.""Thank heavens! I myself am a full-time Lycan! We may now have a steamy but tragic romance!""Huh? What are you talking about? What's a... OH GEEZ. Get a life, lady."On the topic of that multiclassing comment - do you think Vamps will be AEDU enough to actually use the existing multiclass options, or do you think that they, like other post-e classes, will work poorly with that system, if at all?
I think they will work poorly if at all.
I think they will make it an AEDU class that like the slayer has one encounter power that gets multiple uses as well as a daily power that gets multiple uses. This they will do to try to appease the pre-E crowd. They will fail miserably because they don't understand that the pre-E crowd doesn't just want a daily power, they want options and choices at each level...Just my doomsayer prediction...
Regardless of what version of Vampires you're going with, they tend to be defined by their weaknesses as much as by their strengths - in many cases weaknesses that would be crippling for D&D adventurers. How they're going to put together a vampire class that is both evocative of the archetype and functional as an adventurer is, at the moment, beyond me.
Well... I was going to say how it seems to work ok in World of Darkness... Except that it seems that people here don't like White Wolf.
But in WoD, everyone is playing a vampire. The entire group generally has the same weakness. In D&D, one player who can't go into sunlight is more of a hindrance.
This. I don't mind PC vampires as a concept so much (although I still would have rather seen something other then a 'class', but that's neither here nor there), and I like some white wolf games, (though I prefer Changeling: the Lost to Vampire). But serious supernatural weaknesses and taboos works far better in a game where all the characters are expected to have them then it does when only one character in the party does. Then the party dynamic is suddenly forced to revolve around the 'special needs' of one individual member, which is never a good thing.
Which is why I expect little to nothing of typical vampyric weaknesses from this class (maybe radiant vulnerability, maybe). But without such restrictions, is it going to feel like a 'vampire'? I don't know. Not much use speculating while we're still waiting to see any mechanics, but if they're not able to use the standard multiclassing options due to e-style class design I'll retroactively find that Q&A answer highly annoying.
Well... I was going to say how it seems to work ok in World of Darkness... Except that it seems that people here don't like White Wolf.
Nothing to do with white wolf games. Playing a vampire just sounds dumb to me. Vampire is not a PC it is an NPC.
Do you also think that Orcs, Golblinoids, Drow and other normally monstrous races should be off-limits to players?
But in WoD, everyone is playing a vampire. The entire group generally has the same weakness. In D&D, one player who can't go into sunlight is more of a hindrance.
This. I don't mind PC vampires as a concept so much (although I still would have rather seen something other then a 'class', but that's neither here nor there), and I like some white wolf games, (though I prefer Changeling: the Lost to Vampire). But serious supernatural weaknesses and taboos works far better in a game where all the characters are expected to have them then it does when only one character in the party does. Then the party dynamic is suddenly forced to revolve around the 'special needs' of one individual member, which is never a good thing.
Which is why I expect little to nothing of typical vampyric weaknesses from this class (maybe radiant vulnerability, maybe). But without such restrictions, is it going to feel like a 'vampire'? I don't know. Not much use speculating while we're still waiting to see any mechanics, but if they're not able to use the standard multiclassing options due to e-style class design I'll retroactively find that Q&A answer highly annoying.
I think if they give the class normal vampiric abilities, it will feel like a powerful vampire. See, I like the idea that vampires that have lived for many years can survive things young ones can't, or that there are strange mutations to vampires that can make one grow wings, another resists sunlight, and so on. So I can totally see how they could make the vampire feel vampiric without necessarily making it "classic".
Because you may be playing the wrong game, TD, given the monstrous PC options built into 4e from day one.
I wouldn't call it 'built in' more 'thrown in the back of the MM1'
Because you may be playing the wrong game, TD, given the monstrous PC options built into 4e from day one.
I wouldn't call it 'built in' more 'thrown in the back of the MM1'
He might be referring to the firebreathing scaley humanoids ...
Yes I started with the vampiric heritage feat which gets good after level 11. The blood drain although realistic is rather lame. Spend a standard action to grab, next turn standard action to blood drain, get to spend a surge. I would just second wind and save all that trouble.
In my home games I made it a swift to use drain blood. That standard action thing was frustrating. It's especially nice with a brawling/grappling fighter build. Did that with a fire Genasi/Dhampyr.
*edit* a minor action. Stupid SAGA words meaning the same thing.
That might be hard as well, considering there's no multi-class/hybrid support for the Executioner, and we currently dont know if the Vampire will have any either. Since essentials both 'traditional' and hybrid mc have been left in the cold.
It really depends what matters more for the concept. If she wants to primary be a vampire, she should be a vampire. If she wants to be an Executioner, there's a few options.
1) The Vryolak (probably typo) race in Heroes of Shadow is sort of the Vampire as Tieflings are to Devils. So you'd have some vampiric flavor still, and could probably call yourself a vampire.2) The Damphyr bloodline from a dragon mag like 2 years ago, it'd give her some feat control over how much vampirism she wants, and she could be any actual race she wants.
Yes I started with the vampiric heritage feat which gets good after level 11. The blood drain although realistic is rather lame. Spend a standard action to grab, next turn standard action to blood drain, get to spend a surge. I would just second wind and save all that trouble.
I think I did notice the high action cost what about giving temp hit points on top... ?
The hurt by the sun thing, but then the ability to just wear a cloak means that the mechanic is squarely in the "only as relevant as you want it to be" camp. For those who play a mostly adversarial or modual heavy type game where the vampire character is just another heroic pc, you can just keep your cloack up and do your thing. But for those who want a different approach, perhaps more story centric, there is then mechanical weight to the whole "creature of the night" thing.
So far, I think that the class will likely be fun to play. But I won't know for sure until I see:
a) what the at-wills look like
b) what the encounter powers are like
I'd like there to be atleast one option I can choose. Vampires doing the things they did in basic D&D is cool and all, but even the Slayer gets to choose utility powers (and has a range of them to choose from thanks to the preexisting fighter ones). As it stands, only level 2 is actualy listed as "utility power". The rest are all named.
I'm all for classes where you don't have to make a lot of choices for those who want it that way, but I'm not sure I'd have picked Vampire for one of those classes.
Maybe the other vampire will have choices during character creation and leveling beyond what this one appears to be like.
I think that perhaps it could be one of several things.
- Editing error, this is fairly likely as it has happened before this month with the Black Hound preview that wasn't meant to be shown.
- A miscommunication, it is possible that we just got one of the two builds available as previews have done this before.
- The class may be designed so that there are more choices after you reach Paragon tier, as the names of the powers given sounded like very iconic vampire powers.
That's interesting, except that wikipedia.org says:
The first recorded use of the Old Russian form Упирь (Upir') is commonly believed to be in a document dated 6555 (1047 AD).[23]
Nice try though...
The legends are old - but modern tropes are pretty new = movie director thought the bursting in to flames would be a cool light show ... Bram Stoker thought it would be cool if silvered glass rejected the Vampyres image.... Stoker also brought in werewolf sorceries in for Dracula (I think that was his addition) ... Any given element of the story is largely something somebody invented sometime people digging up dead bodies to make sure they were dead after they died of the plague spread the plague gasses released causing the body to move and hiss ... long finger nail because the skin is shrinking and so on.
Choosing to have heros with the absolutist vulnerabilities of modern movie inspired vampires instead of the horrible immortality of earlier ones doesnt seem like 4th edition to me. But 4th edition does owe plenty to movies... so its not entirely unreasonable.