| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| jordanz |
Posted - 01 Apr 2011 : 01:33:44
Which races are immune?
Celestials...?
|
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Bladewind |
Posted - 06 Apr 2011 : 13:39:41
I like that the magic heavy Realms has some terrifying psychic vampires. The Nishruu, Gazneths and Hakeshar are true mage banes!
The Nishruu and Hakeshar are mostly gaseous demons (corrupted air elementals?) that drain the highest level spell slots with EACH attack they make AND have the ability to absorb magic attacks. They are found naturally only on Pandemonium/Limbo but have been known to be bound to the realms by Imaskari and Netherese magic lords, usually to guard strong artifects from nosy mages. Hakeshar and Nishruu are found rarely in magic heavy areas (such as Thayan enclaves) where they can become real nuiseances real fast.
Gazneths are demons that drain magic, described in the Cormyr novels, but I don't know much about them anyfurther as I didn't read that novel line.
Psionic vampires are slightly more commonly known (amongst Mind Mages) as Brain Moles and Thought Eaters are stamped out as soon as possible.
The spellscarred character Myrin in De Bie's Downshadow is also some form of an arcane vampire, but she doesn't really control her power or know how she got it, or if its a true blessing or a terrifying curse.
________
But to hook into this main topics discussion of corporeal vs incorporeal vampirism.
I think it might be possible that corporeal vampires are once-mortals cursed with a demonic unlife, whose bodies only crave for the very vitals that sustain the gods creations, mortal BLOOD. The first (antediluvian) vampires desired to spite the gods for a percieved folly and took on demonic pacts that ensured their souls would be annihilated and replaced by something demonic instead, escaping any afterlife the gods had planned for them, either by immortality or by achieving oblivion upon destruction of their corporeal forms. The pact was selfsustaining, but I'd limit the creation of true vampires to creatures with sentience and warm blood. Dragons, scaley folk and abberrations all fail to become full fledged vampires in my campaigns, achieving a free willed vampiric spawn status at best.
Incorporeal vampires are most likely then ghost or spectres who have been granted or cursed by a demon and given a thirst for the incorporeal stuff that generates or ementates off of life, MAGIC. Such psychic vampiric ghosts crave for the hypervitalized life-energy that magic is composed off, mostly to sustain their own presence on the Material Plane. It could be that some excommunicated vampires are forced to become psychic vampires/nishruu when their physical haunts become utterly annihilated and/or they stay in their gaseous forms for too long. Or perhaps its all vampire souls' fates to become Nishruu in their after-undead existance...
|
| Laerrigan |
Posted - 06 Apr 2011 : 07:52:19
....Ok, as a 3.x-lover, even I have to say that my limited experience with the writeups and "fluff" in older editions has been very good, lol. I started out with 3.5 and then got introduced to the awesomeness of earlier Ravenloft monsters. I can intently read the fluff, glance at the crunch, and quickly improvise a conversion on the fly for the homebrew rules I use. The written info just gave that solid a grasp of the creature in ways far beyond numbers.
[tosses MT a side-chatter-flavored blood sausage] |
| The Sage |
Posted - 06 Apr 2011 : 07:02:21
The latter of the D&D 3e monster books attempt to reintroduce some of those nifty extras in their creature write-ups... but it still just never felt like enough.  |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 06 Apr 2011 : 06:21:40
Ditto here. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 06 Apr 2011 : 04:57:15
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Older editions used to list more vulnerabilities for monsters, as well as uses for body parts, society, etc. I still find myself referencing the older source material far more then the newer (which tends to only provide stats and very little in the way of 'fluff').
Gods, that's one of the things I miss most about 2E. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 06 Apr 2011 : 03:30:20
quote:
Markustay
Older editions used to list more vulnerabilities for monsters ..
That's largely because monsters in older editions were often far more dangerous. They could slay a PC outright in manners most sudden and unfair. My vamps still level drain, yes they suck your XP levels ... my PCs are quite seriously worried when they know vamps (or other level draining undead) are hunting in the darkness. None of this gentle progression stuff; many monsters can kill even the most stalwart heroes almost instantly ... force the players to use their brains more than their hit points. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 05 Apr 2011 : 23:50:10
Its okay - I'm a tangent-vampire.
I thrive on side-chatter.  |
| ChieftainTwilight |
Posted - 05 Apr 2011 : 16:27:34
hey, ya know what they say; :) sometimes going forward means going backwards, but standing still never gets anyone anywhere. ^_^
I am actually looking back into 2nd edition stuff myself, and I am highly intrigued with what I'v read so far. I particularly like the 2nd Edition Diablo II kits for Amazon (essentially the equivalant of a female Archery-Style Ranger with Arcane-Archer-esque spellcasting) and Barbarian (realy seems like a mixture of the Two-Weapon-Style Ranger mixed with Barbarian and Marshal [from Miniatures]). it's a very interesting set.
in fact, I'd like to see a 2nd-edition group consisting of an Amazon, a Barbarian, a Necromancer, and a Priest. maybe also a Thief, maybe...
anywho, I also noticed there version of Dodge. it comes in two different Proficiencies; Dodge (for Mellee) and Evade (for Missile). instead of being a focused passive ability (the +1 Dodge to AC against one opponent every round) they are rolled as checks (usable once per round) against the appropriate attacks (though, since they are two proficiencies, if you have both you can use each in the same round once). they provide much better defence than in 3rd edition, and you don't have to choose against who ahead of time, but are not automatically successful; which is alot more dramatic in my opinion! ^.^
so yeh, I know I kinda got on a little tangeant here, but I just had to share. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 05 Apr 2011 : 14:37:12
Older editions used to list more vulnerabilities for monsters, as well as uses for body parts, society, etc. I still find myself referencing the older source material far more then the newer (which tends to only provide stats and very little in the way of 'fluff').
|
| Quale |
Posted - 05 Apr 2011 : 13:25:35
The uncertainty of which vampiric weaknesses are true is what makes this monster great. Wish there were more for others, with the rakshasas there was just the sacred bolt, had to make new ones from mythology. The running water worked on many other undead cause it's traditionally a barrier from the world of the dead. Tough the best of a few vampire books I read (Fevre Dream by GRRM) involves river steamboats. |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 05 Apr 2011 : 03:19:37
I liked WoD the few times I played- just not my GM. He was the sort who intentionally tries to kill off PC's in the game. He also had a god-complex regarding his own characters. Bad combo in a GM. Thanks for that link- I'll definitely be reading through this one! Paizo has so much great stuff! |
| Markustay |
Posted - 05 Apr 2011 : 02:52:33
I use a hybrid system anyway, where HP=fatigue and Crits go to Con (your actually body dam). Also, magic drains HP (as well as fighting, running, etc... but it comes back MUCH faster then in RAW).
That was my own 'fix' to low-lev mages running out of spells early, amongst other things (although I plan to use a few of 4e's systems next time I run a game - the power-points model lends itself very well to my own system).
So yeah, it would definitely be Con dam for me as well, since that was 'real damage' in my hybrid system.
And I run my games very much in a story-teller (RP) fashion, but I like the crunchy bits when I need them. I would probably enjoy running a ST system game, but the only ones I played in the GM was pretty bad and it was an exercise in 'railroading' that got very boring (it was draggin'lance, NOT vampire). |
| ChieftainTwilight |
Posted - 05 Apr 2011 : 01:16:54
yes, Con Damage seems much more appropriate, especially to how I like to see them played and used. |
| Laerrigan |
Posted - 05 Apr 2011 : 01:11:25
Hawkins---thank you SO much for that link to Liber Vampyr. I've started reading through it and it's very much in line with how I like to view/play them. It actually has blood drain doing Con damage! Temporary effect!  Like Xanth, where half a soul will regenerate with time, and like Ravenloft's Von Kharkov and his offspring, whose victims (if left alive) are weak and "fevered" for a day or three but get better. And it has suggested guidelines for assigning moral-axis labels to ways and circumstances in which the vampires get what they need. I highly recommend this supplement to anyone that likes the idea of vampire PCs that have great "dark and beastly" potential if the player wants their character to be that way (there are certainly power benefits to being that way, and their very nature nudges in that direction), but doesn't want to be railroaded into permanently crippling/killing hapless sentient victims night after night to survive. There's a nice breadth of freedom and option in this book, without losing the grit (as far as I've read). Definitely a WoD flair---including the use of blood points and powers---but d20 and not setting-specific. |
| ChieftainTwilight |
Posted - 05 Apr 2011 : 00:03:24
I actually prefer the World of Darkness and White Wlf stuff... o.o I've always preffered Storytelling aspects of RP games, so when I was introduced to WoD this year I embraced it. hell, I've now mixed rules for D&D and WoD! :D
for regular old d20 system, I've actually restyled the Lycanthropes in my Homebrew Setting to be as much like in Werewolf: The Forsaken (from New World of Darkness) as possible. though I prefer to play in Bell Curve System anyway. |
| Laerrigan |
Posted - 04 Apr 2011 : 23:55:37
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Which leads me to believe that corporeal undead and incorporeal undead come from two different 'power sources'. This harkens back to the days when mummies were still created with positive energy (something they 'fixed' in 3e). I am trying to turn this into some kind of workable system for undead in my games.
Cool. I do like the concept of undying, as opposed to undead, in Eberron. It just seems to make sense that someone, some time, would have come up with a way to use positive energy for immortality, and I've wondered if it's ever shown up in FR. After all, positive heals and regenerates and animates, right? (respectful nod to Elestar for his intriguing use of positive energy with Arcana) I hadn't realized mummies used to be that way (having come into D&D with 3.5, myself). And the idea of incorporeal being inherently different is interesting. I haven't played in the Ghostwalk setting, but read through much of the book a couple years ago and rather liked the way it had ghosts as separate from negative energy, with their own entirely unique traits as a type of creature. |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 04 Apr 2011 : 21:08:42
I personally love my copy of Monte Cook's World of Darkness. Unfortunately, most of my group would rather play OWoD then a d20 version. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 04 Apr 2011 : 20:53:06
Thanks for that.
It never ceases to amaze me how many quality products Paizo has done since embracing OGL. I can't believe that they are giving-away a 90-pg. book like that for FREE - those guys never fail to impress.
I'll have to check-into the Monte Cook stuff as well - he is old-school, and nearly everything he touches is also golden. |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 04 Apr 2011 : 20:20:29
Monte Cook's World of Darkness puts a d20 spin on World of Darkness werewolves, vampires, and mages. Also, Necromancers of the Northwest have a free Pathfinder vampire supplement, Liber Vampyr. Those might be helpful sources. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 04 Apr 2011 : 19:51:39
Thanks for reminding me of the Diablo/D&D books CT - good call. I will have to re-read those when I am working on my own vamps again.
Okay, so going in a direction similar to 4e (PLEASE - NO comments), we can see how it would be fairly easy to create a vampire 'race', with different, variant 'classes'.
Perhaps all vampires start-off the same, but they have to make a will save in order to avoid being overcome with bloodlust, else they start down the 'feral' (nosferatu) path. We could probably take the various clans from The Masquerade (loved the fluff, but I'm just not found of 'story-teller' games) and turn them into vamp PrCs.
Basically, vamps continue to progress just as they did when they were alive, but now many more options (read: Feats) are open to them. Even resistance to vulnerabilities can be turned into Feats.
I still don't like them as PCs, but it could work within 3e's framework of everything having classes.
I still like to connect 'running water' with some sort of ambient 'spirit energy', but that has more to do with my own RW beliefs in such things then anything D&D. For instance, Incorporeal undead prefer to be near water, because they draw upon that energy to manifest.
Which leads me to believe that corporeal undead and incorporeal undead come from two different 'power sources'. This harkens back to the days when mummies were still created with positive energy (something they 'fixed' in 3e). I am trying to turn this into some kind of workable system for undead in my games. |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 04 Apr 2011 : 04:34:03
Aye! (Were your ears burning? I was just talking about you over at the inn, lol!) I was fortunate enough to be in the local Gifted program for English and history. (Our reading list was AMAZING!) Our class had a theme for each year, and my Junior year was- "Dark Side of Man". Yes, we got to read all the classic horror and dark stuff. I gotta say, after reading the original versions of some fairy tales, I would NOT be telling those stories to my kids! "Sorry, Timmy, but Ariel commits suicide because the prince was a jerk and married someone else!" |
| Laerrigan |
Posted - 04 Apr 2011 : 04:23:50
You lucky butt. I had to read crap about hopelessness and suicide with the all-encompassing message of SOCIETY AND HUMANITY SUCK SO KILL YOURSELF. Yeah, great stuff for teens...Thank goodness for CliffsNotes. I would have LOVED to read the intelligent, meaningful classics of horror and work on insightful analysis of them. |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 04 Apr 2011 : 04:00:47
Actually, the most recent Frankenstein movie (and the book, too, BTW) showed him as a feeling, even intelligent being, who was in fact as much a victim as those he killed in his quest for revenge against his maker. This was another book I was required to study in my Eng. Lit. classes (gotta LOVE Gifted programs- so much fun stuff to read!) along with Jeckle/Hyde, Dorian Gray, and so many other famous movie baddies. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 04 Apr 2011 : 03:53:30
Most of the transformation (and sexing up) of vampires was invented and reinvented by Hollywood, though of course the most recent wave of sexy/immortal/complex vampires was initially inspired by Anne Rice. Wolfmen and were-creatures, just like vampires of old, are trading their awful low-budget prosthetics for awesome modern effects (CGI, gadgets/firepower, and Wire-Fu stuntfighting) and emerging as sexy sophisticated streetwise predators. Even mummies and ghosts and devils and doppelshifters are seeing a bit of sexy resurgence. The only classic monsters remaining are those lurching Frankengolem jugheads, they're unfortunately evolving into borg and leaving the sex for hot succubus and fey/faerie creatures (who are, incidentally, also becoming mainstream). Plus these day's it seems like everybody on screen who's not a vampire is instead some kind of supermutant. |
| ChieftainTwilight |
Posted - 04 Apr 2011 : 03:26:43
do you think the sexification came about as a direct adoration with Romanian Men? ^///^ I've slept with two of them before, both pretty wealthy... I wasn't a very proud person back then, especially in either of their presence, but I still consider those some of my Proudest Moments... |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 04 Apr 2011 : 03:16:40
Vampires never had a problem surviving in sunlight up until the silent film Nosferatu. It was VERY loose adaptation of Dracula, combined with some other minor vampire stories like Feast of Blood, and old Romanian legends. however, in the older legends, a vampire could be dug up during the day and not be harmed at all- it was simply dormant. Even a stake in the heart was no guarantee that it was destroyed- for that, one had to cut off the head, fill the mouth with garlic, and place it between the knees before putting it back in the grave, or alternately burning the entire thing and scattering the ashes on holy ground. There is, in fact, some ancient lore on vampires from Roman and even further back in Greek times, and the lamia was originally a blood-drinking demon that stole and killed small children, as well. Feast of Blood offered the first real vision of vampires as sophisticated noble-types seducing young women. (Count Varney was quite the lady-killer, LOL!!) Elizabeth Yarborough's St. Germain was another vampire of a more "noble" and intelligent bent, well before the current craze. |
| ChieftainTwilight |
Posted - 04 Apr 2011 : 02:46:59
ya know, I was looking at the Diablo version of AD&D, and I saw that they ahd a vey interesting set of Vampires....
they, like all the creatures in that book, came in different exact forms for different levels; same basic creature, but their powers and motivations changed as they became more powerful. and just about everything was Demon or somehow had Fiendish Powers.
the Vampires were like ghastly skeletons wreathed in flame. the weakest ones still had some desire to return to their living selves; the next level ones were able to command Ghouls; the ones after that were often motivated to dominate other people; after that were these completely insane pyromaniacs; and finally, came the Blood Lords, who were most like "Traditional" Vampires in that they had the most desire to hunt and feed on the Blood of the Living. it is awesome, because it plays perfectly with my belief that the Souls of the Dead (especially those who wind up in Hell or Purgatory) become more and more consumed with their negative emotions, driven to madness and hostility, and eventually becoming Fiends.
I realy wanna take these Demonic Vampire Spectres and incorporate them into my game. I'm also intersted in the idea behind different abilities/weakness at different levels, and of variations to the exact traits based on the type of Vampire (such as Plant Creatures, Aquatic Creatures, etceter). |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 04 Apr 2011 : 02:00:05
A vampire's inability to enter/cross running water is a supernatural constraint, it really doesn't have to make sense to us. It is as impossible for a vampire to walk across a river or survive in sunlight as for a human to, say, survive in hard vacuum. Supernatural constraints are more difficult to magically bypass than physical constraints.
My usual (homebrew) ruling has been that vampires can physically enter or cross running water. Their problem is that it instantly renders them dormant; this is of course not a problem if they plan to remain dormant while on board a ship. Stronger vamps might be able to ignore their instinctive warnings about moving into/across such water (for a time) - though denying their own inner nature is strenuous ... and risky since they might fail and sink to the bottom where they'll remain dormant indefinitely (at least they don't need to breathe, though they will slowly starve and there's even odds they'll be fished out during daylight conditions). |
| The Sage |
Posted - 04 Apr 2011 : 01:50:14
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Wouldn't it be an interesting variation if there was a vampire who was otherwise identical to regular vampires, but was bound to a large body of water? Say, for example, a vampire that could travel up and down the length of a river without issue, could cross from one side to the other and possibly even swim in it if he wanted, but couldn't move more than say 500 feet or a mile away from it?
I've wondered about that myself... and about the prospect of forging a greater link between the newly born vampire and the location of the mortal's first transformation into a vampire. Like a ghost with an affinity for the place it was killed when alive.
Maybe a vampire created on an ocean-going vessel develops a special connection to the water beneath? |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 04 Apr 2011 : 00:47:07
S'alright. I had to study that book in high school. It made a big impression on me, partly because some B**** tried to get it banned from our school after we read it on grounds that the teachers were "corrupting" us with "evil, sexual books", and partly because I was already reading Anne Rice and a lot of other vamp novels at the time. |
|
|
