"My Vampires Are Different"


Advice


When you're long-time gamers, and when your players have half the bestiary memorized, it can be tempting to rewrite the "rules" for monsters that they become new and interesting all over again (comic for illustrative purposes). Is this poor form in established settings like Golarion? How can you introduce "my vampire are different" type scenarios without it feeling like a gotcha?


I'm not sure if you can introduce something like that without a 'gotcha' feeling. But, so what? Memorizing the bestiary is out of character knowledge and shouldn't be brought into character knowledge until that character makes the appropriate knowledge check or acquires experience fighting said monsters.

If any players feel cheated, they only have themselves to blame. Their inability to separate player knowledge from character knowledge creates this situation. There is no rule written that you have to use monsters out of the Bestiary and there are advancement options for monsters IN the bestiary. You have the freedom to modify and change them as you want. Not every monster is a cookie cutter copy of each other.


Just do it.

The biggest snag I can see is what to do if your player wants to, e.g., use monstrous physique to change into a sahaguin only to find that sahaguin in your setting don't have darkvision.


Player: "But [insert monster] don't have [insert power]!!"
Me: "What was [characters name]'s knowledge check to know what powers a [insert monster] has?"

If a player is using OoC knowledge then no, I don't feel bad about changing the monsters at all.
If, however, the character has invested a lot of points into the appropriate knowledge skill and I don't have them roll the check and tell them what the monster has, then that's on me.

(It's worth noting that whenever a monster is encountered I have the players roll their checks. I've had a DM or three not automatically do that and I find that people too often forget to ask about things that their characters should know.)


My homegroup did an organic change into pathfinder. Meaning that I just starting using the Pathfinder Bestiary against their 3.5 characters. I fondly remember my player that loved reading the monster manual going "that is not how that monster works..." and being able to respond "It is now". That player genuinely enjoyed the bestiaries and wasn't trying to cheat.


I mean, just don't call them the same thing.

Introduce a new type of undead that has some similarities to vampires as presented in the bestiary, but has distinct differences.


As Claxon said just rename them. If I want to run a vampire with some different abilities I'll just call it something else. Anything can work, ancient vampire, eldest, night stalker, twilight vampire(maybe not this one), etc.

Since your players don't know what a night stalker does outside of their knowledge checks and provided information you can throw whatever you want on it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Let people make the knowledge rolls to know about the differences IC, and give a heads up that monsters may not be "as advertised" prior to the campaign and it should be fine.

Edit: because i know someone is going to take issue with "as advertised" prior knowledge, the point i'm making is that if someone makes a "undead hunter" who uses channel energy, its kind of poor form for half your undead to have some immunity to positive energy or a change like that.


Ryan Freire wrote:
...if someone makes a "undead hunter" who uses channel energy, its kind of poor form for half your undead to have some immunity to positive energy or a change like that.

Very valid point! If a character is designed to fight a certain kind of thing the player should be made aware of it before character generation because the changes may make them change their mind or they might build the character differently.


Ryan Freire wrote:

Let people make the knowledge rolls to know about the differences IC, and give a heads up that monsters may not be "as advertised" prior to the campaign and it should be fine.

Edit: because i know someone is going to take issue with "as advertised" prior knowledge, the point i'm making is that if someone makes a "undead hunter" who uses channel energy, its kind of poor form for half your undead to have some immunity to positive energy or a change like that.

I've always been a little sixes and sevens about asking for Knowledge checks. It feels strange to prompt a player like that, but then I also empathize with the "Oh crap, I forgot to roll Knowledge!" after their initiative passes.


I think that if you are making a change to something that most players would consider common knowledge, rather than something needed for a skill roll you should definitely inform the players.

For example, if you decide that the typical halfing you encounter is going to be a chaotic evil cannibal and most goblins are champions of light with a vow to protect the weak, then that should be clearly communicated, not something they find out after they have walked peacefully into the halfling village.

I absolutely don't think their is anything wrong with changing anything you want to change, even if you are using a published setting as a base, but the further you deviate from that setting, the more communication you are going to have to have with your players who will assume that what their characters know about the basics of the world matches what they have read about.


DRD1812 wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:

Let people make the knowledge rolls to know about the differences IC, and give a heads up that monsters may not be "as advertised" prior to the campaign and it should be fine.

Edit: because i know someone is going to take issue with "as advertised" prior knowledge, the point i'm making is that if someone makes a "undead hunter" who uses channel energy, its kind of poor form for half your undead to have some immunity to positive energy or a change like that.

I've always been a little sixes and sevens about asking for Knowledge checks. It feels strange to prompt a player like that, but then I also empathize with the "Oh crap, I forgot to roll Knowledge!" after their initiative passes.

You shouldn't be asking. Your players should: "What do I know about this mysterious pale creature with fangs that looks threatening?" Response: "Make a Knowledge (religion) check." This applies to the Bestiary Vampire or "My Custom Vampire".

Do you tell them where the secret doors are located? Do you prompt them to search for secret doors? Or do you leave it up to them to ask/act, and then you adjudicate their actions (indicate the type of roll and give them the outcome after the roll)? Or just tell them what happens if no roll is required.

You can play the game however you want, but leaving your players to decide the actions of their characters (or lack of action) is a pretty effective way to play the game. Of course, metagaming kinda ruins all that. Especially if it is done both ways. The GM version is to give the monsters the GM's knowledge about the characters. Many consider that "dirty pool" for good reason. It isn't any cleaner if the players are doing it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Another good way to deal with the knowledge thing is to simply take their bonus and treat it as a "take 10" on first sight. Whatever they get is what they know automatically and if they rack their brains a bit (maybe up it to a swift action?) they get to roll.


Adapting encounters for one's game is part of being a GM. Templates are a beautiful tool to help with this.


Mike J wrote:

You shouldn't be asking. Your players should: "What do I know about this mysterious pale creature with fangs that looks threatening?" Response: "Make a Knowledge (religion) check." This applies to the Bestiary Vampire or "My Custom Vampire".

Do you tell them where the secret doors are located? Do you prompt them to search for secret doors? Or do you leave it up to them to ask/act, and then you adjudicate their actions (indicate the type of roll and give them the outcome after the roll)? Or just tell them what happens if no roll is required.

You can play the game however you want, but leaving your players to decide the actions of their characters (or lack of action) is a pretty effective way to play the game. Of course, metagaming kinda ruins all that. Especially if it is done both ways. The GM version is to give the monsters the GM's knowledge about the characters. Many consider that "dirty pool" for good reason. It isn't any cleaner if the players are doing it.

I disagree with your first point. Some players (especially new ones) forget to ask things like Knowledge checks. Knowledge is something that the character inherently knows whereas seeing a secret door even though they're not looking for it isn't something that would automatically happen.

Not helping/reminding players of basic things like Knowledge checks (maybe they don't realize that the monster is of a type that the character has the correct knowledge for?) seems like it's too much of the GM versus the players.

If a player says they're going to roll Knowledge Arcana against a robot because they think it's a construct do they not learn anything about it even though they have Knowledge Engineering?


There are already a number of variant vampires in Pathfinder already - Jiang-shi, Moroi, Nosferatu, and Vetala (https://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Vampire) - as well as numerous other undead and aberrations that function very similarly to the vampire, such as the Sayona and Nachzehrer.

You should absolutely go for it, and if your players are upset that they made assumptions without in-character research or verification, that should be on them.

I actually consider it a good thing to challenge player assumptions now and again - and I say that both as a GM and a player.


Rule of thumb:

0: If a character is built around fighting this enemy, they should know during character creation.
1: If the change is world wide, players should know common facts when they encounter/plan to encounter this monster (DC 5 knowledge check).
2: If the change is specific to a smaller subspecies, players should be prompted to make a knowledge check upon encountering said monster/monster's handywork.
3: Failure on said knowledge check results in the player not learning the new weaknesses and assuming the monster has the same weaknesses as the rest of its kin. Success details the new abilities.


1) Don't call them "vampires".

2) Instead of fangs, give them a proboscis or some other form of repulsive bloodsucking apparatus.

Now you have an entirely new monster even if it's 98% identical to a vampire.


Slim Jim wrote:

1) Don't call them "vampires".

2) Instead of fangs, give them a proboscis or some other form of repulsive bloodsucking apparatus.

Now you have an entirely new monster even if it's 98% identical to a vampire.

I, too, like Darkest Dungeon: the Crimson Court ;)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I tend to do this, but I warn the players about it Session 0 (and I tend not to run an established place.) That's how you make it "Not a gotcha."

Similarly, if it's purely for meta-gaming purposes, just let people know you may randomize which resistances a thing has, the DR it has, or similar. If you GM it well, you won't even break the flavor.
_______________

Normally I do it because I think enemies lack some interesting combat abilities or techniques that make them too "bag of HP" ish; or too "one trick pony" (such as Ghouls, Rust Monsters, and various other things.)

Zombies, in mine, are slower, have grab, have a poison bite, and are a little tougher (and are still easier since they are slow enough to easily outrun.) This means they fight slightly different round to round, and interact with more than just the player's HP. Grab makes you want to be away from them, and a poison bite makes them cinematic in a meaningful way.

Some things get entirely reworked like the above, and some things get Trip or another combat maneuver added to their attack. Attacks get switched around to be more interesting. Awesome blow is more common to make fights more engaging.

Finally, a lot of monsters have near-useless feats that just take up space, while having no interesting abilities to give them dynami-cism.

Medium Fire Elemental Example:
The later FE's get Spring Attack, which makes a lot of sense as a flame leaping to-and-fro; synergizing very well with their high move speed. The Medium, instead, can't really use its move speed without incurring repeated AoO's. While it has a high Acrobatics skill, you can't use that except every other turn or so. Simply dropping Improved Initiative in this case and swapping it makes a much more impactful encounter and it'll play much more differently than "Fast melee guy." Consider going a step further (I believe there are feats to get Sorcerer Bloodline powers) and you can make it shoot a ranged (but ineffective) fire attack to harass players.

Medium Lightning Elemental Example (For contrast):
For another elemental example, what about Medium Lightning Elemental? Well, why not focus on having it zap across the battlefield in an intense fashion, knocking players over? My notes read:

"Create an alternate elemental with Improved Overrun, Power Attack, Bulette Charge Style and Bulette Leap. Alter Str to 15.

This will allow it to overrun several players at once. Consider cleave or Combat Reflexes, up CR to 4."

Now you have another elemental that previously would've been "Really fast melee dude"; and instead it's "fast friggin' knock-you-down thing that charges across the map over and over." That feels like lightning to me and is massively different than how the above Fire Elemental works, giving you a feel for the elements actually functioning in different ways.

________________

Point being, if you don't alter anything, they can be rather 1-note and boring. If you alter some things, they can end up playing very different and make each type of enemy more memorable and distinct. Add to that locations and interesting scenery, and maybe an interesting approach or a non-combat objective; you can create a memorable scene that players will have burned into their memory -> and that's really my entire goal as a GM.


As long as you let your players know that you're customising monster abilities, it should be fine.

Players rely on old campaigns like a character relies on tales and stories he heard in his life. You might not have Knowledge Religion, but you might still know a vampire can't suffer sunlight, or a ghost can go through walls.

Telling them your plan to change it, makes them rely less on those information, and think more before acting on possibly-wrong intel.

Another good thing you could do, is making up new names, or different physical description:
"In front of you stands a creature. At first glance it looks like a Ghoul, but you quickly notice a third eye on his forehead. Roll Knowledge Religion to see if you know more"
-Roll high enough:
"You've seen a drawing of such creature before, while looking to the church's archives. You recall its name as 'Ghoulas'. The few notes you can recall told about his ability to see magical power as a light aura"
-Roll too low:
"You don't recall seeing or hearing about it, but you're pretty sure Ghouls don't generally have 3 eyes..."

Something along those lines should give them a pretty good idea that what they are going to fight is based on the Ghoul monster, but with a custom twist. That way they might still consider it undead, but won't act exclusively on the Ghoul stats.

Dark Archive

You know, this is what happened in Ravenloft. Strahd wasn't just a vampire. He was a vampire wizard. Even then, the villagers only referred to him as "the devil Strahd" so it was likely the players would face a nasty surprise somewhere along the line.
I've even been contemplating to turn Strahd into a Mindflayer or Kyton, just to get that element of surprise.

Now that I've mentioned Mindflayers, guess what? They're psychic vampires that eat brains instead of drinking blood. They've got the power to dominate lesser beings, they can create spawn, they hate light. Do I need to go on? Early D&D was full of this stuff. Does anybody remember the Gas Spore?

Here's a nice twist on the vampire. Give a Nymph the Vampire template, now add a level of Anti-Paladin for the Smite. Now you've got a charisma bonus on hit points, armor class, saves and attacks. Yeah, that's nasty.


One reason I tend to brew up/use new monsters.

As an example, I didn't want to run this swarm of undead cats that Mummy's Mask has. The group had already run into plenty of swarms so I wanted to give them a break.

I went looking for something but couldn't find anything. Till a friend found the Mummified template(which is completey different from Mummys) and quickly drew up a Mummified Caracal for me to use.

The players were pretty surprised by the swap. I just wish I ran the fight better.


the David wrote:

You know, this is what happened in Ravenloft. Strahd wasn't just a vampire. He was a vampire wizard. Even then, the villagers only referred to him as "the devil Strahd" so it was likely the players would face a nasty surprise somewhere along the line.

I've even been contemplating to turn Strahd into a Mindflayer or Kyton, just to get that element of surprise.

Now that I've mentioned Mindflayers, guess what? They're psychic vampires that eat brains instead of drinking blood. They've got the power to dominate lesser beings, they can create spawn, they hate light. Do I need to go on? Early D&D was full of this stuff. Does anybody remember the Gas Spore?

Here's a nice twist on the vampire. Give a Nymph the Vampire template, now add a level of Anti-Paladin for the Smite. Now you've got a charisma bonus on hit points, armor class, saves and attacks. Yeah, that's nasty.

Needs more Noble Scion.


There was a nice kalamar Adventure with blood sucking vampires that went into hibernation if not fed properly.

Seconded the sayona.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / "My Vampires Are Different" All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.