How do you think the vampire archetype will work? How do you want it to work?

pf2e vampires are no joke; every type of vampire has some sort of ability that grants them incredible ability to stay alive when they would usually die. Fortunately for vampire hunters, this is counteracted by some very harsh weaknesses that make a vampire's life incredibly complicated. This is why it is fascinating that book of the dead will allow players to play vampires starting at level 2.

How do you imagine playable vampires are going to work? Will a level 20 character with all of the archetype's feats have most of the abilities of an NPC vampire? What do you think just the dedication feat will give a character? How do you think vampire weaknesses will be handled? Do you think it will just be the Moroi, or will all types be represented?

What do you hope the answers are to those questions if they differ from how you think it will work?

I believe they’ve said that they’ll be Ancestry Archetypes, slotting in where you would take from your normal Ancestry Feat pool, but I might be mistaken. Given that the Dhampir had options for multiple kinds of Vampire, I imagine the full vamp will do the same - especially since Geb is next to Jalmeray, where psychic vampires are more common.

If they are going to be class archetypes, I expect somehow the same stuff a damphir gets.

A character would then be simply able to get 2 archetypes at once, rather than just one.

For example, a half elf vampire would be able to select feats from the human, elf, half elf and damphir/vampire list, and not only every 4 levels.

Obviously there would also be some new feat, but I won't expect so much powercreep.

But I think it is going to be like keftiu said. Rather than having an ancestry with the damphir heritage, we are going to get a vampire ancestry with a lineage heritage.

So part of the damphir feats, and part new feats.

Would an Android Vampire effectively be a Borg?

I'm hoping that there will be options in power levels, so that there might be one that's as powerful as other Ancestries and another path as powerful as Dual Classing (i.e. even the Wizard hits hard). Then vampires (et al) would fit into the normal paradigm, yet we'd have the potential to play a higher-powered campaign w/ them at their full glory. I wouldn't want these undead Ancestries to overshadow regular ones, nor would I want my undead-themed campaign to have to wait until 13th or 17th levels before unlocking standard undead abilities.

And the Borg are more a zombie-cyborg hivemind.

I know they're not their own Ancestry, because you can tack them on to any existing Ancestry, so you can be an Elf, Orc, Human, et al. vampire and they all work. Poppet vampires sound hilarious, and I'm really curious how that might work, such a shame it got delayed :'(

I'm pretty sure the vampire, mummy, and ghoul archetypes are just actual archetypes that take class feats. I don't think they replace ancestry feats.

I was under the impression that they worked like archetype feats but for ancestries, too, and that they would follow the typical progression paths that ancestries normally get as the characters level up.

So maybe vampires would get feats that gave them a fang unarmed attack, some occult cantrip, or pest form, the skeleton would get a feat that allowed them to thrown their own head somewhere and Demoralize someone (essentially better reach for demoralize), etc. Does anyone know if, in fact, some are actually going to be normal archetypes? I was a little worried that vampire would essentially be a control+c of dhampirs!

I was under the impression that they worked like archetype feats but for ancestries, too, and that they would follow the typical progression paths that ancestries normally get as the characters level up.

Isn't that what a Versatile Heritage is?

Travelling Sasha wrote:

I was under the impression that they worked like archetype feats but for ancestries, too, and that they would follow the typical progression paths that ancestries normally get as the characters level up.

Isn't that what a Versatile Heritage is?

Mostly, except that you don't usually get to pick up a versatile heritage while adventuring since it was part of your... well... heritage. Of course, even as an archetype it's a bit of a question still what happens if you get turned on an odd level. Perhaps you simply gain basic undead traits but no abilities from it until you can take your Vampire Dedication (maybe even represented by the classic symbolic "first time you fed on blood"?).

I wonder if they'll be archetypes that will include both Class and Ancestry feats?

Would an Android Vampire effectively be a Borg?

"Hello, my name is N0-S4-A2."

Well whatever it entails Im sure its going to suck...... *Runs off*

breithauptclan wrote:

Would an Android Vampire effectively be a Borg?

"Hello, my name is N0-S4-A2."

Well, there is the rather famous Automaton character originally named R-66Y.

Having a Vampire Hunter archetype that gets some vampire like abilities? Fine that class barely got any support anyways do to being a crossover class from a marketing campaign.

But vampire being an archetype that requires class feats? That is literally breaking the story since it makes it so vampires cannot actually multiclass. Not to mention the awkwardness of being a vampire but having nothing that is really vampire related without taking a bunch of feats that prevents you from getting class abilities.

Honestly, they should had just left the idea of templates in the game. That system was honestly an easy way for GM to add in things without much work. Just had to make it explicit only GMs have access to it unless told otherwise.

Are you critiquing mechanics you haven’t seen yet?

I'd prefer these monster archetypes to be class feats bc that would allow for a lot more power than ancestry feats.

But vampire being an archetype that requires class feats? That is literally breaking the story since it makes it so vampires cannot actually multiclass.

What story?

Remember that NPCs don't follow the same rules as PCs do. If you need an NPC to have way more stuff than a PC can have for story reasons, that's fine. Vampire PCs should be roughly as powerful as PCs that are not vampires. That's really the only thing I care about regarding the vampire archetype.

I'd prefer these monster archetypes to be class feats bc that would allow for a lot more power than ancestry feats.

Ideally I'd like both. You enter with a class archetype dedication, and from there get access to more class and ancestry feats to swap out as desired.

I am hopeful that it marks one of the first of a new type of Archetype that is acquired and can be advanced using Ancestry Feats as well as Class Feats, much like other non-multiclass Archetypes have Skill Feats associated with them as well as those that are accessed via Class Feat.

I would also like to see the "dedication" set as level 1 so that it can be marked as Uncommon or Rare and given BOTH the Ancestry and Class Traits so that it can be enrolled in at level 1 regardless of your Class choice, this to me is a must-have if they take this path.

Temperans wrote:

But vampire being an archetype that requires class feats? That is literally breaking the story since it makes it so vampires cannot actually multiclass.

What story?

There are whole countries ran by vampires/undead in Golarion, so that breaks on a narrative sense.

On a player sense requiring class feats makes it so you have to pick between playing an actual vampire or playing the class you want. Imagine the versatile heritages required that you spent class feats to actually get feats. Heck image that elves had to spend class feats for abilities, there is a reason that was stopped after DnD2e.

Regarding the dedication. Part of why I thought of templates is that they don't cost anything outside of getting GM permission, not to mention it fits better with the theme of corruption/disease they have similar to werewolves. So, becoming a vampire becomes more of a narrative choice than a mechanical one.

But even if I dislike it, I can see why someone would want to charge a feat to become a vampire in the first place.

There are whole countries ran by vampires/undead in Golarion, so that breaks on a narrative sense.

You keep saying this like it's a given, but I legitimately don't see the chain of logic here. What does a country being run by vampires have to do with how the archetype is implemented? How does the way the archetype is implemented actually impact the narrative? If anything classes are more divorced from the narrative now--in so far as mechanics and thematics impinge on a game's narrative--because of how NPC rules are no longer constrained by classes, and NPCs vastly outnumber PCs in terms of narrative-important actors.

PF2 likes to make organization-based archetypes. Archetypes from those countries then have to compete with the ruling class of those same countries. Thus, a break in the narrative that in order to be part of X Vampire organization with Y class abilities you have to stop being a vampire.

While NPCs don't have to follow PC rules, which works well for non-combat NPCs, there are many that do in fact have class levels. So, you would have to balance the fact that these NPCs are getting extra abilities on top of what they would normally get. That would mean that their level is not being accounted for correctly thus things break.

"But vampire being an archetype that requires class feats? That is literally breaking the story since it makes it so vampires cannot actually multiclass."

"There are whole countries ran by vampires/undead in Golarion, so that breaks on a narrative sense."

"Archetypes from those countries then have to compete with the ruling class of those same countries. Thus, a break in the narrative that in order to be part of X Vampire organization with Y class abilities you have to stop being a vampire."

None of these complaints make any sense, and have nothing to do with P2.

"While NPCs don't have to follow PC rules, which works well for non-combat NPCs, there are many that do in fact have class levels."

No there isn't. Every NPC has a level and possibly a descriptor for it, but no NPC has class levels.

"So, you would have to balance the fact that these NPCs are getting extra abilities on top of what they would normally get. That would mean that their level is not being accounted for correctly thus things break."

That's not how building creatures/NPCs in P2 works, at all. All of their stats and abilities are factored in to determining their Level, you don't double dip after the fact.

I'd advise reading the rules on NPC creation and looking at statblooks for examples before commenting on rules you don't have the best grasp of.

Regarding the dedication. Part of why I thought of templates is that they don't cost anything outside of getting GM permission, not to mention it fits better with the theme of corruption/disease they have similar to werewolves. So, becoming a vampire becomes more of a narrative choice than a mechanical one.

It's been a long time since I've played in a game with heavy use of templates (I did allow a ranger in my 2e Carrion Crown game to become a werewolf briefly for Book 3 before being cured by divine intervention) but I wouldn't say that becoming a vampire with a template 'cost nothing'. Most templates in the ancient times gave you a level adjustment--you were now effectively 1-3 levels higher than the party and gained XP at a slower rate because of it. Effectively, templates cost you 1-3 levels of your actual character classes.

I don't know if Pathfinder 1e followed that same trend, but if you still wanted vampirism to be purely a narrative choice, there's always the free archetype. Of course, granting only one player free archetype for narrative purposes does also highlight the inherent party imbalance of only one character gaining vampire powers, but really that was always the case. At least in 2e, if somebody becomes a vampire through free archetype, you can still offer an easy balance to the other party members who aren't interested in taking templates through bonus abilities from their free archetype, which they can trade out if they suddenly decide to get bit by a werewolf somewhere down the line (and predicting the future Werewolf Monster Archetype Dedication feat coming down the line, pls Paizo?)

P1 didn't encourage it by not having Level adjustments be a thing/listed, for Vampire the Template was a +2 CR adjustment so for PCs you had to infer from there.

Comparison in DnD 3.5 the Level Adjustment was +8.

I agree with someone previously I hope they use class feats so vampires can be as powerful as they should be & you get more options than you would if they were ancestry

I agree with someone previously I hope they use class feats so vampires can be as powerful as they should be & you get more options than you would if they were ancestry

If you expect that a vampire archetype will be significantly more powerful than other archetypes, you're likely setting yourself up for disappointment.

belgrath9344 wrote:

I agree with someone previously I hope they use class feats so vampires can be as powerful as they should be & you get more options than you would if they were ancestry

If you expect that a vampire archetype will be significantly more powerful than other archetypes, you're likely setting yourself up for disappointment.

I think they are more talking about being a vampire would be more powerful than being an elf because you're using your class budget instead of ancestry budget.

Could be, but I wouldn't hold my breath for felling 50 people with one swipe of a sword, being unkillable or summoning armies of skeletons.

Could be, but I wouldn't hold my breath for felling 50 people with one swipe of a sword, being unkillable or summoning armies of skeletons.

I was definitely referring to vampire feats being stronger than ancestry feats by being budgeted as class feats. Im not looking for god mode.

I thought that undead PCs would be handled via archetypes that are "purchased" with class feats. It sounds like it would work well in a campaign with Free Archetype. Maybe Blood Lords with have that as a rule the way SoT did.

If there isn't a feat for making my daywalker bard positively sparkle, then I just don't know what I might do.

XD

Oh look PC-Style builds are for "important, recurring NPCs, especially if they’re meant to engage in social or exploration endeavors rather than just battles." I wonder who is more likely to be an "important, recurring NPC": A random NPC or a vampire noble that you might meet multiple times.

Feel free to build an NPC like a PC and also cheat by giving them more feats than PCs get. If your players find out and complain, you can give them more feats to satisfy them. Like I see nothing wrong with doing a dual-classes antagonist in a game where the players aren't. That entity's job is ultimately to lose, but it's also to make the PCs look good in doing the job.

But I would observe that the antagonist design in PF2 is largely about "this should be able to do a small number of impactful and thematic things" than giving them three dozen SLAs.

keftiu wrote:

Are you critiquing mechanics you haven’t seen yet?

Temp already critiques a game they haven't played yet. Critiquing a game they haven't read yet is the next logical evolution. I expect soon they will be critiquing PF3, a game that doesn't exist yet.

Thought they had played now, maybe in one of TMS's games?

Not sure how it'll work, but if I was writing something like vampire/lycanthrope I would:
Make it a versatile heritage. The heritage would come with a few of the base abilities (low light vision, negative healing, etc.) as well as the traditional weaknesses (weakened in sunlight, etc).
make an uncommon/rare archetype that is ONLY available to characters with that heritage (or something similar i.e dhampir for vampire or beastkin for lycanthrope)

That way it makes narrative sense, and it allows the kind of power budget allocation players who want to play those concepts want.

Alternatively make it a "cursed archetype" or something, where the "dedication" is literally just the affliction, and only really comes with downsides. You'd get the "dedication" for free when you're afflicted, and it wouldn't have the feat requirement to get out of it like most archetypes do. In this scenario an afflicted character would be driven to either lean into the archetype, or find a cure for it.

Temperans wrote:

Oh look PC-Style builds are for "important, recurring NPCs, especially if they’re meant to engage in social or exploration endeavors rather than just battles." I wonder who is more likely to be an "important, recurring NPC": A random NPC or a vampire noble that you might meet multiple times.

Feel free to build an NPC like a PC and also cheat by giving them more feats than PCs get. If your players find out and complain, you can give them more feats to satisfy them. Like I see nothing wrong with doing a dual-classes antagonist in a game where the players aren't. That entity's job is ultimately to lose, but it's also to make the PCs look good in doing the job.

But I would observe that the antagonist design in PF2 is largely about "this should be able to do a small number of impactful and thematic things" than giving them three dozen SLAs.

I am not saying you should give them more or even that I would. But that building balanced NPCs becomes much harder when you have to consider ancestry abilities a creature should have vs class abilities a creature should have for their level.

I agree that PF2 is focused on creatures only having some abilities not 3 dozen. Which is why I expressed my opinion of not liking it to cost class feats.

Not sure how it'll work, but if I was writing something like vampire/lycanthrope I would:

Make it a versatile heritage. The heritage would come with a few of the base abilities (low light vision, negative healing, etc.) as well as the traditional weaknesses (weakened in sunlight, etc).
make an uncommon/rare archetype that is ONLY available to characters with that heritage (or something similar i.e dhampir for vampire or beastkin for lycanthrope)

That way it makes narrative sense, and it allows the kind of power budget allocation players who want to play those concepts want.

Alternatively make it a "cursed archetype" or something, where the "dedication" is literally just the affliction, and only really comes with downsides. You'd get the "dedication" for free when you're afflicted, and it wouldn't have the feat requirement to get out of it like most archetypes do. In this scenario an afflicted character would be driven to either lean into the archetype, or find a cure for it.

The idea of this type of curses being able to give free feats if you lean into it does sound really cool actually. Suffer a lot but you are not corrupted further, or relish in it and gain power. It would be in a similar spot to the deity boon/curse system where it's an extra to what the character does.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Oh look PC-Style builds are for "important, recurring NPCs, especially if they’re meant to engage in social or exploration endeavors rather than just battles." I wonder who is more likely to be an "important, recurring NPC": A random NPC or a vampire noble that you might meet multiple times.

Feel free to build an NPC like a PC and also cheat by giving them more feats than PCs get. If your players find out and complain, you can give them more feats to satisfy them. Like I see nothing wrong with doing a dual-classes antagonist in a game where the players aren't. That entity's job is ultimately to lose, but it's also to make the PCs look good in doing the job.

But I would observe that the antagonist design in PF2 is largely about "this should be able to do a small number of impactful and thematic things" than giving them three dozen SLAs.

I am not saying you should give them more or even that I would. But that building balanced NPCs becomes much harder when you have to consider ancestry abilities a creature should have vs class abilities a creature should have for their level.

I agree that PF2 is focused on creatures only having some abilities not 3 dozen. Which is why I expressed my opinion of not liking it to cost class feats.

This is baffling. Vampirism doesn't cost class feats for NPCs. They simply apply the vampire template which already exists for NPC creatures, which comes with the full suite of vampire abilities. If PCs want to pick up some of those same abilities they spend class feat resources because what only represents +1 monster level for a monster/NPC could include abilities which shatter expected game balance if a PC gets their hands on them. Fast healing can make a monster vampire a little more dangerous, but most monster vampires don't survive more than their first PC encounter. PCs with fast healing, on the other hand, are always max hp for every fight without spending any resources. Thus is why PC and NPC vampires need to be built differently if game balance is a remote concern of the players (and if not... Well a published vampire archetype probably shouldn't be a problem from just giving PCs the vampire template as already exists)

NPCs don't have Feats. This argument doesn't make any sense, Temperans.

The idea of this type of curses being able to give free feats if you lean into it does sound really cool actually. Suffer a lot but you are not corrupted further, or relish in it and gain power. It would be in a similar spot to the deity boon/curse system where it's an extra to what the character does.

I was thinking more that just the "dedication" would be free, and it would have class/ancestry/skill? feats in it for you to take normally.

Now that I think about it though, getting free feats that worsen the penalties could be cool. Like maybe just being a vampire requires you to feed on blood or get penalties, but for each feat you get more of the vampire penalties (and powers from the feats) until eventually its incurable.

Also a rare background that gives access to it at level 1 would work pretty well.

NPCs don't have Feats. This argument doesn't make any sense, Temperans.

Switching between speaking about feats (player facing) and abilities (NPC facing) is confusing and effectively interchangeable the way they are described in the designing an NPC section of the rules. NPC gets abilities from X class, those abilities are class feats for players.

I honestly don't know why people are complaining to me about semantics of "NPCs don't really have class levels and feats" when my concern was about the process of creating an PC-style NPC Vampire effectively making it possible to have a Vampire Vampire. While simultaneously making it so a PC would have to choose between being a vampire with actual abilities and you know, playing their character like everyone else.

Temperans wrote:

The idea of this type of curses being able to give free feats if you lean into it does sound really cool actually. Suffer a lot but you are not corrupted further, or relish in it and gain power. It would be in a similar spot to the deity boon/curse system where it's an extra to what the character does.

I was thinking more that just the "dedication" would be free, and it would have class/ancestry/skill? feats in it for you to take normally.

Now that I think about it though, getting free feats that worsen the penalties could be cool. Like maybe just being a vampire requires you to feed on blood or get penalties, but for each feat you get more of the vampire penalties (and powers from the feats) until eventually its incurable.

Also a rare background that gives access to it at level 1 would work pretty well.

What you're talking about sounds a lot like the PF1E corruption system, which I also liked and would like to see ported over. IMO it's easier to implement in this game than in 1E because FA already gives a model of how such a thing would work.

I honestly don't know why people are complaining to me about semantics of "NPCs don't really have class levels and feats" when my concern was about the process of creating an PC-style NPC Vampire effectively making it possible to have a Vampire Vampire. While simultaneously making it so a PC would have to choose between being a vampire with actual abilities and you know, playing their character like everyone else.

Because you're also arguing semantics. Your division of a "vampire vampire," a "vampire with actual abilities," and a player "playing their character like everyone else" are all semantic arguments. You're arguing what those things all mean for the context of a character, and the world that character lives in, and meaning is what semantics are about.