Xiphose
|
Clearly, it is your moral imperative to get together with your party away from the GM's prying ears, then show up with a party consisting of a Vampire Hunter, a Shifter, a Witch, and an Investigator, and just straight-up play a medieval version of the cast of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
I like it.
| Zolanoteph |
I like the VH, and I think it's viable as a slightly less powerful ranger. There are a few SIGNIFICANT problems though.
One of the vampire focuses ups CHA but it's a WIS based caster with no obvious use for CHA. Plenty flavorful but baffling.
There seems to be very little support in the class for archery. This may be intentional, but I would assume there are all sorts of ways to hunt vampires.
The 8HD thing. I Think the class wins style points for being 8HD and full BaB, it's kinky and cool, hinting at a skirmishy fighting style. The problem is that even with full 10 sided hit dice this would be an ever so slightly weaker ranger.
The dead levels are also really, really depressing. This class gets some abilities that are so niche and flavor oriented that they make track look like 9th level casting.
Problems aside there are probably some hidden gems. Two weapon fighting comes to mind.
Rangers are good at TWF because they get extra bonus feats and ignore prereqs for them, so you can have 20 STR and all the TWF feats.
Vampire hunters can't ignore prereqs but do gain bonus feats and have a built in strength booster (vampire focus). So they can pick up all the TWF feats they qualify for by having high dex and still not slouch in the strength department,gaining the best of both worlds.
| Bloodrealm |
Vampires are relatively weak in Pathfinder, so you definitely don't need to specialize against them to fight them.
This Vampire Hunter class also very poorly designed, essentially being a really, REALLY terrible Ranger.
If you're looking for something to fight undead, though, don't just immediately assume Cleric. Ranger, Paladin, Spiritualist, and Oracle are good choices, too.