Vampire PC vs Turn Undead

[Skibbles]

If we equated this to a mage attempting to cast a single win spell over and over with heavy armor and 65% ASF, no one would call that a 'good plan,' IMO

They wouldn't, no, but it's not even close to the same.

Dropping out of gsanc (correction: just discovered turning doesn't drop G-sanc unless it hits), covered in clerics buffs, and using a power that can't be interrupted, doesn't provoke aoos, doesn't end Improved Expertise, has a colossal range, doesn't require spell slots, and has no save or counter is nowhere near a squishy mage fussing with their spells.

Yes people have made undead hunting archetypes, including me, but killing vast swathes of NPC undead is one thing, and treating PCs like npcs is quite another.

PCs are played by people, and people maybe deserve a little bit more that being a faceless mook to be obliterated just because in makes sense in a vacuum where other players don't matter.

[Void]

Yes people have made undead hunting archetypes, including me, but killing vast swathes of NPC undead is one thing, and treating PCs like npcs is quite another.

PCs are played by people, and people maybe deserve a little bit more that being a faceless mook to be obliterated just because in makes sense in a vacuum where other players don't matter.

Erm... The reason why there are PC is we don't have an AI (yet) that can drive life-like NPCs in a forgotten realm version of digital westworld. So humans fill in the role, and get to experience the world in turn.

However from the in-world perspective a scripted npc vendor is not different from your character. He has his own agency and so on. And differentiating between players and npcs makes the world a little bit less believable.

And regarding waves of mooks getting destroyed.... to be obliterated by turning as a vampire at the maximum strength, you'd need to run into a level 60 cleric. If you encounter one, there are bigger things to worry about.

On top of that, a PC vampire already has a huge advantage over npcs undead by being immortal. I highly doubt that anyone ever played a major award vampire with a mark of destiny.

Depending what your PC does, you absolutely can be a faceless mook cannon fodder from the point of view of the other party. However you have a chance to regroup and try again, or learn the lesson and pick your battles more carefully. The npc undead are gone forever when killed.

[Skibbles]

Yes people have made undead hunting archetypes, including me, but killing vast swathes of NPC undead is one thing, and treating PCs like npcs is quite another.

PCs are played by people, and people maybe deserve a little bit more that being a faceless mook to be obliterated just because in makes sense in a vacuum where other players don't matter.

Erm... The reason why there are PC is we don't have an AI (yet) that can drive life-like NPCs in a forgotten realm version of digital westworld. So humans fill in the role, and get to experience the world in turn.

However from the in-world perspective a scripted npc vendor is not different from your character. He has his own agency and so on. And differentiating between players and npcs makes the world a little bit less believable.

And regarding waves of mooks getting destroyed.... to be obliterated by turning as a vampire at the maximum strength, you'd need to run into a level 60 cleric. If you encounter one, there are bigger things to worry about.

On top of that, a PC vampire already has a huge advantage over npcs undead by being immortal. I highly doubt that anyone ever played a major award vampire with a mark of destiny.

Depending what your PC does, you absolutely can be a faceless mook cannon fodder from the point of view of the other party. However you have a chance to regroup and try again, or learn the lesson and pick your battles more carefully. The npc undead are gone forever when killed.

I disagree with all of this. This is a really bizarre, disassociative, take.

The reason there are PCs is because this is a narrative driven hobby for roleplayers to enjoy telling stories with other people, and not because we haven't been all replaced by machines yet. You can go play any one of a thousand RPGs to get the experience of being the only human player in the game. Arelith is not that.

Differentiating between players and NPCs is critical to Arelith. What you seem to be suggesting is a horrific perspective. We have Be Nice, we have Roleplay, we have endless systems, rules, player agency, and constant balance passes in place specifically and exclusively tailored to PC-to-PC interaction.

NPCs don't get this treatment because they're NPCs. You don't get to lie through your teeth and roll you're insane bluff score to force other PCs to believe you - but you can to an NPC. It's literally in the name.

It's against the rules (or at least frowned on, can't rememer) to RP in such a manner that one recognizes they're immortal. Vampires and Mortals die and respawn exactly the same on Arelith, and there's no mechanism to suggest anything otherwise in the world we're playing in. Vampires are just as fearful of their destruction as a person is of their death.

Treating other PCs like faceless mooks is just an RPR 10 Chaotic Evil kill-everyone-without-narrative-support take, and I challenge this wholeheartedly as the poorest possible manner in which to play this game with others.

I'm not sure why I have to continue saying this: clerics already have one of the best anti-undead kits. Telling me the vampire should choose their battles more carefully is implying the vampire sought the battle in the first place, and if we're continuing the theme in which the cleric in question is an 'undead hunter' then it further implies the vampire is very probably not the one seeking them out.

Edit: Also, yes, I was summing up that 7-9 rounds of total loss of character control = death, and not the explodey-death from the turn itself. The cleric has access to heal spells which can easily deliver over a thousand damage in those few rounds. No character can survive that long completely disabled, and vampire is no exception.

[Aren]

I personally still disagree with the idea of weakening a clerics ability to turn an undead. I understand that it's frustrating from a PC perspective, but if we're talking about a PvP setting. The other side is also going to be frustrated if they built up a sun domain cleric specifically for the ability to hunt down undead and vampires and the like, and now they can't turn vampires anymore, because they just -pray it away and laugh as they are untouchable for 5 minutes. Which is a ridiculously long time in a fight.

I get you're a fancy 5% race and people don't like being hard countered. But if you're fighting a cleric bring friends, they should be something you actively fear and avoid if you are able to.

Finding two high charisma sun clerics together at any point in time is going to be extremely rare. I don't think I've met more than.. maybe two sun clerics ever? And I never found them in the same room together.

You dont need high charisma to turn undead PCs. At all. You can easily do it as a CL 27 with a charisma mod of 3.

I'm very interested in your definition of easy.

As a level 30 character with 27 levels of cleric with a charisma modifier of 3, in order to turn an undead creature of level 30 (a pc vampire, for example), you would need to roll a 19 (10% chance) on the turning check. You can get this down to a 13 if you gear for an extra +6 charisma on items.

That's a 40% chance of success. Again, assuming you geared for charisma, which very much runs counter to your claim of not needing a high charisma in the first place, and still isn't 'easy'.

https://nwn.fandom.com/wiki/Turn_undead

I very much feel that people are underplaying how difficult it actually is to turn a high level undead creature unless you full dive pure class into cleric all the way to 30 while stacking charisma, and would ask anyone insisting it's easy to back it up with math, because mathematically the statement comes across as false.

You can throw sun domain into the equation, but then, again, I feel you're admitting that at that point the player is choosing to specialize in turning undead. The occasion we seem to, on a surface level, be agreeing should scare the crap out of undead.

Seems it has been adjusted since last I played around with Turn Undead. I did extensive testing on the PGCC before Kenji did the turn update, and I was able to turn a level 30 vampire friend of mine 100% of the time, with 16 charisma (+3 mod).
I could turn him 20/20 times.

[Void]

We have Be Nice, we have Roleplay, we have endless systems, rules, player agency, and constant balance passes in place specifically and exclusively tailored to PC-to-PC interaction.

We do, but you have taken a role, and if your role is of a low level undead encountering a high level cleric, then your role is to die.

At some point you'd have to adhere to your role, even with be nice at play. Be nice should not be taken to the point where it starts chipping away at integrity of the world, because then it becomes a well-meaning disservice to everybody involved. Is it is job of all players to keep the world alive by acting in accordance to its rules and lore.

If a lahtandrite cleric encounters an undead, there's only so many ways it can go. Even if undead are PC. That was my point.

[Skibbles]

We have Be Nice, we have Roleplay, we have endless systems, rules, player agency, and constant balance passes in place specifically and exclusively tailored to PC-to-PC interaction.

We do, but you have taken a role, and if your role is of a low level undead encountering a high level cleric, then your role is to die.

At some point you'd have to adhere to your role, even with be nice at play. Be nice should not be taken to the point where it starts chipping away at integrity of the world, because then it becomes a well-meaning disservice to everybody involved. Is it is job of all players to keep the world alive by acting in accordance to its rules and lore.

If a lahtandrite cleric encounters an undead, there's only so many ways it can go. Even if undead are PC. That was my point.

I'm at an astonished loss for words on such a two dimensional, dismissive, perspective. This kind of logic, applied to the wider scope of Arelith, is probably why we now have a thread about PvP and Bad Blood from IG because players will hold their own 'immersion' as greater value than the treatment of their fellow player.

And again, even without turning, as it seems to be missed again and again and again: CLERICS ALREADY HAVE THE STRONGEST KIT FOR FIGHTING UNDEAD. ALREADY. THEY HAVE IT. IT WILL ALREADY GO IN THEIR FAVOR. IT DOESN'T NEED TO GO MORE IN THEIR FAVOR. FOR YEARS AND YEARS THIS HAS BEEN FINE AND ACCEPTABLE TO VAMPIRES AND CLERICS ALIKE.

Seriously. I can't emphasize that enough. It's not like up until now there's just been no reason to ever be concerned about a cleric. This is a class that can just blast a vampire away with heals. It's the first thing any new vampire PC will be concerned about, and it's going to stay that way regardless of turning. Nobody has ever contested this as wrong.

[Void]

I'm at an astonished loss for words on such a two dimensional, dismissive, perspective. This kind of logic, applied to the wider scope of Arelith, is probably why we now have a thread about PvP and Bad Blood from IG because players will hold their own 'immersion' as greater value than the treatment of their fellow player.

That's not why you have pvp thread, since I'm someone who pvps once per year or less.

The world is a stage, everybody is actor, and each actor has a role assigned and acts it out. This is a roleplaying server, after all, so the idea shouldn't be that novel. You are supposed to act your character, and when everybody is doing that, the world comes alive as the collective play unfolds. And when you twist your character's behavior too much the illusion of the living world worsens and collective play start making less sense and becomes less coherent.

The way I see it, the "be nice" rule is that you should be polite and friendly to the PLAYERS. But the player is not the puppet they control, and someone who picked a role of a blood sucking monster that is also antithesis of all life, they agreed that they will be hunted by forces more powerful than they are, perhaps with no chance of victory. And ending up destroyed or turned would be part of the role they have chosen.

And speaking of arelith rules, the Rule #1 is "You are expected to roleplay". While "be nice" has been renamed to "be civil". Which means, in turn, that you need to be polite to other paty who spent their time to make the world more alive, even if their character was destroyed. The point is not to let characters feeling to bleed into your own mind, and keep things civil on ooc level, even when IC conflict unfolds.

[Skibbles]

I agree with your expanded thoughts.

However I don't think this is reason to give a class more advantages than it already has. This is just turning a likely win into win-more. It's excessive.

There is not a single advantage a vampire has when facing a cleric. Cleric is already superior, in every conceivable manner, in a fight against a vampire. Clerics do not rely on critical hits, and they have a litany of spells tailored exclusively to fighting undead: heal, bless weapon, heal, aura vs evil, heal, sunburst, heal, great restoration, etc.

This is a class (assuming level 27 and no heal domain) that can both heal itself for 285 dmg while inflicting catastrophic damage to the vampire in a single spell. That's nearly a 600 health disparity in half a round when hasted. Cast twice and you hit a disparity of 1200 health per round. Guess which subrace has no access to burst healing from catastrophic damage? Vampire.

Cleric already has all the cards. Surely, at some point, we have to recognize that.

[Ork]

If a lahtandrite cleric encounters an undead, there's only so many ways it can go. Even if undead are PC. That was my point.

I do want to challenge you here. I agree with what you that this interaction is almost always hostile, but hostility can be acted upon in a lot of ways. When the power differential is squarely in your favor I do think great roleplayers use that to create a compelling narrative - not just a pvp opportunity.

And, I do think it's fine clerics have this power differential. Make it work for your enemy's story.

[Void]

I agree with your expanded thoughts.

However I don't think this is reason to give a class more advantages than it already has. This is just turning a likely win into win-more. It's excessive.

Now, see the earlier discussion about chances.

Basically, by itemizing yourself for cha, you're kinda already trying to do vampire hunter/gimmick cleric route. And depending on what you wear and how you do that, that could mean extra cost and weakness elsewhere. So maybe it is reasonable for a cleric that did invest to have easier time turning.

From previous discussion about chances, it sort of feels that the vampires are not in that much of an awful spot in regards to turning. But only that maybe the effect should be changed from fear to daze or something similar. I've listed other possibilities as well (temporary immunit when turned successfully once).

[Void]

If a lahtandrite cleric encounters an undead, there's only so many ways it can go. Even if undead are PC. That was my point.

I do want to challenge you here. I agree with what you that this interaction is almost always hostile, but hostility can be acted upon in a lot of ways. When the power differential is squarely in your favor I do think great roleplayers use that to create a compelling narrative - not just a pvp opportunity.

Yes, it is possible to weasel out of it without dying, but it will be a very hard thing to pull off. As Lathandrites in particular are intolerant to evil and undead specifically.

It is like trying to rob a dragon hoard alone and getting caught by the ancient wyrm owner of the hoard. A certain halfling managed to survive this sort of encounter, but most characters wouldn't.

[Skibbles]

I agree with your expanded thoughts.

However I don't think this is reason to give a class more advantages than it already has. This is just turning a likely win into win-more. It's excessive.

Now, see the earlier discussion about chances.

Basically, by itemizing yourself for cha, you're kinda already trying to do vampire hunter/gimmick cleric route. And depending on what you wear and how you do that, that could mean extra cost and weakness elsewhere. So maybe it is reasonable for a cleric that did invest to have easier time turning.

From previous discussion about chances, it sort of feels that the vampires are not in that much of an awful spot in regards to turning. But only that maybe the effect should be changed from fear to daze or something similar. I've listed other possibilities as well (temporary immunit when turned successfully once).

Yes! Now we're speaking the same language. I'm not trying to remove turn undead entirely. I'm here to make sure that turn undead takes into account all the other huge advantages a cleric has, and tunes accordingly so that a cleric fighting a vampire is an iconic moment of a priest battling a monster and not just taking candy from a baby.

I imagine the movie Exorcist where, instead of the great and memorable struggle of holy vs unholy, the priest instead slaps the girl with the Bible, solving the problem with casual ease, and then walks out for drinks down at the pub.

As it stands in the current moment a cleric has no need for defenses because he can turn from IE with full AC (and more, see below), and all he needs to do is land one turn and he wins. There's nothing to it. If it was tuned to be strong (I'm in favor of -10 to all stats like Arelith's custom Strong Fear), but not an automatic win, then a higher turn chance is perfectly acceptable if a character makes a proper investment.

Test update:

I dipped out from making this post to test one more thing: a cleric can turn from greater sanctuary, and can turn twice per round with haste.

Of particular note is that Greater sanctuary DOES NOT DROP when the turn fails. Against any vampires without access to disjunction or whirlwind there is functionally zero risk in spamming turn undead until it hits in which case their victory is automatic and assured.

If the cleric player was organized they can probably even swap out their CHA items back to their optimal items before the gsanc and turn ends to further eliminate all risk involved.

I'm almost certain that, whatever the ultimate balance be applied to turn, this may not be intended.

[Ork]

If a lahtandrite cleric encounters an undead, there's only so many ways it can go. Even if undead are PC. That was my point.

I do want to challenge you here. I agree with what you that this interaction is almost always hostile, but hostility can be acted upon in a lot of ways. When the power differential is squarely in your favor I do think great roleplayers use that to create a compelling narrative - not just a pvp opportunity.

Yes, it is possible to weasel out of it without dying, but it will be a very hard thing to pull off. As Lathandrites in particular are intolerant to evil and undead specifically.

It is like trying to rob a dragon hoard alone and getting caught by the ancient wyrm owner of the hoard. A certain halfling managed to survive this sort of encounter, but most characters wouldn't.

I'm not talking about the necromancer, I'm talking about the lathanderite. I played a high level paladin on Skal for a while. I ran into a lot of warlocks. I created flaws within my character (physical or otherwise) that either delayed, inhibited or shut down his honest attempts at stomping these acts of vileness. Why? Suspense. Suspense builds over time and interactions. If my cleric smites each vampire they see immediately, there's no build up & no story other than one that doesn't involve the vampire player.

Say my lathandrite turns a vampire. I have a lot of opportunity there to build suspense (I mean c'mon they're basically cowering in fear) & the vampire player has time to escape, evade, or roleplay along with me during that period of time. Sometimes, your character would finish the deed there - but, what if during the battle he sustained some injury that caused him to stumble. Or, what if as he stalks towards his foe he's crippled with some previous mental truama? There's a lot of good story devices you can use to delay the inevitable and build suspense.

That's not to say that smiting the vampire player isn't also a useful plot device, but if you detect for a moment that another player is willing to collaborate - take it. You've the power, literally here, to make it something more.

[Void]

I imagine the movie Exorcist where, instead of the great and memorable struggle of holy vs unholy, the priest instead slaps the girl with the Bible, solving the problem with casual ease, and then walks out for drinks down at the pub.

Now imagine that the instead of a priest the one doing the exorcism is the Pope himself

At level 27 you're almost an avatar of the will of your deity. A divine conduit of the god's will, and the power you were bestowed is immense. So it will not be a slap with the bible. It would be a display of divine power terrifying to anyone who dares to oppose it.

In a movie script, you'd simply need to make it look fantastic and it would work. However, instead of a long movie, it would turn into a short scene that would work as an introduction of the character instead. I could write a short example, to demonstrate.

For the record, I think the priest in exorcist movie was probably something like level 6 in D&D equivalent.
-------

By the way, level 30 vampire is an equally terrifying manifestation of undeath. An anthitesis of all life, like the Dracula himself.

I dipped out from making this post to test one more thing: a cleric can turn from greater sanctuary, and can turn twice per round with haste.

You should probably reach out to devs and see if this is intentional. Given that they don't allow conjuration out of sanctuary, the idea was probably to limit sanctuary to non-hostile actions only.
-------

I'm not talking about the necromancer, I'm talking about the lathanderite. I played a high level paladin on Skal for a while. I ran into a lot of warlocks. I created flaws within my character (physical or otherwise) that either delayed, inhibited or shut down his honest attempts at stomping these acts of vileness. Why? Suspense. Suspense builds over time and interactions. If my cleric smites each vampire they see immediately, there's no build up & no story other than one that doesn't involve the vampire player.

Few things here.

I mentioned that I exclusively play evil (NE grants maximum freedom of action). If I attempted an LG character, however, as a holy class I'd be fearing IC of a punishment for going against god's dogma. That means loss of power that requires an atonement. Such system does not exist on arelith, but misbehaving in the world can result in your god turning away from you, and then you'd lose your powers. After all, you're receiving your deity's personal attention, and whatever you do, your god probably knows it. The priests get direct call line to the deity, pretty much, although paladins are probably attuned to lesser degree. Being at odds with the deity's tenets and having doubts can be a thing, but it can also lead to your fall. Paladins specifically have this fun conflict between Law and Good (or Goodwill vs Duty) which can make them unstable and eventually self-destruct.

Regarding the warlocks, there's a thing about them that their alignment is non-good. So a warlock is not necessarily evil, and a lot changes depending on how character behaves and what buddies he/she brings along. A warlock can be seen as a pitiful fool that squandered away something very precious.

Regarding vampire confrontation, in my opinion, whatever you do should go in line with character's core. The encounter can spring to life and become more terrifying for the vampire, if you really get into character's mood, and that can make it memorable. ("I'm the most powerful vamprie in this land.... but who is this man and why do hear boss music?") You can get tricked, yes, but it is unlikely that you'd be willing to let the vampire go. The "sudden stumble" is something I'd unlikely to do, unless there's an active effect that could warrant it. Like being drained or poisoned.

[Skibbles]

Now imagine that the instead of a priest the one doing the exorcism is the Pope himself

You're missing my point I think.

One of these made for an excellent and memorable film, and the other is utterly forgettable. The story is far more important than firmly sticking to being in character at all times - never to be able to bend or facilitate other players.

Sort of as an addendum to what Ork is saying here, this is what RPR is described as on Arelith:

50 - This player has shown, consistently, all of the qualities of a 40 RPR. They have helped push a larger plot at least once or twice which reached a wide audience and they conducted themselves as a player in a polite and cordial fashion without going out of their way to stir the hornet's nest. They are willing to bend their character's concept and narrative to make the most fun out of each moment for the benefit of another player.

Blasting every vampire in your way without much reason beyond 'They're Bad and I'm Good' is very in character, yes, and I don't think anyone would really dispute that, but it isn't the true ideal of Arelith's cooperative environment.

Rigidly sticking to a character concept has its purposes, but it isn't ultimately the most productive manner to build stories or balance classes. Strict IC approach to all things sort of misses the forest for the trees in the environment we're supposed to have here.

(Also yes I'm posting findings here to add to the discussion, but also to get Feedback to the devs. Who knows if they're still reading after page 7 though lol)

[Ork]

I mentioned that I exclusively play evil (NE grants maximum freedom of action). If I attempted an LG character, however, as a holy class I'd be fearing IC of a punishment for going against god's dogma. That means loss of power that requires an atonement. Such system does not exist on arelith, but misbehaving in the world can result in your god turning away from you, and then you'd lose your powers. After all, you're receiving your deity's personal attention, and whatever you do, your god probably knows it. The priests get direct call line to the deity, pretty much, although paladins are probably attuned to lesser degree. Being at odds with the deity's tenets and having doubts can be a thing, but it can also lead to your fall. Paladins specifically have this fun conflict between Law and Good (or Goodwill vs Duty) which can make them unstable and eventually self-destruct.

[...]

The "sudden stumble" is something I'd unlikely to do, unless there's an active effect that could warrant it. Like being drained or poisoned.

I think this is really the meat of it, and why we're bound to continue this argument in perpetuity. I don't see the "stumble" or delay as a failing on the player's part or dependent on in game mechanics. We're playing a make believe game where I can make believe my character suddenly gets a charlie horse and can no longer dispense the smite. I don't need the game to have a mechanic to reinforce that, I'm just going to do it because I want to make this encounter meaningful and provide opportunity for my opposition to collaborate.

My actions that my character performs don't need a mechanic component (though when mechanical components exist, I will respect them).

In the end, a good roleplayer is going to make an attempt to make each encounter collaborative. Not everyone takes them up on it, nor does that mean they're giving their opponent an "out", but it elevates the conflict beyond a binary number crunch.

Create your characters with weaknesses you can exploit to make encounters more fun. That's my little plug of advice.

[Void]

I don't need the game to have a mechanic to reinforce that, I'm just going to do it because I want to make this encounter meaningful and provide opportunity for my opposition to collaborate.

No offense, but I wouldn't be doing that and wouldn't want that be done to me either.

If you can smite and would, you should. If you can smite but decide that you can't for the sake of some story turns, while the indicator says otherwise, you're going against playing your sheet and are trying to "let the other player win". The indicator says that you can smite and that is the truth.

You can decide not to smite, but that woudl be decision of your character, then you'd be going against your dogma, and then the question is why the paladin is lying about their ability in this case. That could serve as a good start of the fall.

Sure if I'm (for some reason) a lathandrite meeting a vampire, the vampire would have their chance to turn the encounter around or run away, but that's on them to find a way. Giving them a handout just leaves a bad taste in the mouth. In my case.

So if during the encounter your character has a vampire, ability to turn, and duty to turn, but decides to proclaim that "i'm out of uses of turns", then your character is lying and ignores his duty. This is a valid turn of events, but it would require reflection and consequences. "Play your sheet" rule applies. That's how I see it.

[Void]

You're missing my point I think.

One of these made for an excellent and memorable film, and the other is utterly forgettable.

The other being forgettable, would be writer's fault. You can make the event memorable. Add flavor to it.

50 - This player has shown, consistently, all of the qualities of a 40 RPR. They have helped push a larger plot at least once or twice which reached a wide audience and they conducted themselves as a player in a polite and cordial fashion without going out of their way to stir the hornet's nest. They are willing to bend their character's concept and narrative to make the most fun out of each moment for the benefit of another player.

I do not see bending your concept too much as a good thing.

but it isn't the true ideal of Arelith's cooperative environment.

Have you played Resident Evil 3? Do you recall Nemesis?

By sticking to your concept you can elevate your character into the ultimate enemy of all vampires. A terrifying unstoppable force to be feared that seeks to destroy all undead. Such character can have a very powerful presence and profound impact, plus can serve as an inspiration to others of his faith. A ruthless unstoppable destroyer of all undead, powered by divine power and hatred, and ultimate fanatic.

You will not be able to become a thing vampires see in their nightmares, however, if you'll be willing to bend the concept to let a vampire go for the sake of short-term plot. That will make your character betray their ideals, and instead of being a terrifying foe, you'll reduce the concept to everyday joe, which, eventually, will be less memorable, than a no-compromise vampire murdering fanatical lunatic.

You'll get a tiny bit of plot, yes. But there's price to pay, and the price is loss of much more fun you could've had in the future.

At least that's how I see it, and that's why I do not like twisting concept too much. When you give in for a short term development, you can lose a much more interesting long term events you would've experienced if you stuck to the concept instead.

[Skibbles]

The other being forgettable, would be writer's fault. You can make the event memorable. Add flavor to it.

Yes it would be the writer's fault. In the case of my example the writer was supposed to be analogous to Arelith's player - therefore I think you may be agreeing with me that the writer/player probably should have, say, bent their story to facilitate something more interesting.

I do not see bending your concept too much as a good thing.

Well I'm glad you're willing to own it at least.

I haven't played any resident evils. Too spooky for me >>

I doubt we're going to have anything to agree on, balance or otherwise, if this is your perspective of the game. Such a rigid approach to cooperative RP is way too anathema for me to accept as a player, but you do you.

[Aelryn Bloodmoon]

You can, with -pray, already effectively remove a stake from your heart (cancel turning) in a way that's not traditionally available to players or NPCs of the vampire race, and be immune to further staking unless a second stake specialist shows up. At a certain point we're no longer arguing for agency, and we're arguing for paper(vampire) to have counters for scissors(turn undead).

If a lahtandrite cleric encounters an undead, there's only so many ways it can go. Even if undead are PC. That was my point.

I do want to challenge you here. I agree with what you that this interaction is almost always hostile, but hostility can be acted upon in a lot of ways. When the power differential is squarely in your favor I do think great roleplayers use that to create a compelling narrative - not just a pvp opportunity.

And, I do think it's fine clerics have this power differential. Make it work for your enemy's story.

100% this. I am not without empathy for the lack of a vampire player's agency when turned- I've been in favor of non-vanilla fear replacing the turn fear since page one.

However, following up on the thoughts about this being a stage, if you're playing, say, the wicked witch of the west, no matter how mechanically crippling it is, if water touches you, you melt and die. It doesn't matter if you caused the rainstorm outside, you have to go seek shelter or melt and die. This is part of the character you're playing.

That you didn't seek the priest out for a fight doesn't matter- the priest has their own story going on, and if they hear 'vampire spreading evil at location X' they're probably going to go to location X. That also is part of the story you signed up for when playing a vampire. Unless you're Count Strahd, you are meant to be as secretive about your existence as possible, and if you can't be, that comes with extra challenges.

Someone mentioned the exorcist ending at the beginning if the priest had just slapped the demon with a bible. Now, to translate this to an Arelith narrative, imagine that the priest wasn't some young kid fresh off the boat. Imagine that the priest had to struggle to bring their conviction to a point where they could even stand in front of this demon without pissing themselves, that they've exorcised a dozen demons before this, that before stepping into the building they said hours of prayers to fortify themself in goodness.

The priest has a player, too, and they've gone through trials and tribulations to get to the point where they can turn a vampire at all- much less one that's level 30. That the advantages they have are monumental doesn't mean one of them should be taken away because it's being used against a player- a player who agreed to suffer those disadvantages and more when playing the role of an undead Monster Race.

When you play a monster, according to a recent DM reminder, you are agreeing to play a foil that some people will just outright attempt to slay. I agree with Ork that if there is an obvious power disparity that it's a high-class move to take advantage of it to create narrative opportunity, but not everyone is a max RPR kind of player. Getting curb-stomped by turning is not as fun for the vampire, but that's a take it on the chin and move on moment for the role - one that you signed up for by making a vampire, just like if you'd decided to play the wicked witch of the west in Waterworld.

If I were playing a vampire PC (never happen, the odds of me getting a major award are the same as you winning a fight after you've been turned ) I would be waiting for the first priest or paladin that turned me and didn't immediately curb stomp me, and I would latch onto them as my primary protagonist for further story development - and possible conclusion. But that's just my take on it.

[Void]

Yes it would be the writer's fault. In the case of my example the writer was supposed to be analogous to Arelith's player - therefore I think you may be agreeing with me that the writer/player probably should have, say, bent their story to facilitate something more interesting.

What I meant it is up to writer to make the scene memorable, even if the priest dispel the possession effortlessly.

Even with my limited literary ability, I am perfectly capable of spinning a narrative here where I'd portray the priest, his power, effect, and the terror of the demon realizing WHO he is facing.

Making it memorable is writer's job. You do not need a hour of struggle to make an impact with the character.

And like Aelryn said, the priest has their own story. And in case of effortless turn, you're watching its ending, not the beginning. It is someone who has overcome their trials.

[Skibbles]

I agree - weakness versus a cleric is the weight a vampire bears, but for the umpteenth time this is not a new and sudden development. Nobody makes a vampire PC unaware that getting absolutely wrecked by a cleric is a very real potential outcome.

Vampires are incredibly weak to clerics (why do I keep having to say this? Is this thing on? Hello?), and to my knowledge no vampire player has ever made a feedback thread about the immense power of getting smote for hundreds of unresistable damage by spells (widely available in scroll form too btw) that have little to answer for.

It's like facing someone with half a dozen greater ruins meant just for you, and this has been acceptable for a long time. I'm in favor of it.

There are no positive energy protection potions, or harm potions to recover with. If a vampire takes 285 positive dmg they do not easily recover (heal presumably being a better comparison to wicked witch/rain).

So why is this being repeatedly ignored as if a priest has nothing to do or fight with and suddenly needs a huge spike in their already considerable power?

No race or class combo has such a crippling weakness as the heal -> undead paradigm. I don't know why people need more than this. It's the ultimate card. This has been the case, and should continue to be the case.

Please, someone at least acknowledge they're reading the current and longstanding superiority the priest has over the vampire already. It's there. Right in front of everyone. For years. Am I the only one actually testing this stuff, or with the game knowledge of these interactions?

The priest has his options, and they are as strong as everyone here wants them to be.

Please. Seriously. Someone just quote it so I know at least one person is actually reading what is already in the game.

For how much it is asked that a vampire be afraid of the cleric, why is it we want them to specifically stand around waiting to die instead of being able to actually run in fear, and why is it consistently being ignored that a vampire already has a ton to fear about the cleric? Why?

[Edens_Fall]

We do, but you have taken a role, and if your role is of a low level undead encountering a high level cleric, then your role is to die.

Not the RP I would personally lean towards, but each thier own.

Still, the goal is not to remove Turn as said before, only adjusted it to a level more reasonable for players.

[Edens_Fall]

I agree - weakness versus a cleric is the weight a vampire bears, but for the umpteenth time this is not a new and sudden development. Nobody makes a vampire PC unaware that getting absolutely wrecked by a cleric is a very real potential outcome.

Vampires are incredibly weak to clerics (why do I keep having to say this? Is this thing on? Hello?), and to my knowledge no vampire player has ever made a feedback thread about the immense power of getting smote for hundreds of unresistable damage by spells (widely available in scroll form too btw) that have little to answer for.

It's like facing someone with half a dozen greater ruins meant just for you, and this has been acceptable for a long time. I'm in favor of it.

There are no positive energy protection potions, or harm potions to recover with. If a vampire takes 285 positive dmg they do not easily recover (heal presumably being a better comparison to wicked witch/rain).

So why is this being repeatedly ignored as if a priest has nothing to do or fight with and suddenly needs a huge spike in their already considerable power?

No race or class combo has such a crippling weakness as the heal -> undead paradigm. I don't know why people need more than this. It's the ultimate card. This has been the case, and should continue to be the case.

Please, someone at least acknowledge they're reading the current and longstanding superiority the priest has over the vampire already. It's there. Right in front of everyone. For years. Am I the only one actually testing this stuff, or with the game knowledge of these interactions?

The priest has his options, and they are as strong as everyone here wants them to be.

Please. Seriously. Someone just quote it so I know at least one person is actually reading what is already in the game.

For how much it is asked that a vampire be afraid of the cleric, why is it we want them to specifically stand around waiting to die instead of being able to actually run in fear, and why is it consistently being ignored that a vampire already has a ton to fear about the cleric? Why?

I tots read you and understand!

[Curve]

Why?

You are arguing with one person. It's not a chorus of people shouting you down. The DEVs have taken action and are watching the situation evolve. Sounds like a win to me.