When a vampire is full/alive, remove its holy vulnerability

[tasonir]

Just an idea I had while playing vampires, so much of their play and resistances varies based on their blood level, that I thought it would be interesting if they could lose their holy vulnerability at a high enough blood level. If this should be full, very full, or only alive, is up to debate. I'd probably say full or very full.

The benefit of this is that it makes it possible for a vampire to play around their weakness if they run into something dangerous, like the ettin I found with -both- weapons being holy wrath. Since it's melee, I'd have several turns to chug a couple of potions of blood and be a lot safer fighting it. Of course you'd lose any undead resistances you might have been using, so it's an interesting choice.

This may make them feel less like undead, or too human when high on blood, but I think it stays within the current design of having two very different sets of benefits on each side of the blood scale.

[Sar]

Considering their rMut at low satiation was removed for being "too complicated", I doubt this proposal will go in.

[KoboldLord]

Holy wrath isn't really an interesting weakness in the first place, so I wouldn't mind if it was just removed entirely. Holy monsters that had it before can just deal more base damage to everybody; that way non-undead and non-demon player characters don't get left out of the fun.

[tasonir]

Considering their rMut at low satiation was removed for being "too complicated", I doubt this proposal will go in.

the rMut, as I understand it, had a lot of strange cases where they had partial effects of mutations. I don't really know the details, because I didn't play them before it was removed. This change is no more complicated than saying that they shouldn't get rPois at thirsty; it's just toggling an elemental resistance, which is something that happens 5 times already (they gain rC++, rPois, rN+++ based on bloodstates, if I remember correctly). I suppose it does add a 6th case to the list, but the list is pretty much the defining characteristic of vampires. Trading resistances for regeneration based on blood is most of the race imho. This would be one resistance (in the sense that non-vulnerable is more resistant than vuln) that you gain based on having more, instead of less blood, but I don't think that's a problem.

[xentronium]

From a flavor standpoint, a vampire is a still a vampire even if it's full of blood and "alive." TSO should still hate them.

[and into]

Should vampires become immune to dispel undead when they are Alive? ... Should they be able to worship Ely?

This would be taking vampires in the wrong direction, frankly. There should be less, rather than more, times you would want to precisely fine tune your thirst level. Aside from that, losing a vulnerability is much more significant than gaining a resistance, so they aren't really comparable at all. (Mummy has rF- and rC+, for instance, and no, they don't balance out.)

[duvessa]

I've seen a lot of people expect vampires to lose dispel undead vulnerabilty at Alive. They lose their rN and rPois after all. And if they can mutate at all blood levels then I would expect them to not be vulnerable to dispel undead at any blood level, since, you know, "undead can't mutate" is a hard-and-fast rule in Crawl for everything that isn't a player vampire, including monster vampires, and you wouldn't expect dispel undead to dispel something that isn't undead.

Of course the real conclusion here is that player vampires are the worst thing ever.

[Tressol]

From a flavor standpoint, a vampire is a still a vampire even if it's full of blood and "alive." TSO should still hate them.

From a flavor standpoint, "Alive" is about as far from "Undead" as you can get. Vampirism is a curse, right? So, enough blood "lifts" it temporarily- sounds reasonable to me. Plus, it's just more interesting (imo) if they can ditch the vulnerability with enough blood.

And if Holy Wrath just means TSO hates you, shouldn't anyone following an Evil god be vulnerable? Mind you, I would be totally okay with that.

[wheals]

I've seen a lot of people expect vampires to lose dispel undead vulnerabilty at Alive. They lose their rN and rPois after all. And if they can mutate at all blood levels then I would expect them to not be vulnerable to dispel undead at any blood level, since, you know, "undead can't mutate" is a hard-and-fast rule in Crawl for everything that isn't a player vampire, including monster vampires, and you wouldn't expect dispel undead to dispel something that isn't undead.

Of course the real conclusion here is that player vampires are the worst thing ever.

Did you know that they take less damage from DU at higher blood levels???

[Hirsch I]

vampires are complicated.

[duvessa]

I've seen a lot of people expect vampires to lose dispel undead vulnerabilty at Alive. They lose their rN and rPois after all. And if they can mutate at all blood levels then I would expect them to not be vulnerable to dispel undead at any blood level, since, you know, "undead can't mutate" is a hard-and-fast rule in Crawl for everything that isn't a player vampire, including monster vampires, and you wouldn't expect dispel undead to dispel something that isn't undead.

Of course the real conclusion here is that player vampires are the worst thing ever.

Did you know that they take less damage from DU at higher blood levels???

I thought you were joking but decided to check the code just in case...

  Code:

       // reduce damage for non-hungry vampires
        if (you.undead_state() == US_SEMI_UNDEAD)
        {
            if (you.hunger_state == HS_ENGORGED)
                damage.size /= 2;
            else if (you.hunger_state > HS_SATIATED)
            {
                damage.size *= 2;
                damage.size /= 3;
            }
        }


Fuck this I'm not playing this game ever again.

[notcluie]

i.... i just what. that's a thing? what the actual fuck

[rockygargoyle]

Not anymore it's not:
http://git.develz.org/?p=crawl.git;a=co ... 03b3477f77

[Hirsch I]

here, Duvy, you can play the game again.

[RBrandon]

The funny part about this quirk and the numerous others is that if vampires were first proposed today it would likely be rejected for being over-complicated and tedious. Which happens to be consistent with actually playing them.

[tasonir]

I'm officially counting this as another thread I started that worked, regardless of how unaware I was of the actual change

Good thing I won a vampire before this nerf!

[and into]

I saw an offhand reference in an old thread I was looking at for some reason, and according to that, vp got some MP restoration when they vampire-bit enemy elves.

1.) Was this ever true?
2.) Please tell me it is no longer true.

[Lasty]

This was true, and is no longer true.

[reaver]

I saw an offhand reference in an old thread I was looking at for some reason, and according to that, vp got some MP restoration when they vampire-bit enemy elves.

1.) Was this ever true?
2.) Please tell me it is no longer true.

This commit removed draining elf corpses giving vampires MP

I don't know if they could ever gain MP by having their vampiric bite attack hit an elf.

[and into]

Thanks, I was 99% sure it wasn't in the game any longer, but was curious as to whether it ever was. (I must have misread or misunderstood the post and thought it referred to the vp auxiliary attack, rather than feeding on an elf corpse.)