So... just write it up that he was a barsark (no Hel...., yet). Then he got turned ("died" of the HMHVV). Then he aligned with Hel.

Or felt he had no other option and is currently trying to prove himself worthy of Valhalla.

In any event, my point remains that with most Charisma-based traditions you can use enough mental gymnastics to validate an Infected practitioner - Aztech and Black Magic are the easiest, with Shinto (follower of evil kami) and a few others following close, with others leading up the rear.

So far while the advice is helpful, I am a bit limited on how things are.

My books are only 20th Core, Runner's Companion, Arsenal, Augmentation, Unwired, Street Magic, and Running Wild.

Mystic Adepts in our version will work like this. If I am magic rating 4, I still get to roll 4 Dice for Spellcasting tests, but my force is limited by how much I put into the Mageside, so if I was a 2/2 split I would be normal cap 2, overcap of 4.

Also, no Nanotech, or the smallest drones are allowed.While wear using wireless technology it is only the mid 2050s.

Lastly while the character has become an infected, they do not fully embrace the fact they are a monster. They are not some cruel and fowl person and before HMVV they were actually (In my version) and Voodoo priestess who spent her time trying to help people.

I wonder how the loa feel about possessing vampires... something to think about

With traditions considering spirits to be entities rather then raw mana formed into expressions of their own will, there's usually a dialogue or relationship between the summoner and the spirit, how does the spirits react to your condition? how do you explain it to them? do you do things differently to please them?

Guys you are truly making me feel my age- which is NOT kind of you. becasue just reading the topic heading here made me think of singing dancing little people run amok, but clearly it is doable with in the rules.

Urm... What the hell?

Indeed.

a pc vampire adept? just make him a CZ and you're pretty much talking about what was used as an example of a munchkin character. but now it seems to be...legal.

It is Optional now. I have never been in a Game where it has been allowed.
And yes, it is a Munchkin's wet dream. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

CZ? What am I missing here...? (Clearly too much blood in my caffeine system at the moment...I feel I should know this.)

Cyber Zombie. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

right, if you wanted to describe something as over the top you started with a vampire cyberzombie mage/adept, and (for the real old timers) armed with a silvergun. (spelling on purpose)

I think I met that guy... On a RP server

:facepalm:

Yeah, I need a vacation....

See, you two use that as an insult. I don't view it as such. It is this fundamental difference between our opinions that is evidenced in every disagreement we have.

You two seem to view character optimization as some sort of weakness in character (whether personal or roleplaying), whereas I see character optimization as an insurance to have a character survive, even flourish, in a game, and in doing so be a more enjoyable experience. It's no fun playing characters that die frequently.

Munchkin is the dark side of minmaxing, optimising isnt a bad thing on it's own.
It's when consistency, concept and common sense gets superseded by numbers that the munchkin show his ugly face... Never pick up a duck btw

Enjoyable for Whom? I have yet to see any enjoyable Vampire Character. I have seen a few in play, just not at our table, and no, they were not enjoyable to even watch, let alone play with (No, the other players in the game did not like the Vampire, so it is not just my opinion here). *shrug*

There are concepts that should just not be allowed. Any Sentient Critter and Any Infected fall on that List for me. *shrug*

I have many Characters that Survive (and even Flourish) without having to use an Infected or Sentient Critter. If you have characters that are dying frequently, perhaps you should examine your playstyle a bit. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I can see no concept that becomes better by adding Infecte or Sapient Critters to teh Mix. All I see is a broken concept.

Sounds familiar...


And that is your fault.

EDIT: Speaking of which, if you two don't like the concept and can't think of anything constructive to say about it, then you're welcome to leave. This thread was created to get feedback about helping a character concept, and "that's too powerful, I'd never let it in my games," or "I've never seen one played that was fun for anybody," is not helpful. I've played a few Infected that were fun for myself and the group, so your limited experience is not the norm.

An opinion was asked for, and one was given. Get off the High Horse Neraph.

And it isn't my fault that I think Infected and Sapient Critters are Broken, because they are (as are many of the Playable Options from Runners Companion). See how many Topics are started about such things here on Dumpshock. From your Point of View, any Concept is better with an Infected. From my viewpoint, Infected are NPC races and should never have been allowed to be playable. *shrug*

Just becasue they are Different Opinions does not make anyone at FAULT (except for maybe those who thought that they were an option that should be added to the game as PC's).

You first.


It is your fault that you keep commenting on it, instead of just ignoring the threads (and there aren't that many on the subject)


When the premise was "can it be done" (implied 'is it too weak under these constraints?'), not "should it be done", going into the thread saying that the OP shouldn't play an infected is pointless. It is worse than that, not only does it not contribute to helping the OP, but it actually subtracts from the discussion by pulling it away from "how can I make a good character like this?" over to "Infected PCs, yes or no?"


It makes you at fault when you choose to attack the stated premise of the thread, when that was a thing set in stone. If I made a "how can I make the best Free Spirit character with 400 BP" thread, a reply that said "Free Spirit rules are stupid and shouldn't have been added. They should all be NPCs." is not helping, and it will likely pull people who would otherwise have helped into a discussion about the merits of FSPCs, making it harder to gain the wanted information.

FWIW, my crew currently runs with a Nosferatu Mage, & the character is not that powerful, he's probably the 3rd strongest person in the group. I'm not sure if thats because the player is toning down the abilities or what, but he is actually relatively weaker than my straight Elf character.

Not at fault, a fault.


He's toning it down, more than likely. I was in a game playing a nosferatu mysad and I was a support rigger. I only paid cash for the ability also - a good comm with sim module, a R6 Command program, a centralized TacNet, and a few aerial drones; the one I was jumped into providing command/control/oversight, and two equipped with Ares Alphas, one loaded nonlethal, the other lethal. When required I'd just remote command and be done with it.

My drones got broked and so I had to start showing up in person to the 'runs (GM wouldn't really let me have downtime required to replace the drones...) and I had to really take a back seat so I wouldn't outshine everyone else. That happens when you're tossing 20+ dice for Compulsion and Influence and you designed the character as a crowd control character.

EDIT: About the fault thing, here's a fault of mine - I cannot play anything that's short. I can't play dwarves or gnomes. I can't play kobold or poisondusk lizardfolk or halflings. I just can't bring myself to do it. It kind of stinks because in SR, dwarves have a=freakin'-mazing stats. I just can't do it.

Are you kids still having this discussion? Really? How about you both carry the argument somewhere else, where the rest of us don't have to watch? It's embarrassing.

How can somebody be at fault if he says X does (not) fit into my game...

Thats like saying: You are wrong, chocolate ice cream tastes great.

Well, if someone did say that chocolate ice cream tasted bad, they would be wrong.