Supernatural Recovery

Varana

Fire damage vs recovery is not balanced in PvE.
There is some content where you're better off dropping vampirism to stage 3 or 2 but that is rare, and you can get healed through most of that stuff even in high stages. It is really a minor inconvenience in some special cases.
+10% magicka recovery, on the other hand, is universally helpful everywhere all the time, and a huge bonus - many magicka builds and tanks profit a lot from high magicka recovery.

kathandira

If any ability cost increase from Vampire Passived makes it live, without an offer to remove your vampire curse for free, I will unsub and uninstall this game. This is a huge mistake imo, and it is one that I will pay $0.00 to fix on my characters who are Vampires for the Recovery increase.

XomRhoK

kathandira wrote: »

If any ability cost increase from Vampire Passived makes it live, without an offer to remove your vampire curse for free, I will unsub and uninstall this game. This is a huge mistake imo, and it is one that I will pay $0.00 to fix on my characters who are Vampires for the Recovery increase.

From uesp.net article:
"To cure your vampirism, seek out Prelate Sabinus in the Mages Guild hall in Riften (Ebonheart Pact), Evermore (Daggerfall Covenant), or Rawl'kha (Aldmeri Dominion). You will be requested to donate a small amount of gold before being instantly cured.

Once cured, any skill points you invested into the Vampire skill tree will be returned automatically. Any experience you previously gathered will remain allowing you to become a vampire again at a later point without any progression lost if you choose to cure yourself."

jadarock

When I first started playing I paid real money to be a vamp this is somewhat of a slap in the face.
I should be credited in the clown store since zos is pulling the rug out from beneath that purchase.

Noxavian

kathandira wrote: »

If any ability cost increase from Vampire Passived makes it live, without an offer to remove your vampire curse for free, I will unsub and uninstall this game. This is a huge mistake imo, and it is one that I will pay $0.00 to fix on my characters who are Vampires for the Recovery increase.

You ARENT SUPPOSED to be a vampire for the recovery increase. They've said this is their goal.

Kidgangster101

I think the 20% cost increase is terrible. Yes I get they get more damage through the move that drains health, but there is a big drawback to that move too as you can't be healed except by yourself.

Nma is only 5% increase this is 20% lol just crazy.

Chrlynsch

Kidgangster101 wrote: »

I think the 20% cost increase is terrible. Yes I get they get more damage through the move that drains health, but there is a big drawback to that move too as you can't be healed except by yourself.

Nma is only 5% increase this is 20% lol just crazy.

A fully monsterous Vampire (stage 4) should be embracing their 40% cheaper Vampire abilities. If a vampire character wants to utilize vampire abilies without losing too much of their humanity just stay at a lower stage.

If you can not accept the consequences of the curse, seek a cure.

Noxavian

Chrlynsch wrote: »

Kidgangster101 wrote: »

I think the 20% cost increase is terrible. Yes I get they get more damage through the move that drains health, but there is a big drawback to that move too as you can't be healed except by yourself.

Nma is only 5% increase this is 20% lol just crazy.

A fully monsterous Vampire (stage 4) should be embracing their 40% cheaper Vampire abilities. If a vampire character wants to utilize vampire abilies without losing too much of their humanity just stay at a lower stage.

If you can not accept the consequences of the curse, seek a cure.

That's what I'm saying. It's wack that these people expect vampire to be able to be used by people that don't want to....play as a vampire.

LOL.

VaxtinTheWolf

I've never made any of my characters Vampire due to the aesthetics it would ruin that I have set up. I will say that though that I personally think the purposed changes to that sub-line so far makes it enough of a more interesting consideration for me that I want to at least start theory crafting how it might work for my tanks/healers.

xF1REFL1x

lol... I'm gonna have a lot of vampire characters to cure!

karekiz

Its a subtle way of saying.

Use vamp abilities if you make yourself a vamp.

peacenote

Tessitura wrote: »

Okay so you say that not a majority of people choose vamp for that one passive, but for a long time it's been understood by the greater community that the passive was what held up the vamp skill line, and Alcast doesn't tend to suggest vamp or ww cause they tend to build introductory builds and not highend builds. Their build are templates for people to start with so they have some basic knowledge on what their class can do. And Zos agree's they believed that people had only been picking vampire for that passive too, they said as much, and wanted to take it away to create more build diversity. Believe it or not you did not need that passive sustain, it just helped. I think it's a good move to remove it.

Now, for why vampire should have a downside... Same reason you think it should not and you think it will hurt you or your build...Because what about those who don't want to be a vampire? If it''s good for all builds, then all builds will use it, there won't be any none vamps with there is no trade off, it would just be one of those must have skill lines, which feels bad for the greater feel of the world, and makes people that would rather not be a vampire choose vampire. Only the "Elite" mortals would stay mortal as you put it. Not to mentions in every fantasy Vampires had huge trade offs for being vampires. Usually its that the dun just out right kills them, or something like they can't enter a building without being invited, *** they just can't do for a mmo cause, how could they? So instead they are opting for some D&D style weaknesses. Less health recovery, weakness to elements, fire in this case, (Always a good choice for undead. ) cost increase to none natural abilities, which is the most arguable trade off since that can really give someone pause, which is why they did it, and they give vamps a tool that might make it worth it... All that sweet spell damage.

Now, you play a healer correct, and think these cost increase will ruin you gameplay? I understand, higher cost means less outgoing healing per second... But, I don't think this will ruin healers, in fact I think it will make healing far more interesting and I have a huge desire to build a vampire healer now. Why you ask? Because of the aforementioned spell damage, HOT healing might be huge with the way vamps will be working now. Sure cost more, but you throw out these hots and let your health tick down for the spell damage, then burst heal the group when needs, throw up the hots and tick down again. Not to mention you can weave a few mist forms into your rotation to maintain your own health and increase your spell damage even further. The super high heals will make the cost increase more worth it and you don't not even have to be stage four for this to work, so the punishment won't be as harsh, just sit at stage two.

You say this takes away from the fun of others, and takes functionality away from them, you say this from the perspective of a victim, a victim of change you don't want. But I am telling you, this adds a whole new way to play the game to ESO. A lot of us like this, we can't wait to test, and think its going to be a lot of fun, why is your fun worth more then theirs? Why is your immersion worth more then theirs? I know you feel cheated here, but you have only seen the idea on paper, not in practice, just wait, and test some things out before you get too upset. What looks bad on paper sometimes is great in practice. This new play style it will bring to the game might not suit you true, but I know a lot of people it will suit.

I think in some cases we're going to have to agree to disagree. Which is ok.

A few responses, though:

• I am not saying that I know, for certain, that a majority of people did NOT choose the skill line for one passive. I am saying that we don't have those metrics (not even ZOS, because they don't know why people have specced into a skill line unless they poll each individual person... everything else is anecdotal and potentially flawed extrapolation) so raising that point as justification for the change when folks are voicing concerns is just misdirection and not addressing the feedback. We DO know that statements asserting that SR is the ONLY reason people chose to be vampires are incorrect, because it's clear the community is actively using other vampire abilities.
• I'm also saying that even if people were becoming vampires only for one passive, I am just not sure why there is so much judgment of this. It happens all the time, in many skill lines, so people saying that this "should not be done" specifically for vampire is a bit hypocritical and close-minded.
• I want to be clear that I am not saying other people's fun should be ruined. In fact if you look through my posts you'll find that usually what I try to advocate for is BOTH sides. Which means I'm usually pointing out things that are glossed over and overlooked. I really liked the idea raised on these forums that a new line for vampire should have been introduced in Greymoor. My issue these days is that ZOS is making broad, sweeping changes without considering all angles. My theme is collateral damage. I'm super glad some folks think that the new vampire stuff looks cool. I am sure I'll even check it out. My issue is why do new things, lately, always seem to have to come at a loss to others? Why not go the extra strep and provide new content that is brand new and doesn't ruin other stuff? Another great example of this is how BG's were changed to be solo ONLY. I suspect it wouldn't have been that much effort to make a group queue at the same time, and I am glad some folks find the solo experience to be better. But why did it have to come at the expense of people who enjoyed queuing with their friends?
  
  Anyway, don't assume that I am against all of the changes or new stuff. I am pretty sure I didn't say that. I am just pointing out what was overlooked and potentially problematic in the design, and pushing back when naysayers are invalidating decent feedback with fake data such as "everyone did this" when it's not the case.
• Vampire has a downside, today, so I'm not arguing that it shouldn't have one at all. I'm just pointing out that insisting there must be extreme drawbacks so that it is be a niche play style for a specific purpose is a bit elitist.
• I think you're trotting out two different sides of an argument to make your case which is a bit contradictory. To say that the recovery isn't needed but was just helpful, and then immediately saying that there are lots of people who were vampires to get the passive when they didn't want to be... it's one or the other. Either it's not required, in which case the argument to all of those folks who "had to be vampire" is... they didn't have to be (and this problem didn't need to be "fixed"). OR, if it is important for some builds, stop trying to say it isn't and instead advocate for this passive to be placed in another tree somewhere, so builds that enjoyed the helpfulness won't be decimated, instead of trying to downplay its usefulness in order to sell the idea that it's good it has gone out of the vampire skill line.
• Either way, while I know that I can be a good healer without it, I do think the loss of Supernatural Recovery IN CONJUNCTION WITH the loss of Heavy Attack resource recovery will be a very bad experience for healing/support roles, and I think that these changes were planned together, with DPS in mind, without considering healing. This is why I care about raising this issue up and getting a spotlight on the discussion.
• Lastly, I think the vampire healer you describe could be fun but not sure it will be viable in all cases. Like you said, we'll have to see how it plays out. Healers are expected to purge, ele drain, provide Orbs for synergy, etc. Lots of spell damage won't help at all if sustain is too much of a problem and, since I don't think a lot of those items are in the toolkit of a vampire, the trade-off for non-vampire skills may not work well. There's a reason the Sanctuary set isn't favored... it's because pure raw healing isn't the best measure of a healer. So I'm not worried so much about outgoing healing per second as managing the cost of all the different abilities we should have on our bars to be effective. Again, especially (sorry to be repetitive), without heavy attacks to fall back on.

The TL:DR is: I'm not at all saying that we shouldn't enjoy the new changes and that they won't be cool for some situations. What I'm saying is that there were some things individuals enjoyed about being a vampire in the current skill line that maybe didn't have to be thrown out with the new, and this feedback shouldn't be buried under mountains of "you're doing it wrong comments" so that ZOS has even a snowball's chance in a volcano to see that feedback and make even MORE folks happy with the new changes. What's wrong with that?

Paradisius

I like the current iteration of the passives, my only concern is the pure value of the ability cost but this is mostly speculation until it hits the PTS, But I would assume that ZOS did not want them to release numbers out to the public for this specific reason. I doubt it will go live with 20% increased ability cost, but the cost increase will be there and I'm pretty fine with that

peacenote

D0PAMINE wrote: »

[
The main issue is that the Vampire skill line fit a niche player base while the passives were useful to pretty much all builds. Im excited that vampire is getting love with a rework, but it's annoying that playing as one can gimp you even if you want to actually be a vampire and use the skills on whatever role you play without being a hinderance to your group. It's the drastic changes zos makes so late into the game that it throws people off.

Yes, people simply chose vampire for 10% recovery bonus because of sustain issues. The main skills were neglected and the passives were useful for so long, then it suddenly changed and now people are being bashed and criticized because they enjoyed a core part of Vampirism that was useful and very much intigrated and untouched.

Im fine with it being a gift/curse, but im annoyed that it's yet another drastic change that could result in the majority of players cureing it because hit them so hard.

Really good post; I agree. Some of what I was trying to say, too, but from a different angle and worded a bit more succinctly!

ShadowHvo

Anyone here who actually believes that the 20% increased ability cost is reasonable are frankly delusional.

There is nowhere in TES lore or game mechanics where the vampire has ever been penalized like this. It is completely and utterly nonsensical to the fantasy of the vampire.

A vampire isn't a class. It isn't a job or some sort of tool-set. It is a state of being. It's like punishing a Bosmer with -20% magicka ability cost, or a Breton with a -20% Stamina ability cost. Vampires are people who use the toolsets of other classes, and so it has always been.

I think a far better and more reasonable downside would be something akin to "-5%/-10%/-15%/-20% Healing From non-vampire abilities OR Healing from others" as that is far more fitting penalty to an undead monstrosity. That makes the vampire rely more on self-heals via Drain and Feeding.

Caelc

ShadowHvo wrote: »

Anyone here who actually believes that the 20% increased ability cost is reasonable are frankly delusional.

There is nowhere in TES lore or game mechanics where the vampire has ever been penalized like this. It is completely and utterly nonsensical to the fantasy of the vampire.

A vampire isn't a class. It isn't a job or some sort of tool-set. It is a state of being. It's like punishing a Bosmer with -20% magicka ability cost, or a Breton with a -20% Stamina ability cost. Vampires are people who use the toolsets of other classes, and so it has always been.

I think a far better and more reasonable downside would be something akin to "-5%/-10%/-15%/-20% Healing From non-vampire abilities OR Healing from others" as that is far more fitting penalty to an undead monstrosity. That makes the vampire rely more on self-heals via Drain and Feeding.

wouldnt it force vampires to basically stick to one bar?

Dr_Ganknstein

this is basically a nerf to night blades. At least to night blades that want to use NB abilities especially Stam. Almost every NB goes vampire for the speed while in sneak. Now we will get double punished with an ability cost and no more magica and stamina regen. This version of vampire is almost its own class.

Chrlynsch

ShadowHvo wrote: »

Anyone here who actually believes that the 20% increased ability cost is reasonable are frankly delusional.

There is nowhere in TES lore or game mechanics where the vampire has ever been penalized like this. It is completely and utterly nonsensical to the fantasy of the vampire.

A vampire isn't a class. It isn't a job or some sort of tool-set. It is a state of being. It's like punishing a Bosmer with -20% magicka ability cost, or a Breton with a -20% Stamina ability cost. Vampires are people who use the toolsets of other classes, and so it has always been.

I think a far better and more reasonable downside would be something akin to "-5%/-10%/-15%/-20% Healing From non-vampire abilities OR Healing from others" as that is far more fitting penalty to an undead monstrosity. That makes the vampire rely more on self-heals via Drain and Feeding.

Vampires have never been like this in other Elder Scrolls games before because:

1. They are single player games, and didn't have to worry about the balance of the disease. Conventional penalties that were applied there, can't be applied in a mmo setting.

2.This strain of vampirism doesn't exist in any other game. What ever the devs put in the game is lore.

It seams that ZOS is making vampires more of a SubClass much like Werewolves are. Except they are giving Vamps a slider scale of build diversity, vs Werewolf's on/off setting.

I honestly can't wait for it to go to pts, so videos can be posted of how powerful vampires are in their proposed state.

If you are a full on Monstrous Vampire, feeding on the lifeblood of mortals, moving efficiently through the shadows, evaporating into mist, going into bloodrage, siphoning life force from your enemies, it is completely understandable that you have lost some of your mortality and doing things that used to be second nature to you (Mortal Abilities s) have become harder for you to perform, because your mortality is slipping away from you.

Bobby_V_Rockit

Sooooo, if running False God (8% reduced cost) and 6x light armour (12% reduced cost) wouldn’t magicka skills just cost the normal amount then?

daemonor

No because magicka cost reduce and increase % work differetly. They stated that in the la/heavy attack change thread.
I'm probably the minority here, I wanted vamp changes and I'm glad theyre more fleshed out, but also sad cause i really liked to run my stamina DDS at stage 4 vamp for the aesthetics and unfortunately i am not gonna be able to do that anymore

Tessitura

peacenote wrote: »

Tessitura wrote: »

Okay so you say that not a majority of people choose vamp for that one passive, but for a long time it's been understood by the greater community that the passive was what held up the vamp skill line, and Alcast doesn't tend to suggest vamp or ww cause they tend to build introductory builds and not highend builds. Their build are templates for people to start with so they have some basic knowledge on what their class can do. And Zos agree's they believed that people had only been picking vampire for that passive too, they said as much, and wanted to take it away to create more build diversity. Believe it or not you did not need that passive sustain, it just helped. I think it's a good move to remove it.

Now, for why vampire should have a downside... Same reason you think it should not and you think it will hurt you or your build...Because what about those who don't want to be a vampire? If it''s good for all builds, then all builds will use it, there won't be any none vamps with there is no trade off, it would just be one of those must have skill lines, which feels bad for the greater feel of the world, and makes people that would rather not be a vampire choose vampire. Only the "Elite" mortals would stay mortal as you put it. Not to mentions in every fantasy Vampires had huge trade offs for being vampires. Usually its that the dun just out right kills them, or something like they can't enter a building without being invited, *** they just can't do for a mmo cause, how could they? So instead they are opting for some D&D style weaknesses. Less health recovery, weakness to elements, fire in this case, (Always a good choice for undead. ) cost increase to none natural abilities, which is the most arguable trade off since that can really give someone pause, which is why they did it, and they give vamps a tool that might make it worth it... All that sweet spell damage.

Now, you play a healer correct, and think these cost increase will ruin you gameplay? I understand, higher cost means less outgoing healing per second... But, I don't think this will ruin healers, in fact I think it will make healing far more interesting and I have a huge desire to build a vampire healer now. Why you ask? Because of the aforementioned spell damage, HOT healing might be huge with the way vamps will be working now. Sure cost more, but you throw out these hots and let your health tick down for the spell damage, then burst heal the group when needs, throw up the hots and tick down again. Not to mention you can weave a few mist forms into your rotation to maintain your own health and increase your spell damage even further. The super high heals will make the cost increase more worth it and you don't not even have to be stage four for this to work, so the punishment won't be as harsh, just sit at stage two.

You say this takes away from the fun of others, and takes functionality away from them, you say this from the perspective of a victim, a victim of change you don't want. But I am telling you, this adds a whole new way to play the game to ESO. A lot of us like this, we can't wait to test, and think its going to be a lot of fun, why is your fun worth more then theirs? Why is your immersion worth more then theirs? I know you feel cheated here, but you have only seen the idea on paper, not in practice, just wait, and test some things out before you get too upset. What looks bad on paper sometimes is great in practice. This new play style it will bring to the game might not suit you true, but I know a lot of people it will suit.

I think in some cases we're going to have to agree to disagree. Which is ok.

A few responses, though:

• I am not saying that I know, for certain, that a majority of people did NOT choose the skill line for one passive. I am saying that we don't have those metrics (not even ZOS, because they don't know why people have specced into a skill line unless they poll each individual person... everything else is anecdotal and potentially flawed extrapolation) so raising that point as justification for the change when folks are voicing concerns is just misdirection and not addressing the feedback. We DO know that statements asserting that SR is the ONLY reason people chose to be vampires are incorrect, because it's clear the community is actively using other vampire abilities.
• I'm also saying that even if people were becoming vampires only for one passive, I am just not sure why there is so much judgment of this. It happens all the time, in many skill lines, so people saying that this "should not be done" specifically for vampire is a bit hypocritical and close-minded.
• I want to be clear that I am not saying other people's fun should be ruined. In fact if you look through my posts you'll find that usually what I try to advocate for is BOTH sides. Which means I'm usually pointing out things that are glossed over and overlooked. I really liked the idea raised on these forums that a new line for vampire should have been introduced in Greymoor. My issue these days is that ZOS is making broad, sweeping changes without considering all angles. My theme is collateral damage. I'm super glad some folks think that the new vampire stuff looks cool. I am sure I'll even check it out. My issue is why do new things, lately, always seem to have to come at a loss to others? Why not go the extra strep and provide new content that is brand new and doesn't ruin other stuff? Another great example of this is how BG's were changed to be solo ONLY. I suspect it wouldn't have been that much effort to make a group queue at the same time, and I am glad some folks find the solo experience to be better. But why did it have to come at the expense of people who enjoyed queuing with their friends?
  
  Anyway, don't assume that I am against all of the changes or new stuff. I am pretty sure I didn't say that. I am just pointing out what was overlooked and potentially problematic in the design, and pushing back when naysayers are invalidating decent feedback with fake data such as "everyone did this" when it's not the case.
• Vampire has a downside, today, so I'm not arguing that it shouldn't have one at all. I'm just pointing out that insisting there must be extreme drawbacks so that it is be a niche play style for a specific purpose is a bit elitist.
• I think you're trotting out two different sides of an argument to make your case which is a bit contradictory. To say that the recovery isn't needed but was just helpful, and then immediately saying that there are lots of people who were vampires to get the passive when they didn't want to be... it's one or the other. Either it's not required, in which case the argument to all of those folks who "had to be vampire" is... they didn't have to be (and this problem didn't need to be "fixed"). OR, if it is important for some builds, stop trying to say it isn't and instead advocate for this passive to be placed in another tree somewhere, so builds that enjoyed the helpfulness won't be decimated, instead of trying to downplay its usefulness in order to sell the idea that it's good it has gone out of the vampire skill line.
• Either way, while I know that I can be a good healer without it, I do think the loss of Supernatural Recovery IN CONJUNCTION WITH the loss of Heavy Attack resource recovery will be a very bad experience for healing/support roles, and I think that these changes were planned together, with DPS in mind, without considering healing. This is why I care about raising this issue up and getting a spotlight on the discussion.
• Lastly, I think the vampire healer you describe could be fun but not sure it will be viable in all cases. Like you said, we'll have to see how it plays out. Healers are expected to purge, ele drain, provide Orbs for synergy, etc. Lots of spell damage won't help at all if sustain is too much of a problem and, since I don't think a lot of those items are in the toolkit of a vampire, the trade-off for non-vampire skills may not work well. There's a reason the Sanctuary set isn't favored... it's because pure raw healing isn't the best measure of a healer. So I'm not worried so much about outgoing healing per second as managing the cost of all the different abilities we should have on our bars to be effective. Again, especially (sorry to be repetitive), without heavy attacks to fall back on.

The TL:DR is: I'm not at all saying that we shouldn't enjoy the new changes and that they won't be cool for some situations. What I'm saying is that there were some things individuals enjoyed about being a vampire in the current skill line that maybe didn't have to be thrown out with the new, and this feedback shouldn't be buried under mountains of "you're doing it wrong comments" so that ZOS has even a snowball's chance in a volcano to see that feedback and make even MORE folks happy with the new changes. What's wrong with that?

Just because something is not that big of a deal does not mean people won't see it as a big deal. The recovery is not going to be a huge loss, but people think it is. I did not contradict myself. People did feel forced to pick vamp because they believed that recovery was a huge deal. People in these games often chase numbers, and some find that min maxing fun. But the belief that they needed to look ugly to get this one thing upset some people.

Also by the way, sustain is not going to be as big of a issue as people make it out to be, I have been playing with the new LA, Ele drain with a LA returns a huge amount of magicka. It takes about two to three seconds to get a resto staff heavy attack off, in that same time you can get about two to three light attacks in. With ele drain and the progressively increasing recovery from the light attacks, you will get about the same if not more magicka back, plus you can just throw out a few random or weaved light attacks out for little bumps here and there. So, your are saved from the feared loss of a heavy attack sustain.

I am not going to go into anything else you wrote because it's either something I already argued against and don't want to start one of those circular debates, or its a opinion that can't refute because I can't tell you that you don't feel the way you do.But I am going to double down on the fact that I did not contradict myself.

Deathlord92

Vampire magblade sounds really cool if I’m being honest 🙂

fierackas

So where are the stamina morphs? Not everyone who wants to play a vampire is a Harry Potter wannabe

Dr_Ganknstein

Deathlord92 wrote: »

Vampire magblade sounds really cool if I’m being honest 🙂

Yeah if you don't like using NB skills.

Deathlord92

fierackas wrote: »

So where are the stamina morphs? Not everyone who wants to play a vampire is a Harry Potter wannabe

I feel ya my main stamblade magblade second

Deathlord92

Icky wrote: »

Deathlord92 wrote: »

Vampire magblade sounds really cool if I’m being honest 🙂

Yeah if you don't like using NB skills.

Yup that 20% cost increase needs to go lol 🤣

Varana

Why is everyone assuming they will constantly stay at stage 4?
As far as we know, you have to specifically bring yourself up the stages, you don't just automatically "level" up just by passing time.

Vevvev

Varana wrote: »

Why is everyone assuming they will constantly stay at stage 4?
As far as we know, you have to specifically bring yourself up the stages, you don't just automatically "level" up just by passing time.

Knowing the average player that won't stop them. They'll feed with either the drinks or on people to get the most out of their vampirsim so they get all the powers.

Varana

Then that is the players' fault, not the system's. Managing your vampire stage and bringing it up and down depending on build or situation seems like an interesting concept to me. At least more interesting than just letting it run to 4 and then never bothering about it again.

ShadowHvo

Chrlynsch wrote: »

If you are a full on Monstrous Vampire, feeding on the lifeblood of mortals, moving efficiently through the shadows, evaporating into mist, going into bloodrage, siphoning life force from your enemies, it is completely understandable that you have lost some of your mortality and doing things that used to be second nature to you (Mortal Abilities s) have become harder for you to perform, because your mortality is slipping away from you.

Yeah, because stabbing people is a very humanity thing to do.

I would've agreed with you IF vampires at stage 4 couldn't use weapons, but they do, and they do so flawlessly and always have.

Vampirism is a gift and a curse, an enhancement of the individual - Undeath grants them greater bones at the cost of their humanity and mortality. I.E, ability to interact with civil society, sun-damage, fire-damage, lust for blood and more. Not your ability to stab a dude.

Hell, in my opinion Stage 4 alone should be a criminal act. But I assume that I can keep dreaming, just as I can with my desire for actual sun-damage.

Alas, reducing healing taken/received would be a far more fitting middle-ground weakness that is more thematically appropriate to the undead.