The Vampie Class preview

[Incenjucar]

Actually, there were rules for playing various undead in 2nd edition in some Ravenloft books. FYI.

(also it looks like avengers come from a 2e Ravenloft book. Huh.)

 

[Hellzon]

What's next? The ooze class so that player characters can be oozes?

Sorry, I just have to point out the Oozemaster prestige class from Masters of the Wild (3.0 splat), page 67. 4E is behind the curve.

 

[Walking Dad]

Almost everything was in Savage Species (3.0).

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

That book was such a broken mess... lots of cool ideas though

 

[gyor]

There was a brief thread on possable monster classes not to long ago.

 

[Kingreaper]

Not that I don't understand WotC's game design philosophy, I do. I understand it all too well. But a whole class designed to let players be vampires is yet another example of making the game less fantastic by making fantasy elements of D&D mundane.

IIRC, Old Geezer said that there was someone playing a vampire in Gygax's games before they added the cleric.

 

[Incenjucar]

IIRC, Old Geezer said that there was someone playing a vampire in Gygax's games before they added the cleric.

Okay, if this is indeed true, it is absolutely hilarious.

 

[Kingreaper]

Okay, if this is indeed true, it is absolutely hilarious.

Here's the post I was thinking of: RPGnet Forums - View Single Post - [Historical] Where did the Cleric/Mage split come from?

 

[Incenjucar]

Here's the post I was thinking of: RPGnet Forums - View Single Post - [Historical] Where did the Cleric/Mage split come from?

There are no words. <3

 

[Dausuul]

Not that I don't understand WotC's game design philosophy, I do. I understand it all too well. But a whole class designed to let players be vampires is yet another example of making the game less fantastic by making fantasy elements of D&D mundane. You can already be a dragon, a demon, an orc, a goblin, an angel, a plant, a giant, a crystal, a construct, an elemental, and the list goes on. What's next? The ooze class so that player characters can be oozes? Where do we draw the line? 4th edition, for all of its excellent mechanical features, is really taking a huge chunk of the "soul" out of the game.

But for those out there who have always wanted to play a vampire in 4e and finally have an "official" version, this is all probably meaningless rambling. I just miss the days when dragons were fantastic creatures you didn't run into every day, orcs were evil monsters you killed on sight, and becoming a vampire meant the DM would take your character away.

Pfft. 3E went much, much farther in this regard than 4E has ever tried to go. The 3E Monster Manual included the option to play almost any intelligent monster that wasn't obscenely powerful. (Granted, in most cases you would suck horribly because the level adjustment was crazy-high. But you had the option.)

And there were rules for playing dragons all the way back in 2E. Of course, 2E being what it was, they were setting-specific: You could ascend to dragonhood via the epic destiny advanced being rules in Dark Sun, or you could play one from the get-go in Council of Wyrms.

As long as you don't listen to the folks who claim you're screwing your players if you don't allow the full range of PC races and classes, it's fine. Pick the ones you want in your campaign world, ban the rest, and you're good to go.