Rule of Three: 05/16/2011

[aurance]

Instead of working on werewolf, maybe they can retroactively delete the vampire class from existence.

 

[mneme]

Eerm, isn't the statement that "you could expect any humanoid to contract lycanthropy" incorrect in 4e? IE, Lycanthropes are races, and being bit by one will not ever actually turn anybody? They carry other diseases, but none of them actually turn you.

I think this is a misunderstanding of how the mechanics tie into the fiction.

PCs can't get turned by therianthropes (lycanthropes just means someone who turns into a wolf, and isn't the generic term) because the idea of applying a power template onto your PC (while remaining a PC) is antithetical to the original design -- doing so would more or less automatically make your PC more or less powerful than she should be, which was a no-no. Th compromise was diseases which mimicked therianthropy, but could get relatively quickly cured (which, to be fair, was how therianthropy usually worked in previous editions; you got therianthropy; you acted out in a fight or two, then your party cured you).

That doesn't mean that lycanthropy doesn't get transmitted or infected; in fact, the fiction of the setting still indicates that it does. It's just -PCs- who never get therianthropy (unless they get killed and not resurrected--it would be totally kosher for a GM to bring back PCs killed by therianthrope (and not resurrected) as a therianthrope themselves, probably a boss or demi-boss)), because the mechanics don't support it and the contract of play doesn't include forcibly changing someone's character. NPCs can get infected all the time, just like monsters can do plenty of things that don't suit their stat block (like Succubi mind controlling someone long-term).

Personally, I'll be a lot happier about vampires once I see their multiclass/hybrid options, I suspect, as they make a lot more sense hybridized or multiclassed with another class.

 

[Aegeri]

What saddens me is that they seem to think if they did a werewolf it had to be a straightforward optionless mimic of the vampire. I can see great room for a werewolf to be a dual role style build packing plenty of great mechanics. Of course, this now leaves what the dual role class in Heroes of the Feywild might actually be quite open (speculation was originally that it was the Werewolf).

I don't think the Vampire is entirely terrible. If it had more damage and performed as a striker it would be fine. As it is rather chronically underpowered in the damage department at paragon and beyond especially, the lack of options really come back to bite it in the ass very heavily. The vampire at least has some interest concepts and ideas from a mechanical point of view - it just fails to actually fulfill its role (much like the issue with the Seeker).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think this is a misunderstanding of how the mechanics tie into the fiction.

PCs can't get turned by therianthropes (lycanthropes just means someone who turns into a wolf, and isn't the generic term) because the idea of applying a power template onto your PC (while remaining a PC) is antithetical to the original design -- doing so would more or less automatically make your PC more or less powerful than she should be, which was a no-no. Th compromise was diseases which mimicked therianthropy, but could get relatively quickly cured (which, to be fair, was how therianthropy usually worked in previous editions; you got therianthropy; you acted out in a fight or two, then your party cured you).

That doesn't mean that lycanthropy doesn't get transmitted or infected; in fact, the fiction of the setting still indicates that it does. It's just -PCs- who never get therianthropy (unless they get killed and not resurrected--it would be totally kosher for a GM to bring back PCs killed by therianthrope (and not resurrected) as a therianthrope themselves, probably a boss or demi-boss)), because the mechanics don't support it and the contract of play doesn't include forcibly changing someone's character. NPCs can get infected all the time, just like monsters can do plenty of things that don't suit their stat block (like Succubi mind controlling someone long-term).

Personally, I'll be a lot happier about vampires once I see their multiclass/hybrid options, I suspect, as they make a lot more sense hybridized or multiclassed with another class.

Yeah, I agree. I don't think in the case of Therianthropy (actually even that implies only live bearing mammals) it was probably a good idea though. The better answer would have been to simply state that it is possible that being wounded by a therianthrope might cause the victim to acquire the curse/disease or simply not go the disease route at all (which actually is not a terribly common legend anyway, but more more of D&D trope).

As for monstrous classes... It makes sense for some things, not for others. Why should the designers be pinned down to one specific way of handling it? The more I look at the vampire the more I think it was a good idea to make it a class. It gets the idea across very effectively.

A werewolf class OTOH might not really be so appropriate. After all, werewolves only spend half their time (at most) in a monstrous form. The rest of the time they need another shtick, even if their lycanthropy DOES have some affect on the character at all times it would seem rather more odd that a werewolf never does say magic or know martial stuff than with the vampire, which is always a vampire all the time.

So it may be more a case of them having choices between a race, a class, a template, etc. to handle it with and not having made the final call on which would be included. Note that they NEVER said "we haven't had any plan of having a werewolf in HotFW". They were only talking about it as a class specifically. I know, there was all sorts of speculation based on the mention of a 'role switching class', but that could be anything.

Personally I'd think a werewolf doesn't easily suite ANY of the existing mechanics perfectly. It isn't really a race, though it could be if you assume only humans are affected with lycanthropy specifically (other races having other forms of the curse). It isn't really ideal as a class for the reasons stated above. I don't think themes, at least as they are currently implemented, quite works either. Some sort of 'overlay' similar to a theme might work, or just a theme built to different standards than the existing ones. None of these options seem exactly right though.

Honestly I'm not real sure it is a very appropriate thing for a PC anyway.

 

[Balesir]

Yeah, I agree. I don't think in the case of Therianthropy (actually even that implies only live bearing mammals) it was probably a good idea though. The better answer would have been to simply state that it is possible that being wounded by a therianthrope might cause the victim to acquire the curse/disease or simply not go the disease route at all (which actually is not a terribly common legend anyway, but more more of D&D trope).

Hmm, yeah - just make it an attack vs. Will every time you extended rest - on a Hit the DM replaces your character with a monster until it gets rendered unconscious (i.e. 0 hit points) or dead (the same with silver)

For those actually born as therianthropes I think it could work as a race, actually. Different '-anthrope' species could be handled with themes.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Eh, I don't know. What exactly would a were-race get? Races don't really have a lot of mechanics associated with them. If you're going to use a race then it isn't going to be much more 'thropic' than a shifter. Classes at least have deep mechanics. As I said before, no specific mechanic seems to me to fit really well. SURELY I cannot think of one that will be pleasing to most players.

 

[wrecan]

I agree with mneme. There's nothing inherent in 4e that prevents lycanthropy from being spread by infection.

 

[garyh]

Personally, I'll be a lot happier about vampires once I see their multiclass/hybrid options, I suspect, as they make a lot more sense hybridized or multiclassed with another class.

The answer to the question about multiclass or hybrid assassins and vampires said NOTHING about vampires. I'd take that to mean vampires will not be getting the MC/hybrid treatment.

 

[the Jester]

So apparently a working Monster Builder (by working I mean "that actually builds monsters") is a pretty damn low priority, since it will have been whacked for nearly a year by the time they get it working again.

Very disappointing.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

What saddens me is that they seem to think if they did a werewolf it had to be a straightforward optionless mimic of the vampire. I can see great room for a werewolf to be a dual role style build packing plenty of great mechanics. Of course, this now leaves what the dual role class in Heroes of the Feywild might actually be quite open (speculation was originally that it was the Werewolf).

I don't think the Vampire is entirely terrible. If it had more damage and performed as a striker it would be fine. As it is rather chronically underpowered in the damage department at paragon and beyond especially, the lack of options really come back to bite it in the ass very heavily. The vampire at least has some interest concepts and ideas from a mechanical point of view - it just fails to actually fulfill its role (much like the issue with the Seeker).

If they opened up the Werewolf to it's maximum potential then they would need to go the Pre-E route and I don't see that happening. They are going to keep it in "Essentials" style.