The Vampie Class preview

How many different kinds of vampire are there already in 4E? There's the ritual, there's the Vampric Heritage feat, a class seems very uneccesary. It also seems to me as rather innappropriate. Class to me is Paladin, Wizard, Bard...even Necromancer at a pinch. Vampire as a class does not fit.

Besides, if I want to play a game like that, I'd play World of Darkness where such things are the norm. Not in my D&D. I'm thanksing my stars again that my group has avoided Essentials.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Somehow I feel the sunlight vulnerability is a bit of a cop-out, a older-E approach to class balance not appropriate to 4E. Mostly because of the "instantly destroyed" part.

Death is one of the issues not very well handled in 4E, IMHO. Although it is quite rare on the whole, it is rather devastating when it eventually occurs. It becomes a burden for players as well as the group as a whole, both in and out of the game. In game, resurrection is costly and (might be) hard to come by, and the character is penalized afterwards (for being alive). Out of game, the party becomes weaker (short and long term) and must (or might) take measures that deviate from the story or quest at hand, thus (possibly) devaluating the experience of the game session. Finally, the dead characters player is forced to idly follow the game from the sidelines unless given opportunity to play some other, generally less appealing, companion character or such. All in all, this causes more problems than it solves, mainly because there is little choice in the matter for the players in question.

Therefore I'd suggest adding in a clause derived from Terry Pratchetts approach to vampirism and sunlight in the Discworld, which seems fitting to me. I'll highlight the part in question:
Discworld vampires can survive in sunlight, provided they wear heavy clothes and broad-brimmed hats. As before, some vampires believe conditioning would reduce their vulnerability to the sun. When exposed to any strong light source (such as a camera flash) they will be immediately reduced to ashes, but require merely a drop of blood to recorporate. Many Black Ribboners carry "the kit", a dustpan, brush, small phial of animal blood and explanatory card ("Help,I have crumbled and I can't get up. Please sweep me into a heap and crush vial.I am a Black Ribboner and will not harm you") asking bystanders for assistance in reviving them; Otto Chriek carries his own self-revival kit (a extra fragile glass phial of blood that breaks upon impact) for automatic recorporation, since his salamander-powered camera flashes have a tendency to turn him to ashes.

Emphasis mine. Downplaying the comedic aspect, one could easily translate this into 4E terms:
A vampire character reduced below 1 hit points from radiant damage due to being exposed to direct sunlight is instantly turned into a pile of ash, and is effectively removed from play. An ally adjacent to the pile of ash can spend a healing surge as a standard action, where upon the vampire character returns to play with 1 hit point, lying prone where the ash once was. A vampire character returns to play on it's own after 6 hours.

Now, there are some apparently obvious issues here (ex. what if there's a strong wind?) and some room for exploitation (ex. a vampire turned to ash transported in a bag of holding past enemy lines), but I kind of like the idea of such scenarios and the dramatic opportunities they imply. What I hope this would achieve, though, is to add incentive for vampire players to risk fighting in sunlit areas and not feel gimped because of the tone and environmental aspects of the story. Hell, I'd recommend doubling the radiant damage dealt by sunlight since it'd be less of a burden and more of a gamble with my suggestion.

Thoughts on this?
 

How many different kinds of vampire are there already in 4E? There's the ritual, there's the Vampric Heritage feat, a class seems very uneccesary. It also seems to me as rather innappropriate. Class to me is Paladin, Wizard, Bard...even Necromancer at a pinch. Vampire as a class does not fit.

Besides, if I want to play a game like that, I'd play World of Darkness where such things are the norm. Not in my D&D. I'm thanksing my stars again that my group has avoided Essentials.
This isn't Essentials, this is core D&D 4e.
 

This isn't Essentials, this is core D&D 4e.

It doesn't matter how many times we say that. They're still going to rage on about how it's entirely essentials and useless to anyone not playing out of a HotF* book.

Watch. I give 'em 10 minutes... Tops.

Edit for actual contribution to the thread: That said, Klaus, I really like both this class and the races you put together. I understand they got rewritten a bit in the development phase, but it looks like WotC had a firm foundation to start with.
 

This isn't Essentials, this is core D&D 4e.
I don't want to start anything again, but in what regard differs current 4e core design (as seen in the recent race and class previews) from the essentials design?
I hope you can give a decent answer that helps me to wrap my mind around it. As you worked on it, it looks like you are a good person to ask.

Thanks!
 

I don't want to start anything again, but in what regard differs current 4e core design (as seen in the recent race and class previews) from the essentials design?
I hope you can give a decent answer that helps me to wrap my mind around it. As you worked on it, it looks like you are a good person to ask.
I'm not Klaus, but regarding the essentials / not-essentials thing, there's a semantic component* here: "Essentials" is the 10 books labeled "Essentials", anything else is not "Essentials". Subsequently, it might be better / clearer to say instead "post-essentials design" or "post-essentials products", to differentiate materials that may contain references to the "Essentials" products. (If there where any pedants on these internets then someone might suggest a better term than "post-essentials", as that suggests strictly subsequent material, and I would include "Essentials" itself in that group; sadly we all know that there are no pedants on these internets.)

Also, what exactly do you mean by "4e core design" and "essentials design"? Maybe that's a topic for another thread, but I find myself unable to articulate it very specifically, aside from going on 3 years of errata and a stated goal of not releasing new products without playtesting and/or editing them first... Is it just that they've introduced new options that are actually simpler rather than more complex than previous options? Or is it the fact that "Essentials" in particular was designed to be usable without reference to previous products? (I'm not trying to be snarky with this, I just kind of feel like I haven't been paying attention, or something, because I really didn't even realize that I didn't have a very specific idea of what the difference was.)

*as well as the material component that the DM is liable to make a complete pain to get ahold of...
 

I don't want to start anything again, but in what regard differs current 4e core design (as seen in the recent race and class previews) from the essentials design?
I hope you can give a decent answer that helps me to wrap my mind around it. As you worked on it, it looks like you are a good person to ask.

Thanks!

I'm sure Klaus will say the same when he comes back around, but essentials wasn't actually released when he worked on HoS. If I understand your question correctly, WD, he can't really answer it.

Edit: found the relevant quote.

After HoS comes out, I'll be able to say more, but for now I can say this: when I wrote my part of HoS, Essentials wasn't even out.
 
Last edited:

I don't want to start anything again, but in what regard differs current 4e core design (as seen in the recent race and class previews) from the essentials design?
I hope you can give a decent answer that helps me to wrap my mind around it. As you worked on it, it looks like you are a good person to ask.

Thanks!
When I wrote HoS, the only things that were changed because of the Essentials guidelines were:

- Feats no longer divided by tier, now grouped by theme and with flavor text. Also, broader in effect.
- Paragon Paths and powers in general now have flavor text before the stat block.
- Races now have expanded entries with more backstory, roleplaying tips, etc.

That's pretty much it. The only real difference between Essentials and core 4e is organizational.

EDIT: [MENTION=79628]twilsemail[/MENTION] is correct. I got handed a few docs with examples of the formatting to be used, that's all.
 

The significant differences in Essentials design are that for some new classes some power choices are forced and permanent, and that some of those permanent powers become repeatable powers, thus significantly limiting how often the player gets to make a choice. There are some outliers, but I expect those to remain outliers.
 

The significant differences in Essentials design are that for some new classes some power choices are forced and permanent, and that some of those permanent powers become repeatable powers, thus significantly limiting how often the player gets to make a choice. There are some outliers, but I expect those to remain outliers.
Yeah, but those are for the character classes already designed. That has no bearing when you design, say, a new PP, feat or some other element.

And those Essentials classes that had no choices in the Essentials books got some choices in Dragon (quarterstaff for knights, slayers, thieves, mages and warpriests, pyromancy for mages, mounts for cavaliers, arcane stuff for eladrin knights...).
 

Remove ads

Top