# The Vampie Class preview



## Neverfate (Mar 11, 2011)

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Shadow Classes)

It's Dexterity Primary and Charisma secondary. 

It is a fully undead class and as such, you gain alteration to your player race's origin (as you don't count as a living creature for any purposes that do).

Resist 5 Necro. Vulnerable 5 radiant. Direct sunlight deals radiant damage and stuns you.


----------



## drackcove (Mar 11, 2011)

I want to play one in my dark sun game. Maybe a tiefling vampire who wanders the dunes and despite the heat always wears heavy robes.


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 11, 2011)

That whole "wear a cloak" thing mostly makes the sunlight vulnerability into pure fluff, but that's fine. The class will have some interesting interactions with a few other classes that do interesting stuff with surges, but probably won't be broken until they get one of those epic destinies that gives you infinite uses of encounter powers.

My only issue from what I can figure out from what they have there is it suffers from a particularly strong case of the barely-any-options thing that defines Essentials-style classes. Still, looks like an enjoyable class with interesting mechanics.


----------



## ppaladin123 (Mar 11, 2011)

This was a preview of the stalker build. According to the table of contents there is also a beguiler build. I am guessing that will be a controller.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Mar 11, 2011)

A good preview. It gives a good idea of the vampire and how he/she/it will interact with the party. Basically a healing surge machine. This character will likely never run out of surges. 

Can a vampire spend their surges to heal themselves? I am not sure from the preview.

Edit: Ok, I see if they have more than their normal max after a short rest they lose them and full heal. Nice if badly wounded and they only are plus one surge. I imagine they can heal from a Healing word normally,  and will be getting occasional surges from powers (and probably spending them) on powers.

I gotta admit, that is an interesting mechanic, and fits the vampires very well.

The potential gathering of healing surges over the day could be very strong if the vampire has ways to give them away to other party members.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Mar 11, 2011)

Yes, I noted the "wear a cloak" bit. I suppose they needed to do something like this, especially considering how hard darkvision is for heroes to get. 

But still, it is a bit easy to get around.


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 11, 2011)

Honestly, with their regeneration and extra surges, they should be able to get by fine on the usual methods of healing in the game. Combine with battleminds and artificers...

And yeah, this is one of the two possible builds. It's possible that they'll be two completely separate classes sharing a mutual tiny number of level 2 utility powers for options . I wonder what their implement will be.

--

Overall I think WotC's current game plan is to release many classes with little to no support and few options, since class books sell so much better than support books. Why make a class with twenty ways to build a character when you can make ten classes with two ways to build a character each?


----------



## Dice4Hire (Mar 11, 2011)

Well, DDI could cover additional abilities, feats and powers.

I do not DDI, but it seems the Heroes books have gotten very little support for more options from DDI.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Mar 11, 2011)

I like the look of this so far. I thought I would hate it, so that's something.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Mar 11, 2011)

The vampire stuff looks interesting.

One other thing in the preview, binder's were confirmed to be a controller build for the warlock.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 11, 2011)

Dice4Hire said:


> A good preview. It gives a good idea of the vampire and how he/she/it will interact with the party. Basically a healing surge machine. This character will likely never run out of surges.
> 
> Can a vampire spend their surges to heal themselves? I am not sure from the preview.
> 
> ...



It looks like they have healing surges of their own and can spend them. But from the preview it looks like their healing surge number for a day seems to be around the order of 0+con or 1+con or even 1 (without con)

So they have a small number of emergency surges, which may represent stored blood, but their usual means of regeneration is drinking blood from someone. And if a day starts badly and there is noonce to drink from, chances are great that a vampire runs around with 0 surges and bloodied hp.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Mar 11, 2011)

I don't see anything about the number of surges. Where do you see that?


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 11, 2011)

It is just a guess... surges are mentioned in his features as if they are a very very rare thing.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Mar 11, 2011)

I think you are probably right.


----------



## nnms (Mar 11, 2011)

I'm really impressed by this.  It hits all the right notes.  I'm definitley going to play one of these Vampires at one point or another.


----------



## rjfTrebor (Mar 11, 2011)

i'll probably buy this books just for this and the new warlock options. the vampire seems solid so far and im sure everything else in the book will be good too.


----------



## Wednesday Boy (Mar 11, 2011)

WalterKovacs said:


> One other thing in the preview, binder's were confirmed to be a controller build for the warlock.




I'm very excited about the binder.  That's still my favorite class from 3.5 (even though I only got to play one in one session), so I'm hoping it will mimic the ToM version well.



Dice4Hire said:


> I don't see anything about the number of surges. Where do you see that?




It's not explicit but the article does say, "The few healing surges you have can be augmented by the life force you drain from your foes with many of your powers."  Maybe that's a hint?


----------



## Insight (Mar 11, 2011)

I'll be very interested to see how the rest of the Vampire class looks, as well as any feats they release for it.


----------



## renau1g (Mar 11, 2011)

Yeah, but I hope it's not yet another unsupported option... Seeker, Runepriest, Str.Cleric, Artificer, Changeling, etc, etc. 

Especially with the comments from the DDI side about not wanting more crunch because it's too much for people...


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 11, 2011)

multiclass feats is all the vampire class really needs. So we need DDI support for that... and with "we" i mean those poor guys only having access to essentials...

A nice article on multiclass is what is really needed... and what should also be already done, since it was one of those things that were supposed to be in the cancelled books. I hope it is revised a bit so that paragon multiclssing becomes viable!


----------



## TerraDave (Mar 11, 2011)

much better, and much edgier, then I expected. 

And it encourages necking among the party members, which is something I think the game has really needed.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Mar 11, 2011)

This blood drain mechanic also gives you a good reason to knock foes unconscious - food for later!


----------



## gyor (Mar 11, 2011)

Odds are the vampire will have an mc feat in hos. You probably won't be able to trade for encounter powers but you'll be able to trade your dailies and utility powers for another class's.


----------



## twilsemail (Mar 11, 2011)

gyor said:


> Odds are the vampire will have an mc feat in hos. You probably won't be able to trade for encounter powers but you'll be able to trade your dailies and utility powers for another class's.




I can see them writing a custom version of Novice Power that grants Blood Drain.

I like it over all. Unlike some others I really appreciate the Sunlight drawback. It's really flavorful and avoided if you spend the costly sum of 1 GP.


----------



## gyor (Mar 11, 2011)

twilsemail said:


> I can see them writing a custom version of Novice Power that grants Blood Drain.
> 
> I like it over all. Unlike some others I really appreciate the Sunlight drawback. It's really flavorful and avoided if you spend the costly sum of 1 GP.




Yeah some people are making a huge deal out of it, but come on a heavy cloak is enough to ignore it, not even a full body wrap. It got to be the easist weakness to over come. Even the radiant resistance is easily over come. Heck play a deva vampire and ask what vulnerablity?


----------



## Nichwee (Mar 11, 2011)

twilsemail said:


> Unlike some others I really appreciate the Sunlight drawback. It's really flavorful and avoided if you spend the costly sum of 1 GP.




I like that too. A way to have a Vamp in a group that isn't constantly forcing the rest of the party to only operate at night but can have issues at times. 
It allows the DM to effect the player in less vital moments such as: 
"You approach the town gates, the guards ask to see your face as they are on the lookout for some wanted bandits. You can keep your hood up and risk the guards' anger or take sunlight to the face." 
to push the RP-side without having to screw anyone over too much. 
I might also make the Vamp do a save whenever he is knocked prone in daylight to see if he exposes himself to the sun - minor action on his turn to pull his hood back up and avoid the issues.


----------



## gyor (Mar 11, 2011)

Imagine a vampire that multiclasses to get legendary sovergien ed. As long his encounter attack never misses he has endless supply of potiential surges. Now add an artificer. And say they don't support artificers

A cool race to mix with the vampire is shifters. I don't know if longtooth shifters regen stacks with vamires regen, but thematically its cool. Razorclaw is cool as well, good way to simulate vampiric superspeed. You could play Tabitha from Staked. Void city here I come. I hope the vampires powers mix with shifters pp. 

Wierdest mix would be I think Shardmind, Warforged, and Wilden. I'm going to drink your sap mawhahaha. Or a Foulborn vampire. Undead and abberant, talk about being a wanton violation of nature.


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 11, 2011)

Whoa. D&D finally has rules for playing _actual vampires_--not half-vampires, quasi-vampires, or wannabe-vampires--that don't gimp your character beyond all reason, and produce a character who really feels like a vampire. I approve.

(And I _strongly_ approve of the "burns in sunlight" effect. I was afraid they'd wuss out on that. I think it could stand to be a little nastier, in fact--dazed instead of weakened, say, so that it not only fries you but makes it harder to escape--but this will do.)

On a related topic, I really, really want to see this new warlock build.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 11, 2011)

Yes, as much as i thought vampire as a class is a bad idea when i saw a poll somewhere, maybe this class thing is the much more reasonable choice.

When I wrote about multiclass feats i did not mean a feat to become a vampire as a multiclass (a feat that is obviously also needed) but just those normal multiclass feats we already know and some more that allow multiclassing into slayer or thief.

Some things that need to be tackled are paragon multiclassing and those required feats for it, as obviously having a daily power from a class like a slayer is impossible.


----------



## gyor (Mar 11, 2011)

Mixing vampires into a slayer, what would Buffy say.


----------



## Xris Robin (Mar 11, 2011)

gyor said:


> Imagine a vampire that multiclasses to get legendary sovergien ed. As long his encounter attack never misses he has endless supply of potiential surges. Now add an artificer. And say they don't support artificers



Blood Drinker *can't* miss, you only use it when you've already hit with a melee at-will attack.

The only thing I dislike is that you don't choose any powers really.  At-wills and a single utility power... but I bet those are picked by your bloodline.


----------



## gyor (Mar 11, 2011)

Christopher Robin said:


> Blood Drinker *can't* miss, you only use it when you've already hit with a melee at-will attack.
> 
> The only thing I dislike is that you don't choose any powers really.  At-wills and a single utility power... but I bet those are picked by your bloodline.




So endless blood drinking with the LS Ed at level 30. 

I think you do get to choose your dailies as they are a daily with a level.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 11, 2011)

Oh my god, the game breaks at level 30... just a moment... didn´t they say it should break there? 

I guess there will be some choice. Maybe akin to hunter and scout... or slayer and knight... when you look at their powers they have 3 or 4 powers in common actually...


----------



## gyor (Mar 11, 2011)

You could always go human or half elf.

Oddly no bloodlines were mentioned on the vamps heroic table.Maybe thier a paragon or epic tier thing.


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 11, 2011)

Hmm. Just noticed something: Swarm of Shadows has the implement keyword. Anyone want to venture a guess on what vampire implements are? Do they get +1 fangs?


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Mar 11, 2011)

Probably something lame-sounding like Shadowshards. Maybe there will be a new implement mastery for PHB Wizards after all.


----------



## twilsemail (Mar 11, 2011)

I'd bet on Ki Foci.  You don't really see a vampire using an implement for any of his spiffy tricks in the media.  I think they'll have something they can attune and forget about.


----------



## Xris Robin (Mar 11, 2011)

Ki focus, maybe?

I'm not sure they do pick dailies.  _Swarm of Shadows_ has a level listed, but they've made mistakes like that before, and it's listed on the table.  The only things not listed is at-wills and the level 2.  I dunno what that means.  Maybe they just picked out certain powers for the preview, and then did the table weird.

It's a shame Blood is Life applies to willing allies... being able to capture enemies and drain them would be fun.  Unbalanced, I guess, though.  Then again, I guess you could keep attacking and Blood Drinking an enemy every five minutes to gain surges... it doesn't specify they lose them.  Two vampires feeding off each other, or one with a Artificer would be neat.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 11, 2011)

unconscious persons are usually willing... And conscious persons may be willing after the alternatives are shown...

(you can take the extra healing surge by force and finish your rest with extra surges)

healing "your bloodied value" and "healing to full" is almost identical for a vampire (or any character that regenerates until no longer bloodied)


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 11, 2011)

Christopher Robin said:


> It's a shame Blood is Life applies to willing allies... being able to capture enemies and drain them would be fun.  Unbalanced, I guess, though.  Then again, I guess you could keep attacking and Blood Drinking an enemy every five minutes to gain surges... it doesn't specify they lose them.




Well, remember that Blood Drinking deals damage, so you can't drain a foe indefinitely. And the cap on healing surges means there's limited value to be had from keeping defeated foes around to nosh on.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Mar 11, 2011)

Christopher Robin said:


> It's a shame Blood is Life applies to willing allies... being able to capture enemies and drain them would be fun.  Unbalanced, I guess, though



I think it would make sense if they add "helpless target" to the list of things whose blood you can drink to gain back HP. They can't resist if they're helpless.


----------



## twilsemail (Mar 11, 2011)

Dausuul said:


> Well, remember that Blood Drinking deals damage, so you can't drain a foe indefinitely. And the cap on healing surges means there's limited value to be had from keeping defeated foes around to nosh on.




You could always just knock them unconscious over and over again...  They're not dying if you do that, neh?


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 11, 2011)

twilsemail said:


> You could always just knock them unconscious over and over again...  They're not dying if you do that, neh?




Technically yes, but I think that's the point when any halfway sensible DM says, "Sorry, you sucked it dry and now it's dead." In any case, there's not a lot of point. You can't store healing surges above your maximum, so once you're full up and fully healed, further Blood Drinking serves no purpose.

Vampires look to be an interesting class... potentially immune to healing surge attrition if they play their cards right, but with access to fewer surges in any one battle.


----------



## Xris Robin (Mar 11, 2011)

Well, they can sort of store surges, since they explicitly regain full health if they have more than their maximum during a short rest.  Which why I don't think they'll have like, 3 surges or something silly.  Too easy to overcap and heal after the fight, especially since they can steal at least one surge each fight.

UngeheuerLich has a point, though.  Since they have regen when bloodied, after any fight you can almost assume they heal back to non-bloodied.  And since they heal double by eating an ally's surge, they heal to full for one surge after every fight.  Vampires really want a way to trade surges.. artficier or another vampire, what other ways are there?


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 11, 2011)

i really assume something like 1+con surges at most...

But even if they have more, they don´t want to end a fight with less than their starting number...


----------



## Xris Robin (Mar 11, 2011)

Assuming the vampire can manage to only heal once per fight, they usually won't lose any surges, since they can gain a surge so easily.  Heal once, then steal a surge on your next hit to make up for it.  And with such good regen (especially in early heroic), they might not even have to do that much.


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 11, 2011)

Christopher Robin said:


> Assuming the vampire can manage to only heal once per fight, they usually won't lose any surges, since they can gain a surge so easily.  Heal once, then steal a surge on your next hit to make up for it.  And with such good regen (especially in early heroic), they might not even have to do that much.




Yeah, with that regen and the ability to steal surges, I think the intent is for vampires to be tough to wear down. I expect them to have on the order of 2-3 healing surges as a counterbalance, so they'll be endlessly hungry for blood.

It'll also get interesting when DMs house rule (as many will, I suspect) that Blood Drinker and Blood Is Life don't work on non-living targets. Vampires fighting constructs or other undead could get real hungry... those feats that give you extra healing surges could be useful for a change.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Mar 11, 2011)

Incenjucar said:


> That whole "wear a cloak" thing mostly makes the sunlight vulnerability into pure fluff, but that's fine.






Dausuul said:


> (And I _strongly_ approve of the "burns in sunlight" effect.



I played a 2E Dark Sun campaign and one of my fellow players was unwillingly turned into a vampire. The DM ruled that he was always sick during the day if he was outside--mechanically it was something like -2 to all d20 rolls. 

Also, it was amazing how many attacks knocked off his hood.   He rigged up something to keep it on tight, but the DM ruled he had a penalty to initiative (and Search/Perception or whatever we used in 2E).

Whenever he was exposed to the sun he took increasing damage (1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, etc). I think being Stunned is much worse.

Ah, good times.


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 11, 2011)

TarionzCousin said:


> I played a 2E Dark Sun campaign and one of my fellow players was unwillingly turned into a vampire. The DM ruled that he was always sick during the day if he was outside--mechanically it was something like -2 to all d20 rolls.
> 
> Also, it was amazing how many attacks knocked off his hood.   He rigged up something to keep it on tight, but the DM ruled he had a penalty to initiative (and Search/Perception or whatever we used in 2E).
> 
> ...




It's weakened, not stunned. Stunned would be a death sentence, at least if you didn't have allies to save you--you could never get out of the sun to safety.


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 11, 2011)

twilsemail said:


> You could always just knock them unconscious over and over again...  They're not dying if you do that, neh?




You can't gain benefits from attacking targets that aren't a meaningful threat. There's a whole blurb about the "sack of rats" issue in the core books.


----------



## kaomera (Mar 12, 2011)

TarionzCousin said:


> Ah, good times.



Good times, indeed! I can't give you XP right now, but you're seriously making me want to move to Portland...

OBOT: This is yet another really cool concept that I think I would have a hard time fitting into a game as a DM (and as a player... oh, wait, I never get to play...); or, rather I think I _would have_ had a hard time fitting it in. I've recently had a thought (yes, players, DMs get them too) that I should just stop trying so hard. Of course, this would mean not incorporating the Vampire class into the campaign world such that they're wandering around all over and everyone's cool with that... But I think that if anything the Vampire's a really good choice to try that out on...


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 12, 2011)

Incenjucar said:


> You can't gain benefits from attacking targets that aren't a meaningful threat. There's a whole blurb about the "sack of rats" issue in the core books.




Although, applying "bag of rats" too stringently here creates problems of its own. I mean, if you take an enemy prisoner, you should be able to suck him dry; it's not _harder_ to drink his blood when he's tied up! If you can drain your allies, and your enemies in combat, you ought to be able to drain your enemies out of combat as well.

I would simply rule that you can't "subdue" with Blood Drinker. If you reduce an enemy to zero, that enemy dies. (I'm also inclined to reinstate the "-4 to hit with subduing attacks" rule--don't know why they ever got rid of it.)


----------



## 666Sinner666 (Mar 12, 2011)

I like the vampire concept so far. Also, if the number of surges really are that low and death in direct sunlight results in instant *poof* then it may be one of the more Gygaxian(SP?) PC's. Espcially in Dark Sun settings.

There are plenty of options though to get more suges via items and multi-classing though. I can think of two paladin feats that bump your surges on top of durable off the top of my head.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 12, 2011)

This is pretty sweet.

AND it's a great example of what I heart about Essentials. Tight focus, strong theme, mechanics that push the envelope and reinforce the archetype. Options might be a little harder for the Vamp than for other E-style classes, since it's a brand new class, but I'm never one who needed 200 powers in order to feel like I had _options_, so I'll probably be fine. 

Still not entirely sure about vampire warforged and the like, but y'know, the class is cool enough that I don't give a frig about the weird corner cases. I'd kind of like to play one, and that's the strongest praise I can give a class.


----------



## Neverfate (Mar 12, 2011)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> This is pretty sweet.
> 
> AND it's a great example of what I heart about Essentials. Tight focus, strong theme, mechanics that push the envelope and reinforce the archetype. Options might be a little harder for the Vamp than for other E-style classes, since it's a brand new class, but I'm never one who needed 200 powers in order to feel like I had _options_, so I'll probably be fine.
> 
> Still not entirely sure about vampire warforged and the like, but y'know, the class is cool enough that I don't give a frig about the weird corner cases. I'd kind of like to play one, and that's the strongest praise I can give a class.




Just think, if you made this post on the WotC forum you'd be poisoned, stabbed, shot, hung, stretched, disembowled, drawn and quartered.

And then get a textwall of why Vampire Warforged is why Essentials murdered countless children in the world...


----------



## Votan (Mar 12, 2011)

Dausuul said:


> It'll also get interesting when DMs house rule (as many will, I suspect) that Blood Drinker and Blood Is Life don't work on non-living targets. Vampires fighting constructs or other undead could get real hungry... those feats that give you extra healing surges could be useful for a change.




I dunno, isn't that against the intent of 4E?  Kind of like how Rogues can sneak attack Undead?  

But I agree that it is a very flavorful class.


----------



## Firebeetle (Mar 12, 2011)

I like that you can really play a vampire. My oldest daughter is going to love this. She's always wanted to play a vampire.

The cloak as protection is both a bit of a cop-out and very vague. The old school solution is to compromise the cloak sometimes. During combat damage could certainly expose the vampire. A gusty wind could blow it around. Rolling a 1 in combat means it slips, etc. 

I also like that painting a miniature for PCs will be easy, just make them very, very pale.


----------



## Aegeri (Mar 12, 2011)

Can I take my shirt off and sparkle in the sunlight as an epic destiny?


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 12, 2011)

Christopher Robin said:


> Assuming the vampire can manage to only heal once per fight, they usually won't lose any surges, since they can gain a surge so easily.  Heal once, then steal a surge on your next hit to make up for it.  And with such good regen (especially in early heroic), they might not even have to do that much.



They need to end the fight with MORE surges than they have begun with. So even if they use a single surge (and don´t have a second power to steal one) they are not using them efficiently...


----------



## SSquirrel (Mar 12, 2011)

Vampire implement.  Holy symbols.  C'mon, vampires walking around using crosses would be great   Since they're Dex/Cha I predict lots of Underdark games w/Drow Vampires.  Halfling Vampires would be pretty awesome too tho


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 12, 2011)

Aegeri said:


> Can I take my shirt off and sparkle in the sunlight as an epic destiny?




Of course. You'll sparkle very prettily, right before you burst into flames.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Mar 12, 2011)

If a vampire even _uses_ a power with the Radiant keyword, they should take damage equal to their vulnerability.

Sparkling counts as a power, so ongoing Vulnerability damage, every 6 seconds. Problem solved; no more sparkling emo-teen vamps.


----------



## SSquirrel (Mar 12, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> If a vampire even _uses_ a power with the Radiant keyword, they should take damage equal to their vulnerability.
> 
> Sparkling counts as a power, so ongoing Vulnerability damage, every 6 seconds. Problem solved; no more sparkling emo-teen vamps.




So multiclassing into a Divine Class and picking up some Divine Channeling abilities would be bad huh?  A Vampire multied into a Cleric using Turn Undead on a pack of Zombies just sounds great to me tho


----------



## Vael (Mar 12, 2011)

SSquirrel said:


> Halfling Vampires would be pretty awesome too tho




If I didn't want my first Vampire PC to be a Changeling, I'd so use the Halfling race, but call myself a human child vampire.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Mar 12, 2011)

The race-class combos for vampires are already getting weird.


----------



## Walking Dad (Mar 12, 2011)

Firebeetle said:


> ...
> 
> The cloak as protection is both a bit of a cop-out and very vague. The old school solution is to compromise the cloak sometimes. During combat damage could certainly expose the vampire. A gusty wind could blow it around. Rolling a 1 in combat means it slips, etc.
> 
> ...





Nemesis Destiny said:


> If a vampire even _uses_ a power with the Radiant keyword, they should take damage equal to their vulnerability.
> ...




I personally hate house-rules like these. It is like saying:
_So, an elf ignores difficult terrain while shifting? The surely thought about moving through their forest homes. I will disallow it to be used on rubble in a city!_


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 13, 2011)

Walking Dad said:


> I personally hate house-rules like these. It is like saying:
> _So, an elf ignores difficult terrain while shifting? The surely thought about moving through their forest homes. I will disallow it to be used on rubble in a city!_




Yeah, I'm really really against screwing a player over because of their build choices. It's obnoxious for everyone who doesn't play the game with spite in their hearts.


----------



## Klaus (Mar 13, 2011)

Dice4Hire said:


> The race-class combos for vampires are already getting weird.



What about a shifter vampire, for the inevitable Underworld action?


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 13, 2011)

Walking Dad said:


> I personally hate house-rules like these. It is like saying:
> _So, an elf ignores difficult terrain while shifting? The surely thought about moving through their forest homes. I will disallow it to be used on rubble in a city!_




Which is not as obviously unreasonable as you seem to think it is. I think I've seen an elf use that racial feature maybe once in all the time I've played 4E; disabling it in most situations is not exactly a gigantic nerf, and it's not like elves are an underpowered race. I personally wouldn't institute that rule, but I wouldn't complain if a DM I was playing with did (so long as it was stated when we were making characters and not in the middle of combat).

That said, I don't think the cloak thing is a fair comparison. The change you mention above is disabling a racial feature in virtually all circumstances (any time you're not in a forest). Having vampires risk their cloaks getting blown off in combat causes problems only rarely, when the vampire knowingly goes into a certain situation. An elf will often be forced to adventure outside a forest, but a smart vampire will seldom be forced to fight in direct sunlight.

I would be fine with such a house rule were I playing a vampire, and might even suggest it to the DM. It seems lame that you can _entirely_ negate that weakness with just a heavy cloak.

(The radiant damage thing just seems pointless to me. How often would it even be an issue? If you don't think vampires should be able to multiclass cleric, don't allow vampire/cleric multiclassing. I don't see any inherent reason why vampires should burn up when using radiant powers, any more than human wizards burn up when throwing fireballs.)


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 13, 2011)

Klaus said:


> What about a shifter vampire, for the inevitable Underworld action?




Speaking of which, there better be a rule that de-nerfs longtooth shifter vampires, unless you expect DMs to constantly throw clerics at them.


----------



## Walking Dad (Mar 13, 2011)

Dausuul said:


> ... An elf will often be forced to adventure outside a forest, but a smart vampire will seldom be forced to fight in direct sunlight.



That both depends on the DM, not the player. There are many published adventures for instance that are almost fully in the forest, with not much difficult terrain in the other parts.
Having to live with the DM saying:
_Oh, yeah, that fancy jump, you know what, your cloak moved away enough to let you take damage. Hah, that will keep you from taking part in the daylight part of the adventure. You should have been smart and go buy a pizza during the other players protecting the princess._


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 13, 2011)

Walking Dad said:


> That both depends on the DM, not the player. There are many published adventures for instance that are almost fully in the forest, with not much difficult terrain in the other parts.
> Having to live with the DM saying:
> _Oh, yeah, that fancy jump, you know what, your cloak moved away enough to let you take damage. Hah, that will keep you from taking part in the daylight part of the adventure. You should have been smart and go buy a pizza during the other players protecting the princess._




That's got nothing to do with house rules, that's the DM being an arbitrary dick. A house rule is a _rule_, as in, applied consistently: If you roll a 1 on an attack, your cloak blows aside and you take a round's worth of sunlight damage.


----------



## gyor (Mar 13, 2011)

J







Incenjucar said:


> Speaking of which, there better be a rule that de-nerfs longtooth shifter vampires, unless you expect DMs to constantly throw clerics at them.




What nerf? I like the idea of razor clawshifter as well, innate vampiric alaristy. Plus not many vamps can be defeated by a ball of string. 

I thinking that a vampire shardmind with telepathic substance feat would be essentially feeding his allies with blood instead of food and air. Heck give it a Dire Shark Mount with beast growth ritual cast on and the flying horse shoe item and call the character a Sharkmind.


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 13, 2011)

gyor said:


> J
> 
> What nerf? I like the idea of razor clawshifter as well, innate vampiric alaristy. Plus not many vamps can be defeated by a ball of string.




Longtooth shifter regen and vampire regen don't stack, so the only time you'd get the full benefit of longtooth shifter regen is when you get hit by radiant damage. A feat that has some neat synergy would fix that up though.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Mar 13, 2011)

gyor said:


> J
> 
> What nerf? I like the idea of razor clawshifter as well, innate vampiric alaristy. Plus not many vamps can be defeated by a ball of string.
> 
> I thinking that a vampire shardmind with telepathic substance feat would be essentially feeding his allies with blood instead of food and air. Heck give it a Dire Shark Mount with beast growth ritual cast on and the flying horse shoe item and call the character a Sharkmind.




Ok, I was wrong upthread. NOW it is getting weird.


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 13, 2011)

How about a (formerly dhampyr) revenant vampire, with the Archlich epic destiny, for which she qualifies by multiclassing into vestige pact warlock?

She's sort of dead, mostly dead, all dead, deader than dead, and she sees dead people.


----------



## gyor (Mar 13, 2011)

Dausuul said:


> How about a (formerly dhampyr) revenant vampire, with the Archlich epic destiny, for which she qualifies by multiclassing into vestige pact warlock?
> 
> She's sort of dead, mostly dead, all dead, deader than dead, and she sees dead people.




You forgot to add Vryloka and Vampire noble pp so it would be A Vryloka Dampyr Reverent Vampire Vampire Noble MC Vestige Archlich. With the summon undead servant ritual from open graves and the lich ritual from the same book.


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 13, 2011)

Dice4Hire said:


> Ok, I was wrong upthread. NOW it is getting weird.




You do know that there is a dwarf wereshark mini out there, right?

I've seen it at my FLGS.


----------



## Walking Dad (Mar 13, 2011)

Dausuul said:


> That's got nothing to do with house rules, that's the DM being an arbitrary dick. A house rule is a _rule_, as in, applied consistently: If you roll a 1 on an attack, your cloak blows aside and you take a round's worth of sunlight damage.



That is much better, but I still dislike it a bit.
I like how other system gives a character 'Action Points' or 'Hero Points' when such a complication comes up.


----------



## gyor (Mar 13, 2011)

Dice4Hire said:


> Ok, I was wrong upthread. NOW it is getting weird.




Oh I'm just getting Started, I have an idea for a Changeling Dampyr Blackguard Sharessian. Whose father is an ancient Vampiric Batrachi Lord from Nadezhda, a Doppelganger Empire I read a little bit about on Candle Keep and which is reference in the Grand History of the Realms on a map. His mother is a Shade that bedded his father in exchange for ancient Nadezhda Shadow Magic Secrets. She secretly worships Sharess but in her Darker pre time of troubles form, when Shar and her were tight. He distains Shar and Bazrim Gorag as insane and in a theological disagreement with both parents he flees to the Shadowfell. He journeys to the Shadowfells reflection of Calimshan's festhall of eternal delight which resembles the temple from before its desruction during the time of troubles. Hounded by Shadar Kai assasins and vampire spawn he acts in deperation and feeds a part of his soul to the Specetral Panthers that dwell thier in exchange for a shard of thier souls. The part of his soul he feed them was the part that was connected to his sense of satisfaction meaning he is never slated for long, but in exchange he gained a powerful connection to the Alpha Panther drive to sexual dominance. Now simple love making no longer satisfies unless thiers an element of sexual conquest or deception to it, and from this dark drive he draws his power. He still retains his fathers obsession rebuilding Nadezhda but with himself as eternal High Batrachi Lord as of course his greater belevence makes him more worthy then his bloodsucking brain eatting father. Not that he tells his father this as he wishes to learn the magical arts of the Nadezhda Chameleons.

I also have an idea for a Shade Gloom Pact Hexblade mc Warlord Shadow Captain that rides around on his Flaming Skull familiar like a floating dark burning throne carved from his own innate shadow magic. A big black skull with burning purple and green flames.

Or a Foulborn Kalastar that instead of having part of his soul being part quori is part of Caiphon or Hadar, or a fusion of the two. He'd be an invoker mc psion pp alienist that summons twisted Abberant infused angels that got trapped in the far realms. Godmind or Shadow Ed for added twists. That just a start.

Another idea I call the Jester of death A Vryloka Necromancer mc bard that uses a music implement and dresses his undead minions as actors using them as a theatre troop of horrors.

A tiefling binder prince of hell gloom pact that binds damned souls that escaped to the Shadowfell from Hell and the Towers of night in the hopes protecting them from thier dark masters.

A deva vampire that fears the night instead of the day for that is when her hunger grows strongest and she hears the calls of the Rakashas when she feeds on blood.

A Shade Elan Infernal Hexblade that seeks to become the perfection of Shadow in the hopes that her soul can escape Belial's clutches.

an am I desturbed or what?


----------



## Kingreaper (Mar 13, 2011)

Dausuul said:


> That's got nothing to do with house rules, that's the DM being an arbitrary dick. A house rule is a _rule_, as in, applied consistently: If you roll a 1 on an attack, your cloak blows aside and you take a round's worth of sunlight damage.




The problem with that is the "weakened (save ends)"

If you were weakened only while in sunlight, it wouldn't be too bad. But for a striker, getting "weakened (save ends)" based on your cloak blowing aside is going to really, really, hurt. The 10 damage is unimportant in comparison.


Hopefully there'll be a feat that removes the radiant/sunlight vulnerability, so when playing with GMs who want the cloak to be an unreliable technique, you can just grab that. (Call it Daywalker or something)


----------



## Hellzon (Mar 13, 2011)

Aegeri said:


> Can I take my shirt off and sparkle in the sunlight as an epic destiny?




A 10:th level Deva Vampire has resist 10 radiant, taking no damage from sunlight (still weakened and loses regeneration, though). Sparkle all you want.


----------



## Almacov (Mar 13, 2011)

Hellzon said:


> A 10:th level Deva Vampire has resist 10 radiant, taking no damage from sunlight (still weakened and loses regeneration, though)




And now I really want to play a Pacifist Cleric/Vampire.
Hm... what else provides resist radiant?..


----------



## Walking Dad (Mar 13, 2011)

Various armors

PH1
Sunleaf armor 7

AV
Armor of Night 14
Armor of Starlight 13
Pelaurum 4 (only as heavy armor)
Spiritlink 15 (only chain)
Whiteflame 3 (only as heavy armor)

for example. If not noted otherwise they are available as cloth armor, too.


For neck I found only a warforged only item:
Disk of  Energy Resistance

Arms
AV2
Bracelets of the Radiant Storm (Part of an item set. Having all gives another nice bonus: saving throws to negate all radiant damage) 

Ring
AV
Ring of Spectral Hand 19


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 13, 2011)

> The race-class combos for vampires are already getting weird.




Actually, I think all this talk about builds and race combos and Radiant resistance is evidence that the class is really well-designed. It's inspiring people to go out and use the rule, which is evidence that the rule is useful. Which is what I think we want from ANY additional rule. 

I'm pumped! There's a lot of interesting Vampire ideas out there.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Mar 13, 2011)

This is the first preview in a long while that didn't degenerate into a chorus of "this SUCKS!!!" or "it's BROKEN! 4e is ruined! OMG!!!"

So that's a good sign!


----------



## airwalkrr (Mar 13, 2011)

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.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 13, 2011)

You speak the truth...

you should however not look at the rpg.net thread...

i like the deva daywalker vampire^^ and actually, this combination seems like the right start to create something like that.


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 13, 2011)

airwalkrr said:


> *I just miss the days*




To be frank, a large portion of today's fantasy audience has moved on from "fantasy as the other" and has instead embraced it as an expression of the self. There are probably people who are still upset that you can play dwarves and elves and gnomes and halflings, but as a whole I feel that fantasy is best served by options instead of limitations. Limitations can still be placed by the DM or by the constraints of campaign settings, as with Dark Sun.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 13, 2011)

airwalkrr said:


> 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.



The possibility to play a vampire was already there in 3.5. 3.5 really started to allow every player to play any monster...

But level adjustment, caster level and the way hp were generated made vampires more or less unplayable. If you, as a DM, decide to allow vampires, you should have some good rules to back this decision up.

Vampire as a class seems like a good choice for that, as you circumvent most unexpected synergy. Most races have special synergies with most classes (like dwarf wardens or halfling artful dodgers)


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 13, 2011)

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 (Mar 13, 2011)

airwalkrr said:


> 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 (Mar 13, 2011)

Almost everything was in Savage Species (3.0).


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Mar 13, 2011)

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


----------



## gyor (Mar 13, 2011)

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


----------



## Kingreaper (Mar 13, 2011)

airwalkrr said:


> 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 (Mar 13, 2011)

Kingreaper said:


> 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 (Mar 13, 2011)

Incenjucar said:


> 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 (Mar 13, 2011)

Kingreaper said:


> 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 (Mar 14, 2011)

airwalkrr said:


> 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.


----------



## Walking Dad (Mar 14, 2011)

Dusuul's examples are still beaten by the vampire in the chainmail game. They were there before clerics!

And in the old rules you decided between playing a dwarf or a fighter, so any race/class distinction isn't from the 'original' either.

(Man, I miss Old Geezer's posts. He was the one coming up with the gelatinous cube, BTW.)


----------



## CelticMutt (Mar 14, 2011)

gyor said:


> Imagine a vampire that multiclasses to get legendary sovergien ed. As long his encounter attack never misses he has endless supply of potiential surges. Now add an artificer. And say they don't support artificers



Unless the ED's been errata'ed and I missed it, the level 30 power only applies to attacks with the weapon keyword.  Blood Drinker itself does not possess the weapon keyword.



Neverfate said:


> Just think, if you made this post on the WotC  forum you'd be poisoned, stabbed, shot, hung, stretched, disembowled,  drawn and quartered.
> 
> And then get a textwall of why Vampire Warforged is why Essentials murdered countless children in the world...



Actually, while a lot of anti-Essentials people are whining about the class on the WotC boards, the idea of the Warforged Vampire has been fairly well received as nightmare fuel.



Kingreaper said:


> Hopefully there'll be a feat that removes the  radiant/sunlight vulnerability, so when playing with GMs who want the  cloak to be an unreliable technique, you can just grab that. (Call it  Daywalker or something)



I'm expecting a later class feature, or more likely a feature of the Vampire Noble PP, will weaken or negate the sunlight weakness.  Failing that, yeah a feat for it is inevitable.


----------



## Klaus (Mar 14, 2011)

Walking Dad said:


> Almost everything was in Savage Species (3.0).



And the Complete Book of Humanoids in 2e.


----------



## Walking Dad (Mar 14, 2011)

Klaus said:


> And the Complete Book of Humanoids in 2e.



Actually, that one lacked aberrations, undead, constructs, outsiders and oozes.
And the playable dragons were in the Council of Wyrm setting.

I still like the book. My favorite 2e Complete book alongside the one for priests.


----------



## Insight (Mar 14, 2011)

I would avoid any pie that could drain your blood.


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 15, 2011)

Walking Dad said:


> Actually, that one lacked aberrations, undead, constructs, outsiders and oozes.
> And the playable dragons were in the Council of Wyrm setting.
> 
> I still like the book. My favorite 2e Complete book alongside the one for priests.




If you include the barely-statted monsters in the CB, 4E currently only really lacks Aberrants, Fish, Fungi, Primal things, and Oozes.

Amphibian – Bullywug 
	Angel – Deva
	Beast – Minotaur, Gnoll, 
	Bird - Kenku
	Bug – Thri-Kreen
	Dragon – Dragonborn
	Elemental - Genasi
Fey – Elf, Gnome, Eladrin, Drow, Half-Elf
	Fiend – Tiefling, Duergar
	Giant – Goliath
	Construct – Warforged,  Shardmind
	Plant – Wilden
Mutant – Bladeling, Githyanki, Githzerai
Reptile – Dragonborn, Kobold
	Savage Humanoid – Half-Orc, Bugbear, Goblin, Hobgoblin, Orc
	Shadow – Shadar-Kai, Shade
	Shape Shifter – Changeling, Shifter
	Short – Halfling, Gnome, Goblin, Kobold
Spirit – Kalashtar
	Stocky – Dwarf, Duerger, Mul
	Undead	 – Revenant, Vryloka


----------



## CelticMutt (Mar 15, 2011)

You can turn a normal PC race Aberrant with a feat from the Psionic Power book though.


----------



## Katana_Geldar (Mar 15, 2011)

No, just no. This is bad, and I'll never allow it in my games. EVER.


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 15, 2011)

CelticMutt said:


> You can turn a normal PC race Aberrant with a feat from the Psionic Power book though.




Yeah, but that's not really the same as a race. An aberrant race would probably be some sort of generic foulspawn with like a gibbering cackle or something.

An ooze race would probably either be a keeper (they turn into tar to escape) or something between a changeling and a water genasi, or maybe that one planar ooze race from Planescape. Fish race would be either kuo-toa or sahuagin (they even have race-like common abilities). Fungi would of course be myconids with some kind of roots of the colony ability and/or spores. Primal... who knows. There's barely any primal monsters in the game, so they'd probably have to make something from scratch or grab some random monster from past editions and call it primal.

Now I don't know that they will bother doing ANY of those, or whether anyone really cares, but those are the current racial design holes.


----------



## Walking Dad (Mar 15, 2011)

Katana_Geldar said:


> No, just no. This is bad, and I'll never allow it in my games. EVER.



What do you exactly mean?


----------



## Katana_Geldar (Mar 15, 2011)

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.


----------



## ravenheart (Mar 15, 2011)

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?


----------



## Klaus (Mar 15, 2011)

Katana_Geldar said:


> 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.


----------



## twilsemail (Mar 15, 2011)

Klaus said:


> 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.


----------



## Walking Dad (Mar 15, 2011)

Klaus said:


> 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!


----------



## kaomera (Mar 15, 2011)

Walking Dad said:


> 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...


----------



## twilsemail (Mar 15, 2011)

Walking Dad said:


> 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.



Klaus said:


> 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.


----------



## Klaus (Mar 15, 2011)

Walking Dad said:


> 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.


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 15, 2011)

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.


----------



## Klaus (Mar 15, 2011)

Incenjucar said:


> 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...).


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 15, 2011)

Vampires are brand new, and seem to have even fewer options than hexblades, at least at heroic, so I do believe that my statement continues to be valid. Also keep in mind that having new options for level one do not compare to having new options every other level or so. Essentials-style classes simply have auto-upgrades to the powers you were forced to take to match your build.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Mar 15, 2011)

Katana_Geldar said:


> 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.



Actually, I think it's perfectly appropriate to make Vampire a class. Anyone who can be a fighter can be a vampire, and they get powers that are useful in adventures. Depending on the vampire story, they don't all get the same powers, so it makes sense to handle power selection via player choice. Also, vampires are mythological monster that really do seem to go up in level as they get older and more experienced. Frankly, they seem taylor made to be a class. 



> Besides, if I want to play a game like that, I'd play World of Darkness where such things are the norm.



IME, D&D has always been filled with people who want to play exotic races and classes. It's often one of the draws of the game.


----------



## Walking Dad (Mar 15, 2011)

Klaus said:


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







Klaus said:


> 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.




I think people calling HoS 'Essentials' don't mean 'in a limited series in softcover and box format', but just the changes in the new core books because of the Essentials Guidelines.

I personally like the changes / new presentation (also the changes that martial powers are based on base attacks), but I think it is also legitimate to dislike them and call them 'Essentials', as the changes are based on these Essentials guidelines.

That doesn't mean they should show up in all threads for new products to post: 'I dislike.'

But it would have been easier if WotC more openly announced the use of new guidlines based on essentials. So they wouldn't look at each product in hope not to see material based on them.


----------



## gyor (Mar 15, 2011)

Incenjucar said:


> Yeah, but that's not really the same as a race. An aberrant race would probably be some sort of generic foulspawn with like a gibbering cackle or something.
> 
> An ooze race would probably either be a keeper (they turn into tar to escape) or something between a changeling and a water genasi, or maybe that one planar ooze race from Planescape. Fish race would be either kuo-toa or sahuagin (they even have race-like common abilities). Fungi would of course be myconids with some kind of roots of the colony ability and/or spores. Primal... who knows. There's barely any primal monsters in the game, so they'd probably have to make something from scratch or grab some random monster from past editions and call it primal.
> 
> Now I don't know that they will bother doing ANY of those, or whether anyone really cares, but those are the current racial design holes.





I won't mind Synads thier background of being from another world but driven away by mind bending horrors makes more sense if thier world of origin was sucked into the far realms, turning them into abberants with a triple mind.


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 16, 2011)

gyor said:


> I won't mind Synads thier background of being from another world but driven away by mind bending horrors makes more sense if thier world of origin was sucked into the far realms, turning them into abberants with a triple mind.




I've never really cared much about the whole Far Realm thing, so I can't say that I know what people would get the most out of. I'm just looking at things from the same perspective that caused the five hundred different part-dragon races to become dragonborn.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Mar 16, 2011)

Walking Dad said:


> But it would have been easier if WotC more openly announced the use of new guidlines based on essentials. So they wouldn't look at each product in hope not to see material based on them.




Ever since they started to have races with two options for one of their stats, it became the new norm. I don't recall an announcement about that new guideline (and it was introduced only halfway at first, with Changelings and technically Shifters in the same book as the warforged and kalashtar, having a 50/50 mix of old and new race design).

They introduced racial paragon paths in PHB2, and it became the new standard.

After PHB1, they phased out the "choice of two attack stats" for classes. That is the new standard for all future classes.

In general, every new book has introduced new design concepts, and outside of some [i.e. psionic design is limited to psionics, certain classes have their own special things that other classes don't, like monks with their full disciplines, or the runepriests modal powers, etc]. Essentials is following the same kind of concept. The _players_ have treated it as a bigger shift, but from the designers perspective, I don't see how they would see a need to annouce a shift in design philosophy. No one expected PHBIII to ignore most of what was "learned" in PHBII, and be more like PHBI. Every release has built off what had come before ... if the books ignored the Essential stuff, THAT would be unexpected, and would probably warrant some kind of mention.


----------



## Walking Dad (Mar 16, 2011)

WalterKovacs said:


> ... if the books ignored the Essential stuff, THAT would be unexpected, and would probably warrant some kind of mention.




It would be if it weren't strongly advised as a separate and limited line of products.
Every time someone pops up, saying 'Hos, I never liked essentials', there is a post soon 'this is a 4e core book'. This answer means Essentials wasn't core / is something separate from core. So why should one expect it to bring changes to the core line.

Again, I like the changes, but criticizes the marketing a bit.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 16, 2011)

You just get it wrong:

What is essentials? A limited line that everyone is expected to have.

Why? because newer products references to them. It is going back from the everything is core thingy.
So now you are not redirected to PHB 1, MM1 and DMG 1, but to essentials books, when new stuff appears.
But: PHB 1, 2 and 3 has stuff that is not found in the essentials line:

class/race specific feats, multiclass and rituals. But the vampire class was something that should make use of multiclass feats. So there is some supplement missing to go ADVANCED. Which the heros of the heroic tier seems to have been. Maybe DDI articles or even free articles will cover that hole for a while, until a new book comes out that covers the issues in a fashion that will allow WOTC to make some profit (which equals to: desirable by owners of PHB1, 2 and 3)


----------



## Walking Dad (Mar 16, 2011)

I will try it again:

"HoS is too Essentials for my taste." is for most people only another way to say:
"I dislike the direction 4e took after releasing the Essentials line."


----------



## twilsemail (Mar 16, 2011)

Then why do they bother looking at the new books?  WotC isn't going to stop advancing the game at any point.  They aren't going to backtrack 8 months and start again (I think they missed a save point).

Jumping into every thread and saying "Oh look another essentials book.  Pass." Isn't adding to anything other than their trolling count.

WD, I know you're not doing this.  I've seen Deimos in action and know that you don't have a hate on for the Essentials line or its legacy.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 16, 2011)

As the game changed with essentials, it already was with ... power books. Some classes went from unplayable to totally great.

One of the direction i like in essentials: classes seem to be playable without any supplement. Every PHB had a class, that was useless to some people´s believes. And sometimes this critique was actually justified...


----------



## webrunner (Mar 16, 2011)

me and my fiancee were talking about the Vampire class, and I had a funny idea:

Warforged Vampire.  Nails or needles instead of fangs.  Employed by a healer as a bloodletting/taking instrument.


----------



## Klaus (Mar 16, 2011)

webrunner said:


> me and my fiancee were talking about the Vampire class, and I had a funny idea:
> 
> Warforged Vampire.  Nails or needles instead of fangs.  Employed by a healer as a bloodletting/taking instrument.



you mean like a sentient Iron Maiden (the torture instrument, not the band)?

Of course, including the band is a bonus!


----------



## webrunner (Mar 16, 2011)

Klaus said:


> you mean like a sentient Iron Maiden (the torture instrument, not the band)?
> 
> Of course, including the band is a bonus!




I meant nails sticking out of their faces, but that works too

Actually it'd be funny

One warforged vampire "iron maiden" as a nail-covered hug machine
one warforged paladin "iron maiden" that identifies female (and is an actual iron maiden)
one warforged bard that just plays iron maiden songs


----------



## Aegeri (Mar 16, 2011)

Walking Dad said:


> I will try it again:
> 
> "HoS is too Essentials for my taste." is for most people only another way to say:
> "I dislike the direction 4e took after releasing the Essentials line."




There are numerous things I already intensely dislike about Heroes of Shadow thus far, but even I am still happy the book includes copious support for things that were published pre-essentials. I mean if you want everything to never have anything for essentials classes published in future, I think you're being really very silly.


----------



## kaomera (Mar 17, 2011)

Walking Dad said:


> It would be if it weren't strongly advised as a separate and limited line of products.



I never saw anything that suggested to me that the essentials products where a separate line of products. The intent was to allow new players to use them as a gateway; if the fact that you could play a (limited) game of 4e D&D with just the essentials products means that they are "separate", then doesn't that also apply to the PHB1, DMG1, & MM1?


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 17, 2011)

Aegeri said:


> There are numerous things I already intensely dislike about Heroes of Shadow thus far, but even I am still happy the book includes copious support for things that were published pre-essentials. I mean if you want everything to never have anything for essentials classes published in future, I think you're being really very silly.




Agreed. As much as dislike the limited options of the E-Classes, some of the classes are ultimately well-designed and, especially once they get some real support, perfectly valid despite my personal disinterest, and they can be a rich source of ideas for homebrewers who are intimidated by the notion of building a full-sized pre-E class.

I would prefer for the future to contain as much pre-E support as possible, but there's no reason to begrudge the Essentials stuff so long as it's not displacing more complex design entirely. None of us ever use everything in any of these books.


----------



## Aegeri (Mar 17, 2011)

Spam reported.

Not only was it spam, it was also incredibly horrifying to the eyes.


----------



## Walking Dad (Mar 17, 2011)

UngeheuerLich said:


> ...
> What is essentials? A limited line that everyone is expected to have.
> ...






Aegeri said:


> ... I mean if you want everything to never have anything for essentials classes published in future, I think you're being really very silly.




Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Commencing Countdown!)



> If you’re already playing a *Dungeons & Dragons* game, there’s one very important thing to remember—the Essentials products matter only as much as you want them to.



I think they just want them to matter less and not becoming the new standard.

As I said, the problem was the representation of Essentials as a separate line you can 'safely ignore'.

Kaomera, the article also lists the complete Essentials line.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 17, 2011)

I stand corrected... 

... but IF heroes of shadow allows hexblade and so been able to build without reference to hotfk you will not need the essentials products to use this book.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Mar 17, 2011)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I stand corrected...
> 
> ... but IF heroes of shadow allows hexblade and so been able to build without reference to hotfk you will not need the essentials products to use this book.




Technically speaking:

The "new" stuff in the book (races, paragon paths, feats, and the new classes, such as binder, assassin, blcckguard and vampire) does not require Essentials.

The new options require the older books. The new hexblade build will likely require the hexblade book, just as the the new schools would require the mage book ... in the same way that the wizard powers require a wizard from earlier books. 

The "you can decide how much or little it impacts your game" is exactly the same as any previous book. Some DMs may not have allowed some stuff from martial power (for example, they may have banned the battlerager before it's errata). While the design philosophy of the book may continue on, there are still stuff that is usable for old characters.

True, there is no new implement mastery stuff in Heroes of Shadow, but would there have been? Without essentials, what element of implement mastery would have really lent itself to shadow magic? MAYBE some sort of superior implement (bone wand, skull orb) or magic implement (necronomicon type of tome), and they could tie into the summoning tome stuff, but there really isn't something like the magical schools that ties neatly into a shadow theme. Similarly, the reintroduced domains for warpriests is a thematic element that lends itself to shadow powers more so than the pretty much no build option (other than Strength or Wisdom, and a couple this or that class features) cleric's had.

The warlock is the only one that could have had a pre-Essential expansion, giving the old school warlock a gloom pact in addition to he binder and hexblade versions of that pact [although, the original warlock still leads on number of pacts with 5 vs. the 4 for the hexblade and 2 for the binder, not to mention having many more options and much more feat support].


----------



## Walking Dad (Mar 17, 2011)

WalterKovacs said:


> ...
> The "you can decide how much or little it impacts your game" is exactly the same as any previous book. Some DMs may not have allowed some stuff from martial power (for example, they may have banned the battlerager before it's errata). ...



You are quoting it wrong. It is now how it impacted on individual games, but it's impact to the guidelines in the design of later books.
Even after the options in the 'X Power' books, the next book still used the same guidelines as the previous books.



> While the design philosophy of the book may continue on, there are still stuff that is usable for old characters.
> ...



Never doubted that. But more material is useful with Essentials than without. And some people feel like they were 'cheated' by that.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Mar 17, 2011)

We have evidence that the Binder _isn't_ a new build of Warlock?  Pity.

And there are new options for wizards and clerics; the mage and warpriest powers can be taken by them (and I never found the implements particularly defining unlike the mage schools; the only reason I don't call the mage simply a better designed version of the wizard is the lack of Ritual Casting, and I hope someone publishes a Diviner that gives Ritual Casting as its first benefit).  Also Warpriests are really helping wisdom clerics - wis clerics can now mix it up in melee.


----------



## twilsemail (Mar 17, 2011)

Walking Dad said:


> Never doubted that. But more material is useful with Essentials than without. And some people feel like they were 'cheated' by that.



 
But that's true with all of the supplements.  MP2 is more useful if you have MP1.  Arcane power is more useful if you have the FRPG.  These books added to the system.  Just like every single other player supplement added to the system.


----------



## Walking Dad (Mar 17, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> We have evidence that the Binder _isn't_ a new build of Warlock?  Pity.
> 
> And there are new options for wizards and clerics; the mage and  warpriest powers can be taken by them (and I never found the implements  particularly defining unlike the mage schools; the only reason I don't  call the mage simply a better designed version of the wizard is the lack  of Ritual Casting, and I hope someone publishes a Diviner that gives  Ritual Casting as its first benefit).  Also Warpriests are really  helping wisdom clerics - wis clerics can now mix it up in melee.



Binder is a warlock build. Blackguard is a paladin build. Executioner is an assassin build.
Vampire is new.

The other things were already discussed and I don't want to start new arguments.
But one thing: I think the Warpriest was the deathstrike for further Str cleric support.



twilsemail said:


> But that's true with all of the supplements.  MP2 is more useful if you have MP1.  Arcane power is more useful if you have the FRPG.  These books added to the system.  Just like every single other player supplement added to the system.



I know this and you know it 

Some Essential-dislikes just hoped essentials were more 'apart' from the rules.


----------



## MrMyth (Mar 17, 2011)

Walking Dad said:


> Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Commencing Countdown!)
> 
> I think they just want them to matter less and not becoming the new standard.
> 
> ...




For new players, Essentials was a new entry point into the game. 
For stores, it was an easy summary of what 'core' material would be best for them to keep in stock. 
For existing players, some books were useless, and others provided either new content (Heroes of the etc, Monster Vault) or could be useful for enhancing the game (Rules Compendium, new tile sets, etc) _just like most supplementary material previously released_. 

Honestly, WotC could have done a better job making that delineation clearer. On the other hand, you quoted the article where they did just that while _simultaneously_ misreading what they were saying, so clearly they couldn't present it in a way that _someone _wouldn't misunderstand. 

Yes, they said you could 'safely ignore it' if you already played the game. But the same is true of every book beyond the PHB - at the same time, though, if you ignore a book that introduces a new class, that doesn't mean you are cheated when they provide support for that class in other future material.

That's why I find it silly to claim being 'cheated' because they are supporting new _and _old material. Arcane Power supported the Wizard, the Warlock, the Sorcerer, the Bard, and the Swordmage. Does that mean you were 'cheated' because you only bought the PHB, and not the FR book or the PHB2?

You can't have it both ways. They are supporting the game in the _same exact fashion _they've done from the start. Either you hated it then and still hate it now, or it is an acceptable way for them to release material.


----------



## Vael (Mar 17, 2011)

If you think about it, from the point of view of a player without any books, who wants to pick up Heroes of Shadow, the book is far more useful than an X Power book.

If you don't own any books, you've got the following classes: Blackguard, Executioner, Vampire, Binder
*+ PHB:* new Cleric, Warlock and Wizard powers. STR Paladins can probably grab some Blackguard powers.
*+ Heroes of the Fallen Lands:* New options for Warpriest and Mage
*+ Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms:* New options for the Hexblade. And your Cavalier might be able to grab some of the Blackguard's powers.


----------



## Walking Dad (Mar 17, 2011)

Who is 'you' in your different paragraphs?

In the second, you clearly refer to me, but I think the others are impersonal, right?



> Honestly, WotC could have done a better job making that delineation clearer.



QFT

And yes, every RPG book only matters for me as I want. It isn't even required to play any RPG or using any book.

But I stand to my words that the Essentials line had a greater impact on the 4e game line than many people thought or wished after reading and hearing the announcements.

'Essentials' is nothing separate, but the 'new' direction of D&D, just as the selectable ability mods in PH3 were a new direction in class design.


----------



## kaomera (Mar 17, 2011)

Walking Dad said:


> Kaomera, the article also lists the complete Essentials line.



Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but you seem to be looking at this as essentials existing outside of core D&D? What I was trying to point out is that I never got that impression. The article you linked over and over again refers to the essentials products as "Dungeons and Dragons", and from my experience so far I've found that all 4e is core 4e, with a few minor gray areas in some of the setting-specific material (spellscars, dragonmarks, wild talents, and even those are widely argued for as core). And anything that's core is liable to get support in upcoming products. 

I think at least part of what you're saying is that there's specific stuff you'd like to see supported, that doesn't seem like it's going to get that support. That's a bummer, for sure, and I don't really know what to say to that. On the one hand I'd hope that improved quality control would mean that when that support arrives it's more likely to be useful, but it also looks like WotC is in the same cash-flow bind as everyone else and is scaling back production. But it looks like (to me, at least) there's going to be a bunch of different stuff in Hos. Maybe none of it (or not enough to make it worth your while) will appeal to you, but hopefully there will be some kind of goodies in there for you...


----------



## Walking Dad (Mar 17, 2011)

kaomera said:


> Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but you seem to be looking at this as essentials existing outside of core D&D? What I was trying to point out is that I never got that impression. ...



Not me, but I think this article and others like it cause the misinformation.
I really like Essentials and the new direction, but understand people who don't.
Also HoS was announced as a softcover before and I'm not truly certain WotC had planned to use the Essential guidelines as direction for the whole 4e line before Essentials' success. But this is just a speculation.

Please see my quote blow for my take on Essentials.


Walking Dad said:


> ...
> 
> But I stand to my words that the Essentials line had a greater impact on  the 4e game line than many people thought or wished after reading and  hearing the announcements.
> 
> 'Essentials' is [now]nothing separate, but the 'new' direction of D&D,  just as the selectable ability mods in PH3 were a new direction in class  design.



[] = edited in.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Mar 18, 2011)

Walking Dad said:


> Also HoS was announced as a softcover before and I'm not truly certain WotC had planned to use the Essential guidelines as direction for the whole 4e line before Essentials' success. But this is just a speculation.




It's sort of a chicken and egg thing.

Ultimately, Essentials was two things ... a continuation and a jumping on point. Much like when a comic book has a new number 1, or a special 'zero issue', or some other gimmick where they either retell the origin, wipe the slate clean or something like that.

They make that issue easily accessible. If people need to know about stff that happened before, they'll spell it out for them, otherwise they will just leave it out and bring it up when necessary. It doesn't contradict what came before, but it doesn't expect new players to know about it unless they go out of their way to tell them. It's meant to both be a way to avoid scaring off new readers but also start a new direction. Going forward from that point, they will probably expect readers 5 to 10 issues down to the line to have at least picked up from the newest jump on point, and not need to have each issue be self contained. Similarly, over time, they can bring in older elements, giving enough info for a newish reader to get by, but older readers would get more out of it, like recognizing the recurring villain, etc.

So, Essentials was just like every other book in that it was pushing the game forward, but it was also meant to be a newer introductory book. PHB1 was the intro book, but with new rules added in PHB2 and 3, stuff errata'd from most of the copies of PHB1, etc ... The beginner's package was beginning to get a bit more complicated, not to mention that while elements of those books combine to make what a beginner needs, there is also advanced stuff in all those books as well. So instead of needing 3 books as a core which any new stuff is built on (and even those core books, some element of which aren't "as" core), they made a new core with the up to date "simple" rules all in one place (and done twice, so you have it regardless of race/class preference).

The main argument I have against those that seem to have expected some other direction was ... why? Why would WOTC create an entry way to D&D, and not support it. It would be like giving them a Rogue out of the Red Box at level 1, and when they bring it to encounters being told that real Rogues (or Theives) are completely different [teehee, bad example]. If anything, the expectation would be for tons of support for Essentials, (both as the newest and thus having the least support, in the same way seekers and runepriests have the least support; and because as the new entry point, there is an expectation of at least a portion of the playerbase playing Essential characters). 

Ultimately, Heroes of Shadows is doing two things:

Supporting existing characters. The powers and feats (and paragon paths/epic destinies), in the book are such that existing characters should be able to take them. Any wizard, warlock, paladin, assassin, cleric can take the utilities (and in some cases encounter and daily powers). The paragon paths seem to be open enough that most characters on their way to paragon tier would be able to take at least one with maybe a feat or retraining of a skill to be able to get it. Also, the feats are likely similar, as the Essential "style" for feats makes them generally accessible by everyone.

The second is to create new characters. That is where the new classes, and new subclasses come into play. You'd basically need to be a whole new character to become a vampire, or to be a necromancer wizard, [or if they gave a new implement mastery or old school warlock pact for that matter]. So, while these elements all seem essential minded (the races are in a post PHB3 mold, and the classes are either builds for Essential stuff, or are in an essential mold themselves), they are options picked at character creation, not something that can be introduced to a character as it levels. Which means, the character someone started playing day 1, say an eladrin wand wizard that is approaching epic tier, is in the same position as someone who just started playing an elven pyromancer. If either one wanted to be a shade necromancer, they'd each have to reroll a new character anyway. So, in the case of these kinds of elements, that they don't follow old design philosophy doesn't create that much of a problem, outside of those that just don't like Essential style of classes. But it's not being done at the expense of older players. A new warlock pact, or a new build for the runepriest or seeker, etc ... would still have been something for new characters only (although, admitedly, a new runepriest build would have meant new runepriest powers, which is ultimately what the class needs).

So, when someone complains that there is no support for say, the implement mastery (which was brought up in this thread), that seems like something that would be unlikely. A new implement mastery would have meant a class feature equivalent to the necromancer as something not usable by existing characters, mage or otherwise. As for powers with the "if you are using this class feature" conditional bonuses, those powers would likely only be really playable by people on that build, thus making any attached to a new build less useful to existing characters, or if they are attached to old builds, still pigeonholed to few existing characters.

On the other hand, the Essential path has a few ways of dealing with build options. On the one hand is the warpriest path. These get fixed encounter powers (that original, wisdom based, cleric's can pick and choose from), and fixed bonuses in general. The powers aren't made usable as a result of a rider that only matters in the case it sinks up with the build.  In the case of wizards, their powers aren't chosen for them, but their school benefits point them towards certain types of powers (just as the orb of imposition pointed to save effects, the summoning tome pointed to summons and conjurations, the orb of deception pointed to illusions), but the powers themselves work the same for all wizards. Sure, a pyromancer gets passed fire resistance, but other wizards will still happily pick up a fire power, just not ONLY fire powers. Finally, there is the slayer approach. Like the original fighter, their weapon choice modifies their powers. However, instead of having many powers, some weapon neutral, and then different powers tied to various weapon groups, there is one power being modified in different ways by weapon selection. This cuts down on unneccesary bloat. "Here are 12 powers, 8 of which your character probably won't take because they are subpar unless you have the right weapon." Instead of creating a bunch of powers, which only a few being useful for any particular person, they can just introduce new weapon builds for knights and slayers that modify their power strike (like the staff fighter article).


----------



## Walking Dad (Mar 18, 2011)

WalterKovacs said:


> ...
> 
> The main argument I have against those that seem to have expected some other direction was ... why? Why would WOTC create an entry way to D&D, and not support it. It would be like giving them a Rogue out of the Red Box at level 1, and when they bring it to encounters being told that real Rogues (or Theives) are completely different [teehee, bad example]. ...



That one made me love 
The Red Box has the only transmutation powers to date and the only MM write up where the spell hits two targets.

And some other power names got changed.

---

And now let's stop the discussion about 'core' and 'essentials' and just speak about what we got. Nothing we say here will change anything anyway


----------



## MrMyth (Mar 18, 2011)

Walking Dad said:


> Who is 'you' in your different paragraphs?
> 
> In the second, you clearly refer to me, but I think the others are impersonal, right?




Yeah, that's correct, apologies for any confusion!



Walking Dad said:


> And yes, every RPG book only matters for me as I want. It isn't even required to play any RPG or using any book.
> 
> But I stand to my words that the Essentials line had a greater impact on the 4e game line than many people thought or wished after reading and hearing the announcements.
> 
> 'Essentials' is nothing separate, but the 'new' direction of D&D, just as the selectable ability mods in PH3 were a new direction in class design.




Yeah, but I'm just not sure how reasonable it was to believe it was so seperate that it would be completely disconnected from future products. I think the example of the Swordmage is a good one - the Forgotten Realms books are part of a completely seperate setting from the core one. There is absolutely no expectation that regular players need them if they aren't playing FR, unless they want specific options provided in the book (like feats, Swordmage, etc.)

And yet, the Swordmage receives support in future books. And yet, it introduces backgrounds which show up elsewhere. 

WotC tried very hard to make it clear that Essentials was part of 4E, not something seperate. It was a contained product line, but so are the 2-3 setting books for FR, Eberron, Dark Sun - that doesn't mean they will be unsupported in the game going forward. 

I think it is the same thing here, and while some folks may have misunderstood and thought that Essentials was completely disconnected from 4E, I don't think the blame for that can be laid on WotC. And I can only sympathize so much with those who thought that and were disappointed - it's fine to say, "I want future books to provide more support for the content I like" - but saying, "I want future books to _not _provide support for the content others like" is, well, not a great position to have. At least in my opinion. 

Now, I'm perfectly fine if people are wanting to see more content from WotC in general!


----------



## Runestar (Mar 19, 2011)

I don't play 4e, but I think it is a very commendable effort. Hopefully, this paves the way for more exotic monster PC classes. Heck, we may even be seeing options for angels down the road! 

As someone who has always been enamoured with the idea of playing monster PCs but always frustrated with the very crippling rules governing them in 3e, this vampire class appears to offer a simple and elegant solution. Forget about clunky templates or feats, simply make it its own class with vampire-themed attack powers.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Mar 19, 2011)

Runestar said:


> I don't play 4e, but I think it is a very commendable effort. Hopefully, this paves the way for more exotic monster PC classes. Heck, we may even be seeing options for angels down the road!
> 
> As someone who has always been enamoured with the idea of playing monster PCs but always frustrated with the very crippling rules governing them in 3e, this vampire class appears to offer a simple and elegant solution. Forget about clunky templates or feats, simply make it its own class with vampire-themed attack powers.




It isn't entirely a new idea, I do remember a few cases where they allowed someone to take monster levels, it was a bit clunky, but basically treated the monsters with high level modifiers (like say, the doppelganger) like a class so you could level up as you go. 

The vampire works especially well considering that it does function like a template (since vampires would be derived from a 'base' race anyway) and vampire lore generally does have vampires becomming more powerful as they age, so the class advancement fits better than most racial advancements (which are mostly just optional benefits like feats and paragon paths).


----------



## fanboy2000 (Mar 19, 2011)

WalterKovacs said:


> It isn't entirely a new idea, I do remember a few cases where they allowed someone to take monster levels, it was a bit clunky, but basically treated the monsters with high level modifiers (like say, the doppelganger) like a class so you could level up as you go.



3e's Savage Species had a monster classes. What made it clunky was that monster hit dice weren't equivalent in power to a PC class level. (Though there were many, many similarities between the two mechanics.)

Also 3.5's UA had racial levels that only went up like two or three levels. Given 3.5's mix-and-match approach to class leveling, I think that worked a bit better. Though I'm not sure if the level's were worth taking.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 19, 2011)

No, the mix and match style did only work for non spellcasting classes. Especially the fighter could take them really well, as he didn´t have a lot to lose.

A simple houserule, that added caster level like trailblazer does, however could do the trick. I guess a little bit improved (less feat intensive) multiclass and paragon multiclassing will make vampires quite useful.
Maybe a dragon article could give us some more vampire paragon paths that have prerequisite vampire+powersource/class.


----------



## Votan (Mar 19, 2011)

UngeheuerLich said:


> No, the mix and match style did only work for non spellcasting classes. Especially the fighter could take them really well, as he didn´t have a lot to lose.
> 
> A simple houserule, that added caster level like trailblazer does, however could do the trick. I guess a little bit improved (less feat intensive) multiclass and paragon multiclassing will make vampires quite useful.
> Maybe a dragon article could give us some more vampire paragon paths that have prerequisite vampire+powersource/class.




I think that 3.5E's multi-classing system worked out poorly (in the long run) and the Trailblazer system isn't a great patch.  But the mix and match system was still better than the LA system.

Certainly I think the idea of doing vampires as a 30 level class is really cool and seems to balance people wanting exotic characters with game balance.


----------



## gyor (Mar 19, 2011)

Vael said:


> If you think about it, from the point of view of a player without any books, who wants to pick up Heroes of Shadow, the book is far more useful than an X Power book.
> 
> If you don't own any books, you've got the following classes: Blackguard, Executioner, Vampire, Binder
> *+ PHB:* new Cleric, Warlock and Wizard powers. STR Paladins can probably grab some Blackguard powers.
> ...




Your mentioning of hexblade fired a strange thought in my head. Master of Magic class feature for the hexblade has a arcane, shadow, and divine mode, where the idea is that you exploit that type of energy. When hofk come out it must have seemed out of character that the arcane  hexblade had a 22 feature/power that used the shadow power source. Then we find out heroes of shadow is coming out with a shadow powered hexblade gloom pact. If master of magic foreshadowed the Gloomblade, then it follows that the other power source manipulated, divine, could foreshadow another blade pact.


THE EXARCH PACT!

Imagine it, astral diamond blade, summon and angel as your ally and a shadow of the Exarch itself as your greater ally. Instead of being survivalable because of thp durable like Infernals or mobile and tricky like fey, exarch hexblade gets genuine self healing.


----------

