D&D 4e: Vampires will be a class.

[Azrael the cat]

Hey guys, I trained really hard at fedex to be a better fighter and so I'm now level 6. I am now better at hitting stuff.

Fixed2

This is a different matter altogether. We accept XP and fedex quests in cRPGs as a sort of a necessary evil, a bit of mascara to cover up the developers' ineptitude or technical constraints. I wouldn't accept enjoy XP-granting fedex quests in a PnP session. Actually I can't remember even a single PnP session (D&D or anything else) during which the GM would grant XP for fedex. GMs - even those terribad ones - always granted XP for using skills, devising elegant solutions to problems and usually combat.

I backstabbed 10 goblins, I now have learned how to pick locks better and be more persuasive... Hell, I can point out "nonsense" in D&D all day.

Creating a "vampire" class is just plain stupid. It should be treated as a race, with your particular race of origin (ie. human vampire, half-elf vampire) having an effect on your traits (elven vampires retain their better sight, human vampires are still to some extent more avid learners and more shortsighted etc). Vampire-specific abilities would be handled by race, not class. A bard or a wizard turned into a vampire is still a bard or a wizard, that's simple logic - he doesn't magically forget how to sing or how to use magic.

Huh? A bard gets turned, now he levels as vampire. Where exactly does he forget how to sing? Oh right, he doesn't. You say it should be treated as race and then list all the advantages of it being treated as class: It should be treated as a class, with your particular race of origin (ie. human vampire, half-elf vampire) having an effect on your traits (elven vampires retain their better sight, human vampires are still to some extent more avid learners and more shortsighted etc). Vampire-specific abilities would be handled by class, not race. A bard or a wizard turned into a vampire is still a bard or a wizard, that's simple logic - he doesn't magically forget how to sing or how to use magic. He can then level as vampire to improve vampire skills like a RDD or Pale Master while still being able to fall back to his other skills. (And personally in 3.5 ed I'd force the vampire to take 8-10 levels of "vampire" "to complete the turning" before he's allowed to level other classes again, so no splashing in some levels just to gain some abilities. )

Not to mention that we're actually talking about 4th ed which has no multiclassing, so you can only start as a vampire... (AFAIK)
Like the class or not, but don't try to arbitrarily demand "sense" from D&D just to justify your aversions.

Re: the exp issue - keep in mind that PnP is strictly party-based and needs the party to gain exp at the same rate, which means that a exp-by-use system simply means that the rest of the party gets points in sneak because the thief uses it - even more retarded. When used as intended as a party/mp system, it is very obviously abstracted. You're all gaining experience for doing shit as a party, not for killing each monster and doing each action. The thief does thiefy stuff during the campaign and gets to boost the thievy skillset when he levels. Yeah it might be nice to have restrictions on point allocation to match what you've been doing (so a thief that spends the whole time firing his bow boosts that instead of lockpick), but it's unnecessary complexity given how long PnP sessions take doing that stuff as is - you'd end up wasting entire sessions on note-taking and allocating exp, and folks would lose interest fast. This is a game where a single really large combat might take several sessions, which might translate to a month of real-time if like most people you're meeting one night per week. Not to mention that the slow rate of PnP (for ANY system, not just D&D) requires really fast levelling per encounter, otherwise you'd go years of playing without much advancement. A typical dungeon crawl might have 2-3 small fights and then a boss - any more than that and your party is heading out to the inn to rest up and try a different wing of the dungeon the next day (which is why large dungeons like ToEE make up an entire extended campaign in PnP). How are you going to be able to level any decent variety of skills when you only get 3-4 encounters between your levels? The players would effectively be railroaded by what the DM throws at them, with no real choice whether to buff their bow or their picklock, as they just do whatever they must.

Re the vampire class/race issue. It needn't be a dichotomy. 3.5 does it well by having it as neither a race nor a class. The character starts 8 levels behind his exp level (so he takes more exp to level, as well as having less levels than the rest of the party, and in a 20-30 lvl system 8 levels is huge), and gives him a series of awesome buffs, abilities and a couple of weaknesses. So it's more of a template onto which you can still keep your old race and class. Which makes sense - you don't stop being an elf or a troll when a vampire either, and that is still going to effect your strength (although the massive stat boosts will make that less noticeable).

 

[SkeleTony]

I'd agree that undeath is a condition that has nothing to do with "race".

Can you credibly call that a human or even an elf? If not then it stands to reason that its race is something else. It's the main reason why I support having "undead" be considered a race with the use of subraces to further define individual undead.

But this is nonsense. "Race" in such fantasy RPGs is a combination of species and culture. Skeletons do not have sex with other skeletons and give buirth to skeleton babies.

"undead" is just NOT a race(or a class). it is an affliction. A curse. Sometimes a blessing. But not a race or class.

 

[Archibald]

Undeads are more of a faction than a race.

 

[Monocause]

I backstabbed 10 goblins, I now have learned how to pick locks better and be more persuasive... Hell, I can point out "nonsense" in D&D all day.

This is an abstraction of your character spending time on training stuff. It doesn't mean he gets stronger in all these fields all of a sudden. I think it was even mentioned in the rulebook - when you break camp the rogue practices lockpicking on his practice locks etc.

Of course, it can vary from believable to pretty stupid depending on the GM. One I played with used a Morrowind-like system in which your skills increased by using them with levels serving only as a cap by standard D&D rules (4 ranks of skill at level 1 max +1 point every level) and a cap on the total number of ranks available. If a player wanted to increase his skill otherwise he had to find a trainer, in the form of another party member with a higher skill level or an NPC.

Huh? A bard gets turned, now he levels as vampire. Where exactly does he forget how to sing? Oh right, he doesn't. You say it should be treated as race and then list all the advantages of it being treated as class: It should be treated as a class, with your particular race of origin (ie. human vampire, half-elf vampire) having an effect on your traits (elven vampires retain their better sight, human vampires are still to some extent more avid learners and more shortsighted etc). Vampire-specific abilities would be handled by class, not race. A bard or a wizard turned into a vampire is still a bard or a wizard, that's simple logic - he doesn't magically forget how to sing or how to use magic. He can then level as vampire to improve vampire skills like a RDD or Pale Master while still being able to fall back to his other skills. (And personally in 3.5 ed I'd force the vampire to take 8-10 levels of "vampire" "to complete the turning" before he's allowed to level other classes again, so no splashing in some levels just to gain some abilities. )
Not to mention that we're actually talking about 4th ed which has no multiclassing, so you can only start as a vampire... (AFAIK)
Like the class or not, but don't try to arbitrarily demand "sense" from D&D just to justify your aversions.

There's not much reason to demand that the player pours anything into his "vampirism" so that he can resume training in his former class of choice. If you want to counterbalance the perks of being a vampire you can slow down his progression or provide more challenging environments/encounters. Immortality is a perk enough on its own and a PnP session with vampires would probably have a larger timespan to make use of it.

In a PnP session you can't just "choose" to become a vampire. The DM must've planned an option like that for you and a good one would counterbalance any massive perks you'd gain by being one.

You're talking from a cRPG perspective too much, Shannow. Munchkinism like "splashing in some levels just to gain some abilities" cannot into proper PnP. If you try it others will try to explain how much does it suck and if you keep doing it still they just won't invite you to the next session. That or the DM will have his fun and you'll meet an almighty gay afroamerican NPC that will strip you away of all your precious and carefully min-maxed feats and abilities by the means of anal rape, effectively forcing you to reroll your character and behave better.

 

[Shannow]

Re: the exp issue - keep in mind that PnP is strictly party-based and needs the party to gain exp at the same rate, which means that a exp-by-use system simply means that the rest of the party gets points in sneak because the thief uses it - even more retarded. When used as intended as a party/mp system, it is very obviously abstracted. You're all gaining experience for doing shit as a party, not for killing each monster and doing each action. The thief does thiefy stuff during the campaign and gets to boost the thievy skillset when he levels. Yeah it might be nice to have restrictions on point allocation to match what you've been doing (so a thief that spends the whole time firing his bow boosts that instead of lockpick), but it's unnecessary complexity given how long PnP sessions take doing that stuff as is - you'd end up wasting entire sessions on note-taking and allocating exp, and folks would lose interest fast. This is a game where a single really large combat might take several sessions, which might translate to a month of real-time if like most people you're meeting one night per week. Not to mention that the slow rate of PnP (for ANY system, not just D&D) requires really fast levelling per encounter, otherwise you'd go years of playing without much advancement. A typical dungeon crawl might have 2-3 small fights and then a boss - any more than that and your party is heading out to the inn to rest up and try a different wing of the dungeon the next day (which is why large dungeons like ToEE make up an entire extended campaign in PnP). How are you going to be able to level any decent variety of skills when you only get 3-4 encounters between your levels? The players would effectively be railroaded by what the DM throws at them, with no real choice whether to buff their bow or their picklock, as they just do whatever they must.

I hope that wasn't aimed at me because:

What can I say?
It's not my fault that XP-based systems are just plain dumb.

They're only dumb if you want to LARP. Otherwise xp is a gaming mechanic and calling it plain dumb is like calling chess rules plain dumb. It all depends on what you want to accomplish. Want to create a fantasy world with rules that mimic RL as realistically as possible? Kick D&D out the door.
Want to play a small scale wargame with character development and fluff and don't mind high levels of abstraction? D&D works.

*shrug*

Re the vampire class/race issue. It needn't be a dichotomy. 3.5 does it well by having it as neither a race nor a class. The character starts 8 levels behind his exp level (so he takes more exp to level, as well as having less levels than the rest of the party, and in a 20-30 lvl system 8 levels is huge), and gives him a series of awesome buffs, abilities and a couple of weaknesses. So it's more of a template onto which you can still keep your old race and class. Which makes sense - you don't stop being an elf or a troll when a vampire either, and that is still going to effect your strength (although the massive stat boosts will make that less noticeable).

Only what you describe is pretty much vampires as race: Start 8 lvls behind but get super buffs and abilities (and super weaknesses) at the beginning. That's a race, even if you tweak it to allow for races of origin and then call it a "template". It works of course, but I find it far less elegant than vampires as class:
a) It makes being turned via story pretty much impossible except by taking away all skills and lvls you had before. Which brings the problems Monocause mentioned.

b) You start super strong when a normal char would be lvl 1 char and be super weak when a normal char'd be lvl 8. Any cleric would be able to turn you or cure light wounds you, any holy/sure-striking/flaming/acid/etc weapon or dmg spell would one-shot kill you, etc. Balancing would be a bitch.

c) How to give advanced vampire abilities with this template? It's possible of course: Soak and magic resistance could increase by level (like with drow) and high lvl vampire abilities could be gained via feats. Still not very elegant.

 

[Shannow]

This is an abstraction of your character spending time on training stuff. It doesn't mean he gets stronger in all these fields all of a sudden. I think it was even mentioned in the rulebook - when you break camp the rogue practices lockpicking on his practice locks etc.

Of course, it can vary from believable to pretty stupid depending on the GM. One I played with used a Morrowind-like system in which your skills increased by using them with levels serving only as a cap by standard D&D rules (4 ranks of skill at level 1 max +1 point every level) and a cap on the total number of ranks available. If a player wanted to increase his skill otherwise he had to find a trainer, in the form of another party member with a higher skill level or an NPC.

See above.

There's not much reason to demand that the player pours anything into his "vampirism" so that he can resume training in his former class of choice. If you want to counterbalance the perks of being a vampire you can slow down his progression or provide more challenging environments/encounters. Immortality is a perk enough on its own and a PnP session with vampires would probably have a larger timespan to make use of it.

Pale master, Red Dragon Disciple, they pretty much turn you into an undead, a half-dragon. And apart from some stuff that I'd tweak about those classes I think the idea is perfectly ok. Put up with requirements that put your actual class, be it caster or warrior at a serious disadvantage (and practically 5-10 levels behind normal progression) at least for a while to come out with some very powerful advantages that may (or may not, depending on your opinion, eg. I don't think Pale Masters are all that great...) balance these disadvantages.

Does the RRD get all half-dragon perks at lvl 1? Does the PM get all undead perks at lvl 1? Did I say that one lvl of "vampire" should give all perks? No, I've favoured the class "solution" from the very first because it allows for a slow progression towards full vampire powers/perks.

In a PnP session you can't just "choose" to become a vampire. The DM must've planned an option like that for you and a good one would counterbalance any massive perks you'd gain by being one.

For vampirism specifically, I'd make it story relevant. You'd either start off as a fledgling (4th ed has no multiclassing anyway??) or are turned via story, and then you acquire bonuses as you lvl. Apart from it not working well with any kind of "normal role-playing" (if the campaign/story isn't built around it) I don't see the problem/understand what all the fuss is about.

Is this some new form of trolling? Telling someone something they have been saying all along and pretending to be arguing against them?

You're talking from a cRPG perspective too much, Shannow.

Not at all. See above. And even if I were arguing from a purely cRPG perspective, why should that be a less valid POV?

Munchkinism like "splashing in some levels just to gain some abilities" cannot into proper PnP.

And personally in 3.5 ed I'd force the vampire to take 8-10 levels of "vampire" "to complete the turning" before he's allowed to level other classes again, so no splashing in some levels just to gain some abilities

...thus turning into a full vampire for story reasons. The very thing you criticised before...

There's not much reason to demand that the player pours anything into his "vampirism" so that he can resume training in his former class of choice.

Munchkinism like "splashing in some levels just to gain some abilities" cannot into proper PnP. If you try it others will try to explain how much does it suck and if you keep doing it still they just won't invite you to the next session. That or the DM will have his fun and you'll meet an almighty gay afroamerican NPC that will strip you away of all your precious and carefully min-maxed feats and abilities by the means of anal rape, effectively forcing you to reroll your character and behave better.

And because your post deserves a few more:

 

[Mastermind]

But this is nonsense. "Race" in such fantasy RPGs is a combination of species and culture.

Err no. Sure, some of them have those things, but there are more unique lifeforms out there that don't necessarily fit the mold. I see race as the blueprint of a particular creature's body (and possibly soul and mind depending on the race).

Skeletons do not have sex with other skeletons and give buirth to skeleton babies.

Neither do constructs and they've been considered a race for ages without any visible complaints.

"undead" is just NOT a race(or a class). it is an affliction. A curse. Sometimes a blessing. But not a race or class.

Skeletons don't have any affliction. They are in fact long dead and animated by dark magic. A great deal of undead are not afflicted, cursed or blessed by their condition.

 

[Johannes]

Neither do constructs and they've been considered a race for ages without any visible complaints.

Ok ,which D&D edition has rules to choose your race as a construct?

 

[tehRPness]

Neither do constructs and they've been considered a race for ages without any visible complaints.

Ok ,which D&D edition has rules to choose your race as a construct?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_of_Eberron#Warforged

 

[Mastermind]

Neither do constructs and they've been considered a race for ages without any visible complaints.

Ok ,which D&D edition has rules to choose your race as a construct?

Construct is a race regardless of whether the player can choose it or not.