Difference between revisions of "User:FiddleSticks96/Libris Vampiricus (3.5e Sourcebook)"
Tarkisflux (talk | contribs) m (Tarkisflux moved page User:FiddleSticks96:Libris Vampiricus (3.5e Sourcebook) to User:FiddleSticks96/Libris Vampiricus (3.5e Sourcebook) without leaving a redirect: derp) |
|||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
=Altering the Contents= | =Altering the Contents= | ||
| − | I am more than willing to make alterations to what I have made provided I am given good reason to. If you think something should be changed, let me know and we will discuss it. If you see a grammatical error then just go ahead and fix it. Do NOT make any changes outside of grammatical changes WITHOUT asking me about it first. I know this is a wiki site so this kind of thing is to be expected but I’d prefer to not stroll by one day to find that this overhaul no longer resembles what it did the last time I looked at it. | + | I am more than willing to make alterations to what I have made provided I am given good reason to. If you think something should be changed, let me know and we will discuss it. If you see a grammatical error, then just go ahead and fix it. Do NOT make any changes outside of grammatical changes WITHOUT asking me about it first. I know this is a wiki site, so this kind of thing is to be expected, but I’d prefer to not stroll by one day to find that this overhaul no longer resembles what it did the last time I looked at it. |
=What’s this about?= | =What’s this about?= | ||
| − | This is a complete overhaul of vampirism for the 3.5 Edition of D&D. There are a few things that you must remember while reading through this overhaul. First, YOU are the DM. YOU decide what to use, change, or ignore as far as your campaigns go. This is just another way of using vampires. Second, there is a massive amount of information here, with 24 strains of vampirism (25 if you count the Purebloods). This overhaul was set up so that all the strains can be used simultaneously. Any campaign can include all of the strains (or more if you make up your own), or just the strains that you want to use. The only thing that might seem slightly bizarre after removing random strains are the Purebloods, but those are so overpowered that they are clearly an | + | This is a complete overhaul of vampirism for the 3.5 Edition of D&D. There are a few things that you must remember while reading through this overhaul. First, YOU are the DM. YOU decide what to use, change, or ignore as far as your campaigns go. This is just another way of using vampires. Second, there is a massive amount of information here, with 24 strains of vampirism (25 if you count the Purebloods). This overhaul was set up so that all the strains can be used simultaneously. Any campaign can include all of the strains (or more if you make up your own), or just the strains that you want to use. The only thing that might seem slightly bizarre after removing random strains are the Purebloods, but those are so overpowered that they are clearly an aesthetic choice on my part, so you probably won’t be using them as anything but a background enemy anyway. Lastly, there are parts of this overhaul that are incomplete. It is a work in progress, but there is more than enough information here that it can be used right away (most of it); however, there is still a lot of polishing that needs to be done. |
=Introduction= | =Introduction= | ||
| − | This is a complete overhaul of vampirism that was made for Rouge to Wizard Level play. While this overhaul still accounts for many of the strengths and weaknesses of core vampires, there are still quite a few differences. The most major of these differences stems from my skewed view of what makes the use of certain powers good or evil. This can make playing a good aligned vampire difficult, or outright impossible, depending on who the DM is. If using evil powers to destroy evil creatures is still evil according to your DM, | + | This is a complete overhaul of vampirism that was made for Rouge to Wizard Level play. While this overhaul still accounts for many of the strengths and weaknesses of core vampires, there are still quite a few differences. The most major of these differences stems from my skewed view of what makes the use of certain powers good or evil. This can make playing a good aligned vampire difficult, or outright impossible, depending on who the DM is. If using evil powers to destroy evil creatures is still evil according to your DM, then you’ll probably be forced to play as an evil vampire. The descriptions in this overhaul make references to actual stories I have either written or am in the process of writing. This overhaul is based on the history of those story worlds, but the history itself is irrelevant to the changes, so just ignore the references. |
=Variant Rules this Overhaul Assumes= | =Variant Rules this Overhaul Assumes= | ||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
==Positive and Negative Energy/Undead and Souls== | ==Positive and Negative Energy/Undead and Souls== | ||
| − | These energies are a part of the elemental chaos for a | + | These energies are a part of the elemental chaos for a reason… they are elements. Elements do not have an alignment, and if they did, it would be neutral. Elements do not have the capacity to make moral and ethical decisions (or any decision, for that matter), and so they would obviously not be good or evil, nor lawful or chaotic. This applies to positive and negative energy as well. Positive energy is the stuff of life, and so exposure to it (in small quantities) can heal all manner of ailments. One could even go as far as to say that a mortal’s soul is connected to the positive energy plane in the same way the undead are connected to the negative energy plane (though I have only just now thought of this possibility, and thus, have had little time to explore it). Positive energy is incorrectly considered good aligned because of this. It is no more good or evil than the air you breathe or the dirt you walk on. Negative energy is the stuff of death; without it, all manner of life would continue to exist without end. Death is an essential part of life; dark, yes, foreboding, certainly, but it is not evil, just in the same way that it is not good. It is an essential energy, pure and simple. The usage of negative energy is no more good nor evil than the purpose to which it was used. You want to cast an energy drain spell to stop that ogre from squashing that farmer? By all means, go ahead! You got to show the ogre who's boss and you saved a farmer in the process, good for you. Mindless undead do not have the capacity to make judgments (whether they be law, chaos, neutral, good, or evil). They do not seek and destroy all life that comes across them; they simply follow their instructions. These instructions may very well be evil, but the blame falls upon the one who gave the instructions. If these undead do not have instructions, they will wander around endlessly and tend to form packs or congregate at areas with high levels of negative energy, but only engage in combat to defend themselves. They will offer no quarter in such cases; the companions (or any concerned bystander) of the one the undead is attacking will normally defend the one being attacked. Since most adventuring, crusading, or whatever… attack most undead on sight, these mindless wanderers can easily be viewed as being inherently evil because they “attacked” the party. Mindless undead typically follow their last orders to a lesser or greater extent, so wandering free-willed skeletons and zombies might still attack creatures on sight, depending on what their last orders were. With that said, mindless undead are essentially automatons and can be judged for their actions as easily as a car that rolled down a hill and ran someone over. This is not to say that they should be left alone, only that, left alone, they are, for the most part, harmless. Just as they are not inherently evil, the creation of mindless undead is not inherently evil, and neither is the creation of intelligent undead that have the capacity for good (or at the very least, neutrality). Intelligent undead are another matter. These undead can make judgments as easily as any living being, so they must obviously be held responsible for their actions. Intelligent undead are far more prone to evil for any number of reasons. They might have easier access to inherently corruptive magic, their emotions may be dulled (or in some cases gone) and so they may choose to abandon compassion, mercy, or whatever, they may feel resentment/jealously for the living and this could easily evolve into hatred, they might be hostile toward living creatures solely because the living are usually hostile towards them and they feel they must defend themselves (kinda like racism on both sides, right?). Whatever the case, there are intelligent undead that are more prone to evil, but they are not inherently evil. Fundamentally, this is because those same undead retain their souls; a quality the vast majority of undead lack. Some examples of undead that retain their soul are Ghosts (probably the most common), Liches, Mummies, and Vampires. An undead that retains its soul retains its moral compass and all the personality traits of its original living form. While the ratio may be different from living races, there could easily be just as many good vampires as there are bad ones. All mindless undead are soulless shells. There are many undead that have sentience, even intelligence, but do not have a soul. Such undead might retain some or all of the memories of the original owner of the body, but are little more than necrotic minds imbedded within a corpse animated by negative energy, or some other force. These same undead are almost invariably driven to great evil because of their hunger and, often, spite towards the living; their lack of a soul berefts them of a moral compass, and so their unholy nature is left to be unfiltered by any kind of positive emotion. Soulless, but intelligent, undead include Wights, Wraiths, most undead listed in Libris Mortis, and others. A soulless undead is a corpse animated by negative energy, or some other force, but the soul of the body's owner has already passed into the afterlife (unless they were trapped or something). This is why I treat the creation of mindless undead as neutral instead of evil. The creation of intelligent undead, however, is dependent on circumstance, the willingness of the "victim", and the purpose this new undead will serve. It is an evil act to forcibly turn someone into an undead that retains its soul (and presumably into any form of undead, since doing so implies the unwilling death of the victim; however, killing a bandit that tried to kill you, and then turning the corpse into a soulless undead under your control, is a neutral act. If you turn it into a soulless, but intelligent, undead and then loose it upon the world without taking control of it, that would be an evil act, since said undead would invariably bring evil to the world). As a rule of thumb, an undead that does not retain the abilities it had in life is a soulless undead, but there appear to be a few exceptions. |
==Undead and Positive/Negative Energy== | ==Undead and Positive/Negative Energy== | ||
| − | Positive energy is anathema to undead just as negative energy is to the living. Just like the normal rules, undead are damaged by positive energy abilities (such as a cure spell) and healed by negative energy abilities (such as an inflict spell). Now, since this overhaul allows for vampires to be of any alignment (ever fight a Vampire Paladin?), I had to come up with special rules for turning and rebuking. Normally, good clerics and paladins turn undead and evil ones rebuke them. That is all well and good, but say you have an undead cleric of good | + | Positive energy is anathema to undead just as negative energy is to the living. Just like the normal rules, undead are damaged by positive energy abilities (such as a cure spell) and healed by negative energy abilities (such as an inflict spell). Now, since this overhaul allows for vampires to be of any alignment (ever fight a Vampire Paladin?), I had to come up with special rules for turning and rebuking. Normally, good clerics and paladins turn undead and evil ones rebuke them. That is all well and good, but say you have an undead cleric of good alignment… why would an undead attempt to channel positive energy? To put it simply, I do not permit undead of ANY alignment to channel positive energy. I still let them use cure spells, as they are channeling divine energy which simply opens up a conduit to the positive energy plane, but turning pretty much requires direct contact with positive energy on the caster’s part. So, when a creature with the ability to turn undead becomes an undead themselves, they lose the ability to turn and gain the ability to rebuke, regardless of their alignment. Good aligned undead clerics cannot cast Consecrate or Hallow spells but are able to cast their opposites, Desecrate and Unhallow, instead. They receive no penalty or restriction of any kind despite the fact that Desecrate and Unhallow have the Evil descriptor, and it is not considered an evil act. An undead paladin’s lay on hands ability heals undead and harms living. |
Example: | Example: | ||
| − | Nerval is a 13th level vampire Paladin. His alignment is lawful good (obviously). A Paladin should normally be able to turn undead (provided they are of sufficient level), but Nerval is a vampire | + | Nerval is a 13th level vampire Paladin. His alignment is lawful good (obviously). A Paladin should normally be able to turn undead (provided they are of sufficient level), but Nerval is a vampire; if he tried to channel positive energy, well, let’s just say that it would end badly. So, instead of being able to turn undead, Nerval is able to rebuke them. This does not make Nerval a bad person, it just means he is able to channel negative energy. |
==Undead and Mind-Affecting Effects== | ==Undead and Mind-Affecting Effects== | ||
| − | Going by the core rules, all undead are immune to Mind-Affecting | + | Going by the core rules, all undead are immune to Mind-Affecting effects. This has various ramifications, one of them being that they are immune to most Enchantments and Powers, both good and bad. Immunity to morale effects also works in much the same way. If undead are immune to Mind-Affecting effects, then they are also immune to Morale effects. If they are not immune to Mind-Affecting effects, then they are not immune to Morale effects. It is completely reasonable that mindless undead (or mindless ANYTHING) are immune to Mind-Affecting effects, as they have no mind to affect in the first place. In fact, it would be unreasonable to say otherwise. It is justifiable to say that soulless undead are immune to Mind-Affecting effects as well, but I would question the logic behind it. If Mind-Affecting effects depend on a soul to affect, than only things that have a soul can be affected by them, everything else is immune. If the target only requires a mind to affect, then souls have nothing to do with it. In the former case, only mindless and/or soulless undead are immune to Mind-Affecting effects. In the latter, only mindless undead are immune to them. What about undead that have a soul? Undead with souls always have at least some kind of Intelligence score, even if it is animal-like intelligence; moreover, they have a soul. Regardless of whether or not you use the former or latter argument, undead with souls are not immune to Mind-Affecting effects. One could argue that the undead mind is invariably static and difficult to alter. The various undead sourcebooks describe something of that sort; undead are simply stuck in their ways. If you go by that argument, then it is perfectly reasonable to say that ALL undead are immune to Mind-Affecting effects. As the DM, it is up to you to decide how you handle undead, Mind-Affecting effects, and Morale effects. All three arguments are justifiably correct. For the purposes of this Overhaul, Vampires are Immune to Mind-Affecting effects that are NOT Harmless. This, I feel, is least crippling to PC vampires, as it allows them to be able to augment themselves with their various Enchantments and Powers. |
==Types of Damage: Holy/Unholy and Sacred/Profane== | ==Types of Damage: Holy/Unholy and Sacred/Profane== | ||
| − | This overhaul assumes a number of things; among them include the true nature of Holy, Unholy, Sacred, and Profane damage. Holy/Unholy damage are pretty cut and dry. Holy damage derives its power from goodness, while unholy damage derives its power from wickedness. Still, the rules can be vague even about the simplest of things. For instance, Holy Smite says that the spell “draws down holy power”, and it harms evil creatures as normal, but deals half damage to neutral creatures. This makes sense, and even though the spell description does not say the damage dealt is “holy damage”, it is implied that it is. This is where things fall apart. If Holy Smite harms neutral creatures (albeit at half damage), | + | This overhaul assumes a number of things; among them include the true nature of Holy, Unholy, Sacred, and Profane damage. Holy/Unholy damage are pretty cut and dry. Holy damage derives its power from goodness, while unholy damage derives its power from wickedness. Still, the rules can be vague even about the simplest of things. For instance, Holy Smite says that the spell “draws down holy power”, and it harms evil creatures as normal, but deals half damage to neutral creatures. This makes sense, and even though the spell description does not say the damage dealt is “holy damage”, it is implied that it is. This is where things fall apart. If Holy Smite harms neutral creatures (albeit at half damage), then why doesn’t a Holy Longsword deal an extra 1d6 points of damage (as opposed to 2d6) to neutral creatures? Because Holy Smite doesn’t explicitly state that the damage dealt is holy damage, one could conclude that Holy Smite is an inherently good spell, but does not use holy power; thus, even though it only affects evil creatures, and neutral creatures at half damage, it does not deal holy damage. This would explain why a holy longsword only deals extra damage to evil creatures, and doesn’t deal extra damage to neutral creatures. Still, the holy enchantment does not explicitly state that the damage dealt is holy damage, it is just implied that it is. This forces us to make a decision; that is, Holy damage either deals half damage to neutral creatures, or does not affect neutral creatures at all. If the former is true, then a holy longsword deals an extra 1d6 damage to neutral creatures. If the latter is true, holy smite does not affect neutral creatures. This overhaul assumes the former, but it is ultimately up to the DM. Unholy damage must work in the same manner as holy damage, but the alignments are reversed, with neutral remaining… well… neutral. Thus, this overhaul assumes that any instance of a vampire’s ability to deal “unholy damage” affects not only good creatures, but neutral as well, except that neutral creatures take only half damage. Even using the default rules, holy damage does not affect good creatures; unholy damage likewise does not affect evil creatures. |
| − | Sacred and Profane damage are not as cut and dry, but ultimately remain just as simple. A sacred weapon is “sheathed in luminous positive energy”, while a profane weapon is “sheathed in crackling black negative energy”. Given the description, one must assume that sacred damage derives its power from positive energy. The fact that sacred damage harms undead is obvious, since undead are harmed by positive energy, but why are evil outsiders harmed by sacred damage? In fact, evil outsiders take more damage from a sacred weapon than an undead does. The default D&D rules heavily imply that negative energy is inherently evil, while positive energy is inherently good. This would explain why evil outsiders take extra damage from a sacred weapon (though it does not explain why they take more extra damage than undead do). Because this overhaul assumes negative and positive energy do not have an inherent moral standing, sacred damage should not harm evil outsiders. Profane damage must work in the same manner as sacred damage, although profane damage affects living creatures, instead of undead. If positive and negative energy have no inherent moral standing, profane damage does not affect good outsiders. Thus, this overhaul assumes that any instance of a vampire’s ability to deal “profane damage” affects only living creatures. This must be taken a step further, and account for positive/negative energy protection. A creature that is immune to or protected from negative energy is likewise immune to or protected from profane damage. A creature that is immune to or protected from positive energy is likewise immune to or protected from sacred damage. If profane damage harms living matter, | + | Sacred and Profane damage are not as cut and dry, but ultimately remain just as simple. A sacred weapon is “sheathed in luminous positive energy”, while a profane weapon is “sheathed in crackling black negative energy”. Given the description, one must assume that sacred damage derives its power from positive energy. The fact that sacred damage harms undead is obvious, since undead are harmed by positive energy, but why are evil outsiders harmed by sacred damage? In fact, evil outsiders take more damage from a sacred weapon than an undead does. The default D&D rules heavily imply that negative energy is inherently evil, while positive energy is inherently good. This would explain why evil outsiders take extra damage from a sacred weapon (though it does not explain why they take more extra damage than undead do). Because this overhaul assumes negative and positive energy do not have an inherent moral standing, sacred damage should not harm evil outsiders. Profane damage must work in the same manner as sacred damage, although profane damage affects living creatures, instead of undead. If positive and negative energy have no inherent moral standing, profane damage does not affect good outsiders. Thus, this overhaul assumes that any instance of a vampire’s ability to deal “profane damage” affects only living creatures. This must be taken a step further, and account for positive/negative energy protection. A creature that is immune to or protected from negative energy is likewise immune to or protected from profane damage. A creature that is immune to or protected from positive energy is likewise immune to or protected from sacred damage. If profane damage harms living matter, then, in general, outsiders are likewise harmed by profane damage regardless of alignment. In general, outsiders are healed by positive energy and harmed by negative energy; this means that outsiders are decided alive, be they celestial or fiend. |
For the sake of avoiding headaches, this overhaul ignores the true nature of “sacred bonus” and “profane bonus”. It assumes that a sacred bonus derives its power from goodness, and that a profane bonus derives its power from evilness. If this does not suit you, simply changing the name of sacred/profane bonuses to something more suitable should stifle further argument. Sacred bonus could be renamed into something like “Holy bonus”, while Profane bonus could be renamed into something like “Unholy bonus”. | For the sake of avoiding headaches, this overhaul ignores the true nature of “sacred bonus” and “profane bonus”. It assumes that a sacred bonus derives its power from goodness, and that a profane bonus derives its power from evilness. If this does not suit you, simply changing the name of sacred/profane bonuses to something more suitable should stifle further argument. Sacred bonus could be renamed into something like “Holy bonus”, while Profane bonus could be renamed into something like “Unholy bonus”. | ||
| Line 67: | Line 67: | ||
==Alignment Restrictions== | ==Alignment Restrictions== | ||
| − | A good number of the bloodlines grant the vampire an inherent class; that is to say, they get levels in that class if they didn’t already have it. For example, Mrs Adventurer is a level 3 Fighter. She becomes an Anthotis vampire. Now Mrs Adventurer is a level 3 Fighter and a level 1 Psion. Mrs Adventurer automatically gained a level in the Psion class because she became an Anthotis vampire. Some of these classes have alignment restrictions, such as the Monk or Barbarian classes. The Invernus bloodline grants the base creature a level in the Barbarian class, even if the base creature was a Monk. These two classes have opposed alignment restrictions (Monk MUST be Lawful??? Barbarian MUST be non-Lawful???). For the sake of avoiding a mind rape, a vampire’s alignment is irrelevant to their inherent class. An Invernus vampire does not lose any Barbarian powers for being Lawful, and they can even gain levels in the Monk class (Barbarian-Monk…hehehe). I can understand why an assassin must be non-good ( | + | A good number of the bloodlines grant the vampire an inherent class; that is to say, they get levels in that class if they didn’t already have it. For example, Mrs. Adventurer is a level 3 Fighter. She becomes an Anthotis vampire. Now Mrs. Adventurer is a level 3 Fighter and a level 1 Psion. Mrs. Adventurer automatically gained a level in the Psion class because she became an Anthotis vampire. Some of these classes have alignment restrictions, such as the Monk or Barbarian classes. The Invernus bloodline grants the base creature a level in the Barbarian class, even if the base creature was a Monk. These two classes have opposed alignment restrictions (Monk MUST be Lawful??? Barbarian MUST be non-Lawful???). For the sake of avoiding a mind rape, a vampire’s alignment is irrelevant to their inherent class. An Invernus vampire does not lose any Barbarian powers for being Lawful, and they can even gain levels in the Monk class (Barbarian-Monk…hehehe). I can understand why an assassin must be non-good (sorta… what if a paladin gained levels in assassin/rouge to hunt down and assassinate agents of an evil tyrant??? Lawful Good Paladin/Assassin??? ...cool!). |
This overhaul assumes that the definitions of Lawful and Chaotic, as well as Lawful and Chaotic alignment restrictions for classes, make as much sense to you as they do for me. That is to say, they don’t, and they never did. I won’t go off on a rant about it, but I don’t understand why a Monk can’t be Chaotic and a Barbarian can’t be Lawful. Some people got together and put our collective frustration into words. Here is the link: | This overhaul assumes that the definitions of Lawful and Chaotic, as well as Lawful and Chaotic alignment restrictions for classes, make as much sense to you as they do for me. That is to say, they don’t, and they never did. I won’t go off on a rant about it, but I don’t understand why a Monk can’t be Chaotic and a Barbarian can’t be Lawful. Some people got together and put our collective frustration into words. Here is the link: | ||
| Line 73: | Line 73: | ||
[[Tome of Fiends (3.5e Sourcebook)/Morality and Fiends#Law and Chaos: Your Rules or Mine?|Tome of Fiends Law and Chaos: Your Rules or Mine?]] | [[Tome of Fiends (3.5e Sourcebook)/Morality and Fiends#Law and Chaos: Your Rules or Mine?|Tome of Fiends Law and Chaos: Your Rules or Mine?]] | ||
| − | Read it and perhaps Lawful and Chaotic will continue to not make sense for you as they do for me. In any case, if you don’t like my almost total lack of alignment restriction, | + | Read it and perhaps Lawful and Chaotic will continue to not make sense for you as they do for me. In any case, if you don’t like my almost total lack of alignment restriction, then impose whatever rules you desire onto your vampire. Remember… YOU’RE THE DM!!! |
| − | If Law and Chaos are not as restrictive to class requirements, | + | If Law and Chaos are not as restrictive to class requirements, then a few class abilities cease to make sense. For example: At 10th level, a monk’s unarmed strikes count as lawful aligned for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction; however, if a monk is not required to be lawful, or more, if the monk is chaotic, then this ability does not make sense. It should be assumed, than, that at 10th level, a monk’s unarmed strikes count as the ethical alignment of the monk for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. Thus, a 10th level Chaotically aligned monk’s unarmed strikes should count as chaotically aligned for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction, while a lawful monk’s unarmed strikes would count as lawful, and a neutral monk’s unarmed strikes would not count as anything, or could count as one of the two ethical extremes of the monk’s choice and cannot thereafter be changed (this would prevent giving neutral monks the short end of the stick). |
| − | As an aside, the fact that a monk can never take levels in monk again after gaining a level in another class is utterly devoid of logic. If I take karate for a year, | + | As an aside, the fact that a monk can never take levels in monk again after gaining a level in another class is utterly devoid of logic. If I take karate for a year, then take the next year to learn kendo, I’m still going to remember most of what I learned when I took karate, I’ll just need some practice to get rid of the rust. In any case, assume that Yekef vampires and Purebloods, both having monk as an inherent class, may gain levels in other classes without losing the ability to gain levels in the monk class. |
=Special Thanks= | =Special Thanks= | ||
| Line 88: | Line 88: | ||
[[Category:3.5e]][[Category:User]][[Category:Sourcebook]] | [[Category:3.5e]][[Category:User]][[Category:Sourcebook]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{Navboxes}} | ||
Latest revision as of 18:28, 18 May 2013
| Project Completeness: 3 / 5 |
|---|
| This has some, but often sparse, information in most categories. If you are interested in joining this project as a contributor, please leave a message on this or the lead author's talk page. Please see our Homebrew Content Requirements for further information regarding projects.
If you feel this project does not deserve the current completeness measure, start a discussion on the talk page. |
 | |||||||||
| |||||||||
| Rating box not supported outside of the main namespace. | |||||||||
|
Rate this article Discuss this article | |||||||||
Contents
Chapters[edit]
Chapter 3: Powers and Bloodlines
Chapter 8: How to use this Book
Altering the Contents[edit]
I am more than willing to make alterations to what I have made provided I am given good reason to. If you think something should be changed, let me know and we will discuss it. If you see a grammatical error, then just go ahead and fix it. Do NOT make any changes outside of grammatical changes WITHOUT asking me about it first. I know this is a wiki site, so this kind of thing is to be expected, but I’d prefer to not stroll by one day to find that this overhaul no longer resembles what it did the last time I looked at it.
What’s this about?[edit]
This is a complete overhaul of vampirism for the 3.5 Edition of D&D. There are a few things that you must remember while reading through this overhaul. First, YOU are the DM. YOU decide what to use, change, or ignore as far as your campaigns go. This is just another way of using vampires. Second, there is a massive amount of information here, with 24 strains of vampirism (25 if you count the Purebloods). This overhaul was set up so that all the strains can be used simultaneously. Any campaign can include all of the strains (or more if you make up your own), or just the strains that you want to use. The only thing that might seem slightly bizarre after removing random strains are the Purebloods, but those are so overpowered that they are clearly an aesthetic choice on my part, so you probably won’t be using them as anything but a background enemy anyway. Lastly, there are parts of this overhaul that are incomplete. It is a work in progress, but there is more than enough information here that it can be used right away (most of it); however, there is still a lot of polishing that needs to be done.
Introduction[edit]
This is a complete overhaul of vampirism that was made for Rouge to Wizard Level play. While this overhaul still accounts for many of the strengths and weaknesses of core vampires, there are still quite a few differences. The most major of these differences stems from my skewed view of what makes the use of certain powers good or evil. This can make playing a good aligned vampire difficult, or outright impossible, depending on who the DM is. If using evil powers to destroy evil creatures is still evil according to your DM, then you’ll probably be forced to play as an evil vampire. The descriptions in this overhaul make references to actual stories I have either written or am in the process of writing. This overhaul is based on the history of those story worlds, but the history itself is irrelevant to the changes, so just ignore the references.
Variant Rules this Overhaul Assumes[edit]
The following are variant rules that are assumed for the purposes of this sourcebook. They are not necessary to make it work, but this sourcebook was written with these rules in mind.
Positive and Negative Energy/Undead and Souls[edit]
These energies are a part of the elemental chaos for a reason… they are elements. Elements do not have an alignment, and if they did, it would be neutral. Elements do not have the capacity to make moral and ethical decisions (or any decision, for that matter), and so they would obviously not be good or evil, nor lawful or chaotic. This applies to positive and negative energy as well. Positive energy is the stuff of life, and so exposure to it (in small quantities) can heal all manner of ailments. One could even go as far as to say that a mortal’s soul is connected to the positive energy plane in the same way the undead are connected to the negative energy plane (though I have only just now thought of this possibility, and thus, have had little time to explore it). Positive energy is incorrectly considered good aligned because of this. It is no more good or evil than the air you breathe or the dirt you walk on. Negative energy is the stuff of death; without it, all manner of life would continue to exist without end. Death is an essential part of life; dark, yes, foreboding, certainly, but it is not evil, just in the same way that it is not good. It is an essential energy, pure and simple. The usage of negative energy is no more good nor evil than the purpose to which it was used. You want to cast an energy drain spell to stop that ogre from squashing that farmer? By all means, go ahead! You got to show the ogre who's boss and you saved a farmer in the process, good for you. Mindless undead do not have the capacity to make judgments (whether they be law, chaos, neutral, good, or evil). They do not seek and destroy all life that comes across them; they simply follow their instructions. These instructions may very well be evil, but the blame falls upon the one who gave the instructions. If these undead do not have instructions, they will wander around endlessly and tend to form packs or congregate at areas with high levels of negative energy, but only engage in combat to defend themselves. They will offer no quarter in such cases; the companions (or any concerned bystander) of the one the undead is attacking will normally defend the one being attacked. Since most adventuring, crusading, or whatever… attack most undead on sight, these mindless wanderers can easily be viewed as being inherently evil because they “attacked” the party. Mindless undead typically follow their last orders to a lesser or greater extent, so wandering free-willed skeletons and zombies might still attack creatures on sight, depending on what their last orders were. With that said, mindless undead are essentially automatons and can be judged for their actions as easily as a car that rolled down a hill and ran someone over. This is not to say that they should be left alone, only that, left alone, they are, for the most part, harmless. Just as they are not inherently evil, the creation of mindless undead is not inherently evil, and neither is the creation of intelligent undead that have the capacity for good (or at the very least, neutrality). Intelligent undead are another matter. These undead can make judgments as easily as any living being, so they must obviously be held responsible for their actions. Intelligent undead are far more prone to evil for any number of reasons. They might have easier access to inherently corruptive magic, their emotions may be dulled (or in some cases gone) and so they may choose to abandon compassion, mercy, or whatever, they may feel resentment/jealously for the living and this could easily evolve into hatred, they might be hostile toward living creatures solely because the living are usually hostile towards them and they feel they must defend themselves (kinda like racism on both sides, right?). Whatever the case, there are intelligent undead that are more prone to evil, but they are not inherently evil. Fundamentally, this is because those same undead retain their souls; a quality the vast majority of undead lack. Some examples of undead that retain their soul are Ghosts (probably the most common), Liches, Mummies, and Vampires. An undead that retains its soul retains its moral compass and all the personality traits of its original living form. While the ratio may be different from living races, there could easily be just as many good vampires as there are bad ones. All mindless undead are soulless shells. There are many undead that have sentience, even intelligence, but do not have a soul. Such undead might retain some or all of the memories of the original owner of the body, but are little more than necrotic minds imbedded within a corpse animated by negative energy, or some other force. These same undead are almost invariably driven to great evil because of their hunger and, often, spite towards the living; their lack of a soul berefts them of a moral compass, and so their unholy nature is left to be unfiltered by any kind of positive emotion. Soulless, but intelligent, undead include Wights, Wraiths, most undead listed in Libris Mortis, and others. A soulless undead is a corpse animated by negative energy, or some other force, but the soul of the body's owner has already passed into the afterlife (unless they were trapped or something). This is why I treat the creation of mindless undead as neutral instead of evil. The creation of intelligent undead, however, is dependent on circumstance, the willingness of the "victim", and the purpose this new undead will serve. It is an evil act to forcibly turn someone into an undead that retains its soul (and presumably into any form of undead, since doing so implies the unwilling death of the victim; however, killing a bandit that tried to kill you, and then turning the corpse into a soulless undead under your control, is a neutral act. If you turn it into a soulless, but intelligent, undead and then loose it upon the world without taking control of it, that would be an evil act, since said undead would invariably bring evil to the world). As a rule of thumb, an undead that does not retain the abilities it had in life is a soulless undead, but there appear to be a few exceptions.
Undead and Positive/Negative Energy[edit]
Positive energy is anathema to undead just as negative energy is to the living. Just like the normal rules, undead are damaged by positive energy abilities (such as a cure spell) and healed by negative energy abilities (such as an inflict spell). Now, since this overhaul allows for vampires to be of any alignment (ever fight a Vampire Paladin?), I had to come up with special rules for turning and rebuking. Normally, good clerics and paladins turn undead and evil ones rebuke them. That is all well and good, but say you have an undead cleric of good alignment… why would an undead attempt to channel positive energy? To put it simply, I do not permit undead of ANY alignment to channel positive energy. I still let them use cure spells, as they are channeling divine energy which simply opens up a conduit to the positive energy plane, but turning pretty much requires direct contact with positive energy on the caster’s part. So, when a creature with the ability to turn undead becomes an undead themselves, they lose the ability to turn and gain the ability to rebuke, regardless of their alignment. Good aligned undead clerics cannot cast Consecrate or Hallow spells but are able to cast their opposites, Desecrate and Unhallow, instead. They receive no penalty or restriction of any kind despite the fact that Desecrate and Unhallow have the Evil descriptor, and it is not considered an evil act. An undead paladin’s lay on hands ability heals undead and harms living.
Example:
Nerval is a 13th level vampire Paladin. His alignment is lawful good (obviously). A Paladin should normally be able to turn undead (provided they are of sufficient level), but Nerval is a vampire; if he tried to channel positive energy, well, let’s just say that it would end badly. So, instead of being able to turn undead, Nerval is able to rebuke them. This does not make Nerval a bad person, it just means he is able to channel negative energy.
Undead and Mind-Affecting Effects[edit]
Going by the core rules, all undead are immune to Mind-Affecting effects. This has various ramifications, one of them being that they are immune to most Enchantments and Powers, both good and bad. Immunity to morale effects also works in much the same way. If undead are immune to Mind-Affecting effects, then they are also immune to Morale effects. If they are not immune to Mind-Affecting effects, then they are not immune to Morale effects. It is completely reasonable that mindless undead (or mindless ANYTHING) are immune to Mind-Affecting effects, as they have no mind to affect in the first place. In fact, it would be unreasonable to say otherwise. It is justifiable to say that soulless undead are immune to Mind-Affecting effects as well, but I would question the logic behind it. If Mind-Affecting effects depend on a soul to affect, than only things that have a soul can be affected by them, everything else is immune. If the target only requires a mind to affect, then souls have nothing to do with it. In the former case, only mindless and/or soulless undead are immune to Mind-Affecting effects. In the latter, only mindless undead are immune to them. What about undead that have a soul? Undead with souls always have at least some kind of Intelligence score, even if it is animal-like intelligence; moreover, they have a soul. Regardless of whether or not you use the former or latter argument, undead with souls are not immune to Mind-Affecting effects. One could argue that the undead mind is invariably static and difficult to alter. The various undead sourcebooks describe something of that sort; undead are simply stuck in their ways. If you go by that argument, then it is perfectly reasonable to say that ALL undead are immune to Mind-Affecting effects. As the DM, it is up to you to decide how you handle undead, Mind-Affecting effects, and Morale effects. All three arguments are justifiably correct. For the purposes of this Overhaul, Vampires are Immune to Mind-Affecting effects that are NOT Harmless. This, I feel, is least crippling to PC vampires, as it allows them to be able to augment themselves with their various Enchantments and Powers.
Types of Damage: Holy/Unholy and Sacred/Profane[edit]
This overhaul assumes a number of things; among them include the true nature of Holy, Unholy, Sacred, and Profane damage. Holy/Unholy damage are pretty cut and dry. Holy damage derives its power from goodness, while unholy damage derives its power from wickedness. Still, the rules can be vague even about the simplest of things. For instance, Holy Smite says that the spell “draws down holy power”, and it harms evil creatures as normal, but deals half damage to neutral creatures. This makes sense, and even though the spell description does not say the damage dealt is “holy damage”, it is implied that it is. This is where things fall apart. If Holy Smite harms neutral creatures (albeit at half damage), then why doesn’t a Holy Longsword deal an extra 1d6 points of damage (as opposed to 2d6) to neutral creatures? Because Holy Smite doesn’t explicitly state that the damage dealt is holy damage, one could conclude that Holy Smite is an inherently good spell, but does not use holy power; thus, even though it only affects evil creatures, and neutral creatures at half damage, it does not deal holy damage. This would explain why a holy longsword only deals extra damage to evil creatures, and doesn’t deal extra damage to neutral creatures. Still, the holy enchantment does not explicitly state that the damage dealt is holy damage, it is just implied that it is. This forces us to make a decision; that is, Holy damage either deals half damage to neutral creatures, or does not affect neutral creatures at all. If the former is true, then a holy longsword deals an extra 1d6 damage to neutral creatures. If the latter is true, holy smite does not affect neutral creatures. This overhaul assumes the former, but it is ultimately up to the DM. Unholy damage must work in the same manner as holy damage, but the alignments are reversed, with neutral remaining… well… neutral. Thus, this overhaul assumes that any instance of a vampire’s ability to deal “unholy damage” affects not only good creatures, but neutral as well, except that neutral creatures take only half damage. Even using the default rules, holy damage does not affect good creatures; unholy damage likewise does not affect evil creatures.
Sacred and Profane damage are not as cut and dry, but ultimately remain just as simple. A sacred weapon is “sheathed in luminous positive energy”, while a profane weapon is “sheathed in crackling black negative energy”. Given the description, one must assume that sacred damage derives its power from positive energy. The fact that sacred damage harms undead is obvious, since undead are harmed by positive energy, but why are evil outsiders harmed by sacred damage? In fact, evil outsiders take more damage from a sacred weapon than an undead does. The default D&D rules heavily imply that negative energy is inherently evil, while positive energy is inherently good. This would explain why evil outsiders take extra damage from a sacred weapon (though it does not explain why they take more extra damage than undead do). Because this overhaul assumes negative and positive energy do not have an inherent moral standing, sacred damage should not harm evil outsiders. Profane damage must work in the same manner as sacred damage, although profane damage affects living creatures, instead of undead. If positive and negative energy have no inherent moral standing, profane damage does not affect good outsiders. Thus, this overhaul assumes that any instance of a vampire’s ability to deal “profane damage” affects only living creatures. This must be taken a step further, and account for positive/negative energy protection. A creature that is immune to or protected from negative energy is likewise immune to or protected from profane damage. A creature that is immune to or protected from positive energy is likewise immune to or protected from sacred damage. If profane damage harms living matter, then, in general, outsiders are likewise harmed by profane damage regardless of alignment. In general, outsiders are healed by positive energy and harmed by negative energy; this means that outsiders are decided alive, be they celestial or fiend.
For the sake of avoiding headaches, this overhaul ignores the true nature of “sacred bonus” and “profane bonus”. It assumes that a sacred bonus derives its power from goodness, and that a profane bonus derives its power from evilness. If this does not suit you, simply changing the name of sacred/profane bonuses to something more suitable should stifle further argument. Sacred bonus could be renamed into something like “Holy bonus”, while Profane bonus could be renamed into something like “Unholy bonus”.
Alignment Restrictions[edit]
A good number of the bloodlines grant the vampire an inherent class; that is to say, they get levels in that class if they didn’t already have it. For example, Mrs. Adventurer is a level 3 Fighter. She becomes an Anthotis vampire. Now Mrs. Adventurer is a level 3 Fighter and a level 1 Psion. Mrs. Adventurer automatically gained a level in the Psion class because she became an Anthotis vampire. Some of these classes have alignment restrictions, such as the Monk or Barbarian classes. The Invernus bloodline grants the base creature a level in the Barbarian class, even if the base creature was a Monk. These two classes have opposed alignment restrictions (Monk MUST be Lawful??? Barbarian MUST be non-Lawful???). For the sake of avoiding a mind rape, a vampire’s alignment is irrelevant to their inherent class. An Invernus vampire does not lose any Barbarian powers for being Lawful, and they can even gain levels in the Monk class (Barbarian-Monk…hehehe). I can understand why an assassin must be non-good (sorta… what if a paladin gained levels in assassin/rouge to hunt down and assassinate agents of an evil tyrant??? Lawful Good Paladin/Assassin??? ...cool!).
This overhaul assumes that the definitions of Lawful and Chaotic, as well as Lawful and Chaotic alignment restrictions for classes, make as much sense to you as they do for me. That is to say, they don’t, and they never did. I won’t go off on a rant about it, but I don’t understand why a Monk can’t be Chaotic and a Barbarian can’t be Lawful. Some people got together and put our collective frustration into words. Here is the link:
Tome of Fiends Law and Chaos: Your Rules or Mine?
Read it and perhaps Lawful and Chaotic will continue to not make sense for you as they do for me. In any case, if you don’t like my almost total lack of alignment restriction, then impose whatever rules you desire onto your vampire. Remember… YOU’RE THE DM!!!
If Law and Chaos are not as restrictive to class requirements, then a few class abilities cease to make sense. For example: At 10th level, a monk’s unarmed strikes count as lawful aligned for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction; however, if a monk is not required to be lawful, or more, if the monk is chaotic, then this ability does not make sense. It should be assumed, than, that at 10th level, a monk’s unarmed strikes count as the ethical alignment of the monk for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. Thus, a 10th level Chaotically aligned monk’s unarmed strikes should count as chaotically aligned for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction, while a lawful monk’s unarmed strikes would count as lawful, and a neutral monk’s unarmed strikes would not count as anything, or could count as one of the two ethical extremes of the monk’s choice and cannot thereafter be changed (this would prevent giving neutral monks the short end of the stick).
As an aside, the fact that a monk can never take levels in monk again after gaining a level in another class is utterly devoid of logic. If I take karate for a year, then take the next year to learn kendo, I’m still going to remember most of what I learned when I took karate, I’ll just need some practice to get rid of the rust. In any case, assume that Yekef vampires and Purebloods, both having monk as an inherent class, may gain levels in other classes without losing the ability to gain levels in the monk class.
Special Thanks[edit]
A special thanks to Ghostwheel and Cid for coming up with the name for this sourcebook.
Legal Disclaimer[edit]
This is not affiliated with the owner(s) of any copyright material presented in this sourcebook. Copyrights and trademarks for any books, films, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law.
