Pathfinder Player Companion: Blood of the Night (PFRPG)

In addition to what Ravenmantle said, I'd argue that becoming a vampire (or vampire spawn), like becoming a lycanthrope, is one of the fairly common (in terms of characters becoming monsters) consequences of playing certain Gothic horror adventures.

Officially, in PF, these characters generally become NPCs. That's very frustrating to at least some players, I'd imagine. Sagas of becoming human/seeking redemption have been a part of pop culture for decades now.

I think there are several issues with regard to expectations for this book. When I read the product description, I do get the feeling that this book caters more to players who want to play actual vampires than it does players who want to play dhampirs. One example of this is that 3 out of 5 bullet points are about vampires, 1 is about dhampirs, and 1 is about vampire hunters.

Now, if that was the only parameter, then I'd say that those expressing their disappointment should've paid more attention to what the product description tries to sell.

This.

Blood of the Night does exactly as advertised, and it does it well.

This not the first time I've seen people up in arms about a book because it isn't what they wanted it to be, when all they had to do was look at the product description to begin with.

Ravenmantle wrote:

I think there are several issues with regard to expectations for this book. When I read the product description, I do get the feeling that this book caters more to players who want to play actual vampires than it does players who want to play dhampirs. One example of this is that 3 out of 5 bullet points are about vampires, 1 is about dhampirs, and 1 is about vampire hunters.

Now, if that was the only parameter, then I'd say that those expressing their disappointment should've paid more attention to what the product description tries to sell.

This.

Blood of the Night does exactly as advertised, and it does it well.

This not the first time I've seen people up in arms about a book because it isn't what they wanted it to be, when all they had to do was look at the product description to begin with.

Agreed! Those considering buying this book should have a good look at the product description before getting it, if only to meet expectations.

(The description does mention racial traits and alternate heritages for dhampirs, but that is all it really promises for them. By and large the main focus of the product description is on playing vampires - or information on vampires that may be used to deal with them by players.
Although I'll admit that the title itself and the following sales-pitch line "Blood of the Night contains everything a player needs to play a vampire, a dhampir, or a hunter of these foul beings." could be misleading. Still, the line just quoted should not be seen in isolation from the rest of the description, as well as a pinch of salt: There's only so much that can be crammed into 32 pages, and vampires do come before dhampirs...)

I've learned the hard way myself to pay attention to what is said in the product description for a book and not what is discussed in the product thread. I hope others don't make the same mistake...

-- C.

I've learned the hard way myself to pay attention to what is said in the product description for a book and not what is discussed in the product thread. I hope others don't make the same mistake...

But therein lies the problem. If the developers are going to come in and discuss the amount of and type of content within the book, like F. Wesley Schneider and Patrick Renie, you would expect that they know what they are describing. Even though Wesley's description is well before the product was finalized and was probably more of a rough guess, Patrick's description came at the end of October AND quoted a higher ration of content AND it was well after the Product description was put up.

I think this is where the consternation is coming from in the thread. The product description delivers as promised, true, but the responses to questions posed to the developers varied greatly from the finished product.

I think that the only issue I have with this book is that while I love art I did not love the two page art spread with 3 feats. I would much rather have had those 3 feats on one page and that extra page go to giving us a little more Dhampir love.

...Patrick's description came at the end of October AND quoted a higher ration of content AND it was well after the Product description was put up.

I can certainly see how such a post might set certain expectations regarding the contents of the products. I suppose we customers just approach product information in different ways. Paizo's openness and transparency regarding their products is a massive blessing to us customers. Once in a rare while it appears it can also be a curse. :D

If I might weigh in a little...

I'd agree that this book doesnt do for Dhampirs what Blood of Fiends does for Tieflings because, as mentioned, its about Dhampirs AND Vampires. There are effectively 4 races catered for here, rather than just one, and as a result each gets fewer pages than it might in a dedicated book of its own.

That said, there is quite a lot of Dhampir stuff in the APG (which was released some time after this book was written) so between the two I think the Dhampirs get some pretty sweet stuff.

Just wanted to explain why its not as Dhampir heavy as folks seem keen for.

If you mean a lot by having several feats that deal with biting things then yes there was. But for me the Dhampir section in the ARG was one of few in that book i wasn't really all that impressed with. Also it's no just having nice crunch but the lack of a lot of good Golarion specific fluff. I was hoping this book would help with good fluff and crunch, but it didn't even come close plus the rules for playing monsters should be in the DM's hands not the players.

...plus the rules for playing monsters should be in the DM's hands not the players.

Not necessarily. Lots of groups out there like the idea of playing vampire characters (or monstrous characters in general). And if their system of choice is the Pathfinder RPG and their setting of choice is Golarion, then this book should come in rather handy for those players. And their GM. :)

WampaX wrote:

...Patrick's description came at the end of October AND quoted a higher ration of content AND it was well after the Product description was put up.

I can certainly see how such a post might set certain expectations regarding the contents of the products. I suppose we customers just approach product information in different ways. Paizo's openness and transparency regarding their products is a massive blessing to us customers. Once in a rare while it appears it can also be a curse. :D

Indeed, our openness to discussing products before release is a double-edged sword for both consumers and Paizo employees. In this case, some readers might not feel that what I hinted at and what they received are consistent, while I may have to eat some of my words (though see below).

I would still argue that this book contains a considerable amount of content for dhampir characters, even if much of said content is not immediately apparent. While many of the spreads focus on the different types of vampires and powers to enhance said vampires, this information is still invaluable to players planning on creating a dhampir character for several reasons. For instance, knowing the themes and powers of one's vampire progenitor can be a boon for creating a cohesive and interesting character background. In addition, many dhampirs are scornful of their undead heritage, and knowing what kind of strengths and weaknesses their hated ancestors possess can help a dhampir in the the fight to resolve those mommy/daddy issues (that is, by hunting down and slaying said accursed parent). In addition, there are still all sorts of feats, spells, magic items, and suggestions specifically for dhampir characters riddled throughout the volume.

Other posters are right on the money when they speculate that we would have done more with dhampirs if we had more pages. If Wes had his way, we could likely do a whole hardcover on them! But, resources being as they are, we had to stuff a lot of different content into 16 spreads, and that may be why some readers are surprised by the amount of information on vampires versus dhampirs.

Lastly and perhaps needless to say, this is not the last anyone will see of dhampirs in our products.

...is still invaluable to players planning on creating a dhampir character for several reasons. For instance, knowing the themes and powers of one's vampire progenitor can be a boon for creating a cohesive and interesting character background. In addition, many dhampirs are scornful of their undead heritage, and knowing what kind of strengths and weaknesses their hated ancestors possess can help a dhampir in the the fight to resolve those mommy/daddy issues (that is, by hunting down and slaying said accursed parent)...

This cannot be stressed enough, I think, and so I quote it. :D

Seriously, though, the information on vampires will be an invaluable resource for players who want to use the dhampir's vampiric nature in their roleplaying.

Other posters are right on the money when they speculate that we would have done more with dhampirs if we had more pages. If Wes had his way, we could likely do a whole hardcover on them! But, resources being as they are, we had to stuff a lot of different content into 16 spreads, and that may be why some readers are surprised by the amount of information on vampires versus dhampirs.

I hope that this product being published doesn't mean that a Player Companion about dhampirs isn't done in the future, because Blood of the Night shouldn't count as that book.

While it would be interesting, from a marketing standpoint, to capture even a tiny fragment of the once-impressive customer base that White Wolf has lost*, by introducing PF/3.X compatible rules and a setting for playing actual vampires, I'm not sure this book does that (or that Golarion is well suited to that, as it's a decidedly 'undead as PCs' unfriendly setting).

Even a Gebbite or Ustalavan or Eoxian 'undead as PCs' campaign is going to be rowing against the current, when the base rules of how undeath / negative energy / etc. work are so antithetical to some of the design preferences of the setting.

Like Orcs of Golarion, this feels like a book that tempts you with an opportunity to explore a character of a race / type / nature that the setting would *HATE* for you to actually explore.

And so you end up looking like the clueless guy who showed up to the Vampire LARP wanting to play a Highlander named MacLeod, in all your roller-skating-uphill glory.

*Which would be kind of on-the-nose, for a company that has made it's bread and butter off of a fragment of the once-impressive customer base that a completely other RPG company that Lisa co-founded has lost...

While it would be interesting, from a marketing standpoint, to capture even a tiny fragment of the once-impressive customer base that White Wolf has lost*, by introducing PF/3.X compatible rules and a setting for playing actual vampires, I'm not sure this book does that (or that Golarion is well suited to that, as it's a decidedly 'undead as PCs' unfriendly setting).

Even a Gebbite or Ustalavan or Eoxian 'undead as PCs' campaign is going to be rowing against the current, when the base rules of how undeath / negative energy / etc. work are so antithetical to some of the design preferences of the setting.

Like Orcs of Golarion, this feels like a book that tempts you with an opportunity to explore a character of a race / type / nature that the setting would *HATE* for you to actually explore.

I mostly agree, but this is not an accident, nor a problem. I dont know if you have played Pathfinder, but it is not an MMO ;) The way the game plays and the experience of the player is heavily dependant on the GM and as such they can make it as tricky or as easy as they wish for players of any race.

Just as playing an openly violent chaotic evil character, or a goblin, or a kobold, will prove challenging to a PC, so would (and should) playing a vampire. The world of Golarion is hostile to vampires. Fact. Vampires are unusual and challenging player characters. Fact. Some players enjoy the challenge. Fact.

Perhaps I am biased since I am playing a kobold character right now, but I really enjoy playing a character who struggles a bit in the setting. It adds a level of danger and excitement to play that I find more exhilarating than the threat of combat.

I would say rather then end up looking clueless you would have to make sure you brought every clue with you. This would need the help and support of your GM, just like any developed character in the Pathfinder universe.

So, as some of you may or may not know, we plan on putting out a book called Blood of the Moon less than a year from now, and we're planning on doing it a lot like this one, except it would be about lycanthropes instead of vampires. It would include new information on the various kinds of lycanthropes in the Pathfinder campaign setting, as well as new rules options and advice for players with lycanthropic PCs or PCs who like hunting down lycanthropes.

That being said, we don't have to do a Blood of the Moon book like this. We don't even have to do a Blood of the Moon at all if absolutely no one is interested; it's not too late to replace it with something else. Several people have taken issue with Blood of the Night in that it doesn't follow the format or style of the previously published Blood of books, or that it doesn't include as many obvious dhampir options as they'd wanted, and I'd like to take these comments and turn them into something constructive.

Now, we could go and do a Blood of the Moon book that follows the same basic template as Blood of Fiends or Blood of Angels. It would give you the same kinds of new rules that those books gave you, including several pages of information on lycanthropes on Golarion, different heritages, variant abilities, new spells and feats, and so forth. Heck, that format is perfectly fine by us—doing that kind of book is actually a bit easier for the writers and developers. But I'm not sure that's what people actually want.

So, basically what I'm asking is, What would you like to see if we do a Blood of the Moon book? There currently aren't really any rules for playing lycanthropic PCs (beyond the "monsters as PCs" rules already built into the game); should it stay that way? What would you change from the way we did Blood of the Night? What would you keep the same? Would you put in a bunch of new feats and traits? Some sort of new playable half-lycanthrope PC race with distinct heritages? Sixteen pages on what it's like to be a lycanthrope on Golarion? I'm honestly curious about what all your ideas are on the matter, and basically how you would do the book if you had creative control over it.

I don't want it to sound like we're changing the line or doing an overhaul on the Blood of books, and I don't even want to give an estimate for when/if this customer feedback makes it into future Player Companions, but it is something I'd like to get peoples' thoughts on.

I still think most people won't know exactly how they feel about Blood of the Night until they're holding the physical copy in their hands. We just received our office copies, and they look rad. Seriously, a PDF does not do these books proper justice, and I think that will become more apparent as we continue to put out more of these.

Looking forward to seeing your thoughts on the matter!

I think doing blood of the moon more like blood of angels/blood of fiends would be a good way of doing it.

While I haven't read Blood of the Night from cover to cover (I won't do that until I have the physical copy), I like what I've read so far and contrary to some opinions stated here in the thread, I really like that the various vampire strains are discussed in some detail. I don't think I'd change much, to be honest. Except maybe the centerfold. That didn't work for me as much as was the case with Varisia: Birthplace of Legends and Knights of the Inner Sea.

That said, since you asked, I really like the heritages stuff you introduced in Blood of Fiends and continued in Blood of Angels and Blood of the Night, and I'd like to see that continue in Blood of the Moon. So lots of information on the various types of lycanthropes of Golarion and potentially a half-lycanthrope option with heritages based on the various types of lycanthropes (werewolves, wererats, etc.).

I'd also like to see some stuff on natural and afflicted lycanthropes as as well as lycanthrope hunters, much like you did with vampire hunters in Blood of the Night.

So basically I'd like to see you do what you did for vampires. This approach works particularly well with lycanthropes, I think.

Yeah a half-lycanthrope race would be pretty nice.

This book felt needlessly sparse of content. When I opened it and was treated to some pages where there was a large splash-page of (admittedly finely made) artwork and small boxes of content, I felt cheated.

I'd be hard-pressed to purchase another Player Companion product if the content level continues to downscale like this. Maybe it's a matter of perception, and the previous Player Companion lines like Gnomes of Golarion had comparable word-counts but their layouts obfuscated the sparseness.

This book felt like it promised a lot of different things and wound up spinning its wheels and only gaining so much traction.

While I like the content that is present, it feels like I only got half a book on the topic. But unlike the Dragon Empires Primer, there will be no Blood of the Night Gazetteer to follow-up on this.

Edit: It bears special note that I thought the aesthetic quality of the book was outstanding. The artwork was fantastic and the choices of colors/fonts were both thematically appropriate and also readable. I just wish more space had been devoted to actual content.

Yes totally want a blood of the Moon book, honestly would like to see that more then blood of the night. If we are to get it though I would like to see something more in line with blood of angel/fiends with focuses on heirtage options like those for the aasimar, tieflings, and dhampir if we manage to get another mix-breed race for lycanthorpes or some more archetypes, traits, prestige classes, or bloodlines focused on those with a connection to these lycanthropic denizens.

In terms of content and layout, I personally loved Blood of the Night.
Everything Ravenmantle said above, I agree with.

Since we don't have a half-lycanthrope (or a full-on lycanthrope)in the ARG, I think this would be a fine product to introduce them as a playable option in. To not dilute the product, focusing on a few of the prolific lycanthrope strains may be the best bet. Running the gambit of were-beasts should probably be devoted to another book, but generalizing some of the crunch to work across all lycanthropes would not isolate this first foray from any to follow.

Also, and this just may be me and my nostalgia, but if there could be journal entries from Ailson Kindler like there were for Van Richten in his guides, that would be enjoyable. I don't think you would want or need to write the entire product like that, however.

As far as layouts, spreads, and content are concerned . . . I'll need to go back and do some direct comparisons between BoN and BoA/BoF to see which one I think would work better in this case.

...Also, and this just may be me and my nostalgia, but if there could be journal entries from Ailson Kindler like there were for Van Richten in his guides, that would be enjoyable. I don't think you would want or need to write the entire product like that, however...

This is actually a very good idea. Perhaps something for the centerfold. Scribbled notes, sketches, providing some in-character advice from Ailson Kindler for the would-be werecreature hunter. Now I wish that could've been done for Blood of the Night. :-D

I can't comment on whether or not to do a Blood of the Moon book like Blood of the Night yet because the book's not available to me just yet, however I can say one thing:

YES I want a 'Blood of the Moon' book!

And I'm still eagerly awaiting Blood of the Night despite the negativity.

Blood of the moon? I wonder, would that include any of the more obviously anthropomorphic animal races like Catfolk, Vanara and Grippli? Because if it had grippli I'd buy it. I may buy it anyway, as a GM it could definitely be useful.But if it didn't have PC options that were generally usable in most games, I probably wouldn't use it to make PCs.

Half-Lycanthropes would be great, something along the lines of the shifter race from the Eberron setting would be fantastic if you could do it without getting sued :P

We already have rules for making full lycanthropes but variant abilities would be nice.

Something I feel worth mentioning is that all of this should be usable by the average player, after all it's a PLAYER companion, not GM Companion.

I WANT Blood of the Moon. That being said I feel there's a difference between what Blood of the Night and Blood of the Moon deal with to an extent. To me there's no half-lycanthrope. You have afflicted and you have natural you're born with it or not as unlike vampire it's not a permanent state. Werewolves sometimes you're human others you're a wolf or a hybrid of the two. As a vampire you're always a vampire there's no option to be living again.

Did I want more Dhampir stuff yes, am I flipping tables over the end result for Blood of the Night? No. I'm quite happy with how the book turned out and it gives solid information on how to incorporate Vampires as PCs. If you combine the material in here with that presented in Advanced Race Guide for Dhampirs and you have the crunch I assumed we would get in a full primer on Dhampirs. Maybe a little less.

For Blood of the Moon I would focus entirely on Lycanthropes as PCs and do bits on the different types of Lycanthropes and some info on how to make other Lycanthropic races. The one thing I would ask you to avoid is the 2 page art spread with 3 feats spread across it. As pretty as the art is in that section I would have used the space for more fluff or crunch. The idea about an in character entry like that mentioned above would definitely be ideal as it combines the art and fluff into deliciousness.

EDIT: I think part of the feedback on this book is due to the preconception that it would be similar to our previous Blood of books where we focused on the halfblood unions of monster and mortal. I know that was my initial thought when it was announced that we'd get some serious Dhampir love and a little information on how to incorporate a Vampire character. I like the way it turned out besides my one minor nitpick and I will actually be using material from this book as one of my players has always wanted to be a Vampire.

Edit the 2nd: My stance is firmly against the Half Lycanthrope idea as to my understanding they're typically born as a Lycanthrope hence why we have natural born ones. If they don't get it through genetics I assumed they would be turned by their parents to be "part of the family". Unless you know they needed a normal to do something for them.

As much I was disapointed with this book I wouldn't mind a Blood of the moon book but...
-I don't want to include any of the animal races since I want them to have there own books.
-If they make a half lycanthropic race I wouldn't mind but if they don't and it's all lycanthropes it also wouldn't bother me.
-Most lyconthropes are not as powerful as true vampires so this book wouldn't be so out there.
-I know what to expect this time so I will be prepared.
-Hopefully by then we have a lot more lyconthropes such as raven, fox, rabbit, monkey/ape, octopus, etc.
-Also does lyconthropy have any weird or interesting effects on specific races like catfolk, ratfolk, etc.

So, basically what I'm asking is, What would you like to see if we do a Blood of the Moon book?

My copy of Blood of the Night still hasn't arrived, so I can't really say anything bouncing off of that book. But Set's concerns and comparison of it to Orcs of Golarion are something I am very familiar with.

The main thing I'd want out a Blood of the Moon book is some sort of real help for players of the races being featured. It's one thing to be challenged because of a race, but it's another to feel it's nigh impossible to ever play one without it being disruptive.

Orcs of Golarion actually made it harder for orc charactters to fit into the setting, which is really counterproductive for a player companion. If Blood of the Moon can provide hooks, advice, and options to make such characters managable and give them an "in" to the setting and even some more traditional adventures, something that would make the inclusion of such characters not feel like it was a disaster/derail in the making, it's doing its job. That help could take any number of forms, but as long as it avoids the "32-page essay on why you shouldn't play this race" trap the Orcs book fell into, it could be a great book. Maybe it could involve alternate/optional mechanics for weaker lycanthropes or "inner beast control", maybe it would come down to expanded flavor support(LG god of the moon and madness floating around? Hmm...), or maybe it could be alternate features for other races to let characters emulate the flavor of lycanthropes.

Again, I haven't gotten Blood of the Night yet(hopefully it arrives tomorrow), so I don't know how it went exactly, but I was one of those seriously let down by the Orcs book and wouldn't want to see a repeat of that. On the flipside, Blood of Fiends/Angels were much, much more helpful to players. Those books enabled a far wider range of characters, and the flavor support alone was worth the price of admission.

(yeah, still holding out for a better Orcs book someday)

I'd be for a Blood of the Moon book but I can't help but feel that both Blood of the Night and Moon would be better served as a campaign setting book, rather than a player companion. Both are play styles that really go against the grain in Pathfinder which has alignment absolutes. They are great for things like Way of the Wicked but I can't help but feel this is an attempt to grab some of the Twilight/Underworld crowd.

Both are play styles that really go against the grain in Pathfinder which has alignment absolutes. They are great for things like Way of the Wicked but I can't help but feel this is an attempt to grab some of the Twilight/Underworld crowd.

I wish that were true, because I played the hell out of Vampire the Masquerade, and White Wolf's early success indicates that there's cash in that cow just waiting to be milked, but, the backwards-compatible vampire rules and the monster-PC-bad design choices (such as 'undead = always inevitably evil') of Golarion being what they are, I'm not sure it's doable in this context.

Even places like Nemret Noktoria, which beg for an intrigue-laden genteel monsters-behind-masques sort of scenario, with books of esoteric lore on the table, and discarded corpses on the floor, isn't really as viable when every character has to be the same alignment, and shares certain difficult-to-work-around and, IMO, ill-conceived, rules exceptions like no Con score.

Man...Nemret Noktoria...and there's just such a perfect angle for civilized ghouls and how they can work with the way their diet, hunger, and appearance work together. Combine that with the theocracy of Kabiri with some inherited Osironi culture and trappings...

That place is just rich for exploration.

What I would like to see in the Blood of the Moon would be:
1. Rules for how to integrate a lycanthrope into a standard party (from say 1st level).
2. Rules for how to infect a PC with lycanthropy and still allow the player to be a player.
3. For it to focus on the following lycanthropes: Werewolves, wererats, werebears, weretigers, and wereboars. Really none of the others need to be touched in this book (as I believe these are kind of the iconic lycanthropes).

I think that if you focus on the iconic lycanthropes you could give each a generic 3 page write up, give us some feats and rules, magic items, archtypes/PrCs, and then give some hunting tips (feats, archtypes, magic items) and have a good 32 page book out of it.

Honest, I enjoyed the Blood of the Night book, I feel that it was well written and had some nice things for Dhampires (and even for vampire PCs if anyone ever allows them). The hunger rules while suited for vampire PCs, could be used to make some interesting stronger/weaker ghouls without a template or a huge amount of work. I feel that this book would have been right at home in a Van Richten's guide era Ravenloft source book (and I think that I'll put that in a rare written review).

Ok, now that I've read the book and reviewed it, some feedback that I didn't feel right putting in the review.

I like the new format, as a graphic designer as well as a reader. However, that double-page spread with the three feats in blurred boxes over the art isn't so good. It pains me that the art is obscured and that the feats are divorced from the actual feats section where it would be useful for them to be for quick reference.

What would I like to see in Blood of the Moon:

1. I'm going to echo this one: Rules for integrating both infected and natural lycanthropes into a party.

2. Maybe a lycanthropic template that can be used to create new lycanthope strains.

You know... I don't think we need a half-lycanthrope template. I mean, we have Catfolk and Kitsune, creating anthropomorphic races or more primal humanoids with animalistic traits is something that can be covered with regular races.

I stand by what I said in my review: Blood of the Night's main problem is trying to do too much at once with complex subject matter. I'd rather buy 2 books with more in depth coverage than one that skims over several things.

Regarding a Blood of the Moon:
Please don't. I have no idea on how easy or hard it would be to fight for, but Blood of Night has convinced me that you need to do a full book for something like that and I'm hoping you are in a position to help that happen.
Maybe, if it becomes reality, and does well, we can get a proper undead/vampires/whatever book?

I get that people like to play odd combinations, but shoe-horning a typically evil character into an adventuring party just isn't going to work unless it is largely neutral and doesn't mind on of their party changing into a rampaging monster come the full moon. Again, these two books just feel as though they are trying to pander to recent film releases rather than the creation of a cohesive whole. Although an all-vampire Kingmaker game might be fun.

I get that people like to play odd combinations, but shoe-horning a typically evil character into an adventuring party just isn't going to work unless it is largely neutral and doesn't mind on of their party changing into a rampaging monster come the full moon. Again, these two books just feel as though they are trying to pander to recent film releases rather than the creation of a cohesive whole. Although an all-vampire Kingmaker game might be fun.

I have to disagree. There is nothing wrong with that type of character in a group, if done well, which this book doesn't really do much for, rules wise, though it does offer good advice in that regard, otherwise.

Saying that a rpg book is pandering to <Insert anything ever> because there's been <Insert any medium ever> about that recently, will probably always be true, and never add anything to a discussion.

Well, this is what I meant about Blood of the Night not having a real good look at playing Vampire characters and not having all the tools that could have been put in place.

Really, if you're playing a vampire PC, you're not playing a society game. So, who cares about alignment restrictions, house rule that. Blood of the Night should have addressed vampires of different alignments along with better ways of handling a character who dies to sunlight in mixed parties... really, it's the inconvenience and power level of the vampire template that are the biggest problems.

I was hoping for more content in the vein of Fang and Fury, pun not intended. I don't actually think this material was intended in any real way of opening up a WOD-like campaign option in anything but the most rudimentary way. I mean, they devote a couple of pages to the idea, which Green Ronin spent an entire book examining. Of course, we have Fang and Fury to go on with but it would have been nice for Blood of the Night to present tighter rules.

Anyway, even if you're not adapting the vampire template (or even undead in general, or at least sentient undead) to more diverse alignments, there are ways of playing an evil character in a non-evil party. See Order of the Stick for examples of intelligent alignment conflict.

edit: Oh, I'm wrong about something. Good and Neutral vampires are addressed in this book! Pg 14: Netural vamps are rare, good ones are rare as hen's teeth. Doesn't mean they don't exist, just unusual.

I agree with what others have said. Vampire: the Geb, or Werewolf: the Worldwound aren't really things that can be addressed in a small book, nor are they (IMHO) Player Companion books.

(Aside, can we get the McWoD magic system as an option for Pathfinder?)

This book really seemed to try to do too much in a small book. Vampires could have an entire book dedicated to themselves, Dhampires in Golarion likely could have as well, and then there's the slayer section. Two, maybe 3 books worth of ideas, compressed into one. The vampire section should have included notes of actual vampire societies in Golarion (and IN Golarion, as the darklands are a natural fit), for example.

I've posted my review. I'm disappointed, and I hope to see Dhampirs of Golarion to help me battle the bitter taste this book leaves in my mouth, *especially* since it's really well written. It just misses the audience by a mile, something Paizo did a few times already (Orcs of Golarion, I am oh so looking at you).

I actually think a Blood of the Moon book would go over fairly well. The biggest problem is that, even despite the books listed commments, people went in thinking it would be about Dhampirs with a little bit on vampire characters, not the reverse.

Presumably Blood of the Moon wouldn't have that issue, since there is no half lycanthrope.

I can't say anything about the content of Blood of the Night, since I haven't had any look at it.

I'd personally jump at a Blood of the Moon book, but like others I'd prefer that it hew closer to Blood of Fiends/Angels than Blood of the Night in terms of content. But then, I'm biased; right now I'm preparing to revive an old 2nd edition Ravenloft campaign using Pathfinder rules -- and since all three of the main PCs are afflicted werewolves, I'm in the midst of hashing out an entirely new set of rules (a sort of combination template/prestige class, basically) to facilitate both werewolf PCs and ways to challenge them.

I'll say that I don't have any interest in Blood of the Night as I don't want Vampire PCs and don't like the concept of Dhamphirs, so I can't speak to its specific content. I'm equally un-interested in a book on lycanthrope PC options (though a Lycanthropes Revisited would be nice).

Books on vampire and lycanthrope characters seems to be scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of actual in play user base. Books on hunting these creatures with some side bars on them as PCs would seem to be something that would hit a larger user (and thus perchaser) base.

Thanks all for your thoughts, comments, and reviews! Customer feedback is incredibly valuable to us at Paizo. Keep it coming!

Books on vampire and lycanthrope characters seems to be scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of actual in play user base. Books on hunting these creatures with some side bars on them as PCs would seem to be something that would hit a larger user (and thus perchaser) base.

I'd like to take a second to focus on this topic. What do other readers think about Blood of the Night's focus on playing vampires/dhampirs versus hunting them? If we do Blood of the Moon, would it be more beneficial for players to have a book that focuses more on either playing a lycanthrope, hunting lycanthropes, or some mixture of the two?

I'd like to take a second to focus on this topic. What do other readers think about Blood of the Night's focus on playing vampires/dhampirs versus hunting them? If we do Blood of the Moon, would it be more beneficial for players to have a book that focuses more on either playing a lycanthrope, hunting lycanthropes, or some mixture of the two?

All IMHO, but I think it needs to be one or another. Blood of the Night, in addition to putting it in the wrong group, tried to do too much. Much of my complaint is that the dhampires got 3 pages, maybe two feats, and no spells or items. For a race that is steeped in historical lore at least as much as aasimar and tieflings are steeped in game world lore, it was disappointing. Even if we take out those three pages, it is still a schizophrenic book. Elves of Golarion didn't have a section on building elf killers, nor did Varisa have a section on "How to build a Mwangi character." 32 (or 64) pages isn't much, and when you lose two pages to a centrefold, that makes it worse.

A "Lycanthropes of Golarion" should focus on the fuzzies. Not on the killing of same. Maybe a "Slayers of Golarion for the Buffy wannabes."

I'd go with a focus on playing a lycanthrope. There's plenty of support already out there for hunting them, but in this evolutionary chain of the rules we've never really had a decidedly official means of playing lycanthropes (particularly in a mixed party).

...What do other readers think about Blood of the Night's focus on playing vampires/dhampirs versus hunting them? If we do Blood of the Moon, would it be more beneficial for players to have a book that focuses more on either playing a lycanthrope, hunting lycanthropes, or some mixture of the two?

The problem wasn't what it tried to do, but rather what it tried to do within the constraints of the format. If this were to be bumped into a different (higher pagecount) category, then by all means, give us both. If it's a choice of either or, I'd rather have a good book about hunting lycanthropes than a mediocre one about playing them.

Better then, to focus on hunting them and people with their blood (though I really dislike the thought of half-breed lycanthropes and would rather not have those, at all :P).

I liked this book a lot. I'll try and get a review of it up soon.

I'd love something that mixes elements of the ARG and a fleshed out Bestiary for the Monsterous races. Details about socities, different play styles for PC's and archtypes/prestige classes that match them.

A Vampire focused game requires far more depth and thought.

I'd like to take a second to focus on this topic. What do other readers think about Blood of the Night's focus on playing vampires/dhampirs versus hunting them? If we do Blood of the Moon, would it be more beneficial for players to have a book that focuses more on either playing a lycanthrope, hunting lycanthropes, or some mixture of the two?

If I were buying a book called Blood of the Moon I'd expect it to be about playing as Lycanthropes and their role/place within Golarion, with maybe a little bit about various regional remadies for lycanthrope. I wouldn't expect it to be about hunting lycanthropes.

I'd prefer to get the book about hunting lycanthropes personally as it seems like it would see more use at the table (perhaps as part of a serious of Player Companion books about hunting various types of monsters.

I'd prefer to get the book about hunting lycanthropes personally as it seems like it would see more use at the table (perhaps as part of a serious of Player Companion books about hunting various types of monsters.

Dragon Hunter's Handbook and Demon Hunter's Handbook are coming out in 2013 and the more I think about it, the more I would have prefered to have vampire hunting be a separate book in a Hunter's Handbook series of Player Companion books. The same with lycanthropes and other popular types of monsters.