. Discuss.It would be especially interesting for 1890's Earth campaigns since Dracula, Abraham von Helsing, and vampires played a large role in the old Masque of the Red Death (or "Ravenloft on Earth") campaign.
Isn't that the guy who plays the pan flute?
I think you mean Zamfir: Master of the Pan Flute.
Nice to see someone else on here was alive back then!
Ability Scores: Str/Cha +2
Size: Medium
Speed: 6 squares
Vision: Low-light
Languages: Common, choice of one other
Skill Bonuses: +2 Perception, +2 Stealth
Human Born: You can take feats that have human as prerequisite (as well as those specifically for Dhampyr) as long as you meet any other requirements.
Necrotic Resistance: You have necrotic resistance equal to 5+ one-half your level.
I'm excited.
So, oddly enough, they'll be good paladins.
Some how that fits...
Some how that fits...
more importantly, good Warlords as well.
Did someone say Vlad the Impaler?
No, I expect this to be one of two things: Either a "Playing Dhampyr" article, or a monster article about how to use dhampyr in a campaign. Either way, I wouldn't hold my breath on dhampyr appearing in Open Grave.
While I dislike ALOT of what Wizbro is doing with the magazines, having book-specific content in the magazines is good. Instead of having PC stuff awkwardly crammed into a DM book they release it online. So we get articles on dragonhunters close to the release of the Draconomicon and an article on half-vampires (likely playing them) close to the release of Open Grave.
It's a great frickin' idea.
It's the PC content.
While I dislike ALOT of what Wizbro is doing with the magazines, having book-specific content in the magazines is good. Instead of having PC stuff awkwardly crammed into a DM book they release it online. So we get articles on dragonhunters close to the release of the Draconomicon and an article on half-vampires (likely playing them) close to the release of Open Grave.
It's a great frickin' idea.
Along similar lines, the one major problem I have with the current magazines is I really wish that all of the "DM only" content would only appear in Dungeon, with all Player info being in Dragon. That way, I could just print out all the Dragon Magazines and create a Player's Handbook in binder form.
It's the PC content.
While I dislike ALOT of what Wizbro is doing with the magazines, having book-specific content in the magazines is good. Instead of having PC stuff awkwardly crammed into a DM book they release it online. So we get articles on dragonhunters close to the release of the Draconomicon and an article on half-vampires (likely playing them) close to the release of Open Grave.
It's a great frickin' idea.
That's what I was thinking. Though the more excerpts I see of Open Grave, the more I think there will be at least a bit of player content in it. I mean even Manual of the Planes had a whole chapter devoted to player content.
P.S - where exactly is this Canadia place your from?
P.S - where exactly is this Canadia place your from?
It's by Ingagistan
Someone suggested in another thread a "Multi-Class Only" Undead class... And if that is what Dhampyr is going to be... Well, I really like that idea!
That might be fun, so anyone can be a half-vampire.
Someone suggested in another thread a "Multi-Class Only" Undead class... And if that is what Dhampyr is going to be... Well, I really like that idea!
i dont, and here is why, what if your character is born that way, either a half vampire or born as a full vampire.
where does that make since
what if your character is born that way
Err... then you take the appropriate feat at first level.
However, I have been impressed with the majority of material put out by the crew doing 4e. I have hope that maybe they can make this horrible idea into an interesting and fun idea.
I really hate the idea of "half-vampires" and it feels like a 1E/3E era copout.
The idea predates 1E by at least a century.
A special set of feats would work better if Dhampyrs can be the offspring of a vampire and any humanoid woman. If only human women can birth Dhampyrs, then a race is best.
Special "multiclass" feats would be better for a different kind of undead. A kind of undead which any race can become after dying.
Or, it could be dealt with the same way the Spellscar rules were... You can take the multiclass feat at any time, but you must have decided to have a spellscar at first level, which gives you a trivial bonus & a trivial penalty.
If it's done up as a race, then you should be required at first level to decide who your non-vampire parent is for the purpose of which feats you can take (similar to the half-elf's ability to take human or elf feats).
Just sayin'.
The idea predates 1E by at least a century.
A special set of feats would work better if Dhampyrs can be the offspring of a vampire and any humanoid woman. If only human women can birth Dhampyrs, then a race is best.
Special "multiclass" feats would be better for a different kind of undead. A kind of undead which any race can become after dying.
I know the idea predates D&D, but I'm referring to putting it in as a PC race. They won't man up and let PCs play Orcs because 0RCZ R EVILL. So, they go ahead and come up with Half-Orcs. They won't let PCs play Vampires because VAMP!R3Z R EVILL. Therefore, they are going to use half-vampires.
I know the idea predates D&D, but I'm referring to putting it in as a PC race. They won't man up and let PCs play Orcs because 0RCZ R EVILL. So, they go ahead and come up with Half-Orcs. They won't let PCs play Vampires because VAMP!R3Z R EVILL. Therefore, they are going to use half-vampires.
I do not think this is a valid comparison, MOC.
While it is true that Orcs could be a viable PC race in 4e and that Half-Orcs were originally created as a lesser non-"evil" version of Orcs, Orcs being "Evil" is not why Half-Orcs are scheduled to appear as a PC race in 4e. If being Evil was a currently acceptable reason for a race to be unavailable to players Drow would not have a write up in the FRPG. The reason that Half-Orcs are a PC race instead of Orcs is predominately due to Half-Orcs having developed traction over several editions of Dungeons and Dragons.
This is not true for Vampires and Dhampyrs. As well as being evil, Vampires have several inherent qualities that make them impractical as balanced D&D PCs. Inherent regeneration, vulnerability to sunlight, an insubstantial flying mist form and the requirement to rest in a attuned location all make vampire lords an impractical basis for a PC race, on the other hand removing these abilities makes them less of what we think of as a vampire.
Hoping that its a full player race or a multiclass like spellscarred.
im pushing full race cause if its a spellscared MC then it won't be allowed in LFR games
I really hate the idea of "half-vampires" and it feels like a 1E/3E era copout. I also hate the idea of PCs being vampires barring a full blown evil PC/undead PC campaign.
However, I have been impressed with the majority of material put out by the crew doing 4e. I have hope that maybe they can make this horrible idea into an interesting and fun idea.
I would have agreed with you then I began reading a series of traditional fantasy books where the main characters are a damphir, a fey hound, and an Elven Assasin. The first is titled Damphir, I cannot remeber the name of the author. But the series is amazing.
I would have agreed with you then I began reading a series of traditional fantasy books where the main characters are a damphir, a fey hound, and an Elven Assasin. The first is titled Damphir, I cannot remeber the name of the author. But the series is amazing.
The series that you are referring to is the Saga of Noble Dead by Barb & J.C. Hendee.
The series that you are referring to is the Saga of Noble Dead by Barb & J.C. Hendee.
Yup thats the one, read every single book in it so far. I love their portrayal of vampires, damhpir, and even the mostly original take on Elves.
They where also supposed to be good vampire hunters, so the dhampyr could be focused on hunting undead. This could be in addition to to half=vampire thing, or in place of it.
I am still not impressed with all the monster races making it as playable races.
It can be a monster writeup with nothing to do with it being able to be used as a PC. Could even see a template etc with it.
I am still not impressed with all the monster races making it as playable races.
Minitour...Gnoll...Drow??/ is tha really tomanny?
It can be a monster writeup with nothing to do with it being able to be used as a PC. Could even see a template etc with it.
I am still not impressed with all the monster races making it as playable races.
Do you not like it when people have options when they're trying to make their character just right? If you don't like monster races, don't use them. Hell, if you don't like player races, don't use them. It's a shame, but I know I won't be playing with you, it's no bother to me.
I'm not really sure what I expect this article to be. I'm not sure why it'd be monster, if it were, why it'd take up a whole dragon article, or why it wouldn't have just been in Open Grave. Looks like a good opportunity to make vampire-like things playable in a reasonable sense.
I'm not really sure what I expect this article to be. I'm not sure why it'd be monster, if it were, why it'd take up a whole dragon article, or why it wouldn't have just been in Open Grave. Looks like a good opportunity to make vampire-like things playable in a reasonable sense.
There have been multiple Dragon articles already taken up entirely with monster stats and fluff.....actually that probably covers half of the ones with crunch. And for why it wouldn't be in Open Grave, the same reasons that weapon fighting styles weren't in Martial Power and the article on that one Domain of Dread wasn't in Manual of the Planes? Either the idea came up too late in development cycle or it is just too much information dedicated to a single topic to make it into a general book.
Not that I'm saying that it will be a monster article, but there is nothing that makes that any less likely than a player article at the moment.
I always like new options, mostly because players can choose not to take them, but still like to discuss ways to abuse them.
The Damphyr strikes me as a nod to those who enjoy a "Gothic" style of gameplay. However, as my group doesn't go for that style, I can't see any risk of a plague of Damphyr Paladins turning up to a game anytime soon.
So if the Damphyr article turns out to be a players race... that works for me... if it has a Paragon Class that favours "vampire/undead" style powers... that works for me too...
I can't see my group giving up on their higher level characters to play one, so it will probably just turn out to be an amusing diversion.
I guess what I was trying to say is that Dhampyr isn't a broad concept like ooze or golem. I'm not sure how a whole article could be filled with just monster stats for Dhampyr. It's an awfully specific race.
The same way that an article could be filled with just monster stats for kobolds or gnolls?
I can't wait to see how they handle it.
Do you not like it when people have options when they're trying to make their character just right? If you don't like monster races, don't use them. Hell, if you don't like player races, don't use them. It's a shame, but I know I won't be playing with you, it's no bother to me.
I'm not really sure what I expect this article to be. I'm not sure why it'd be monster, if it were, why it'd take up a whole dragon article, or why it wouldn't have just been in Open Grave. Looks like a good opportunity to make vampire-like things playable in a reasonable sense.
Options for Options sake does not always = a good thing
I would rather see them spend the time fleshing out and offering more options for the races they already have.
And I refer to it in more of the LFR campaign outlook since I dont play in any home brew campaigns.
Options for Options sake does not always = a good thing
I would rather see them spend the time fleshing out and offering more options for the races they already have.
And I refer to it in more of the LFR campaign outlook since I dont play in any home brew campaigns.
True, but following tradition for the sake of tradition isn't aways a good thing either. I happen to like the idea of giving monster races full racial write ups.
I'm hoping the Damphyr is a race.
True, but following tradition for the sake of tradition isn't aways a good thing either. I happen to like the idea of giving monster races full racial write ups.
I'm hoping the Damphyr is a race.
They can do a 4th edition "Savage Species" book and sell it to ya for $35 bucks. Just prefer to flesh out the existing before introducing more.
They can do a 4th edition "Savage Species" book and sell it to ya for $35 bucks. Just prefer to flesh out the existing before introducing more.
How much more fleshing out do the Eladrin, Elf, Human, Tiefling, Dragonborn, Dwarf, Halfling, etc need? They've already got numerous Feats and such attached to them. I hardly see this as an either/or proposition, as they're putting out a Dhampir doesn't really impact any of the existing races, so I find it hard to understand why you see it that way.
How much more fleshing out do the Eladrin, Elf, Human, Tiefling, Dragonborn, Dwarf, Halfling, etc need? They've already got numerous Feats and such attached to them. I hardly see this as an either/or proposition, as they're putting out a Dhampir doesn't really impact any of the existing races, so I find it hard to understand why you see it that way.
Its like I said previously anything that comes out in Dragon is automatically allowed in LFR currently. By placing these sort of things in a "Savage Species" type book lets the LFR people decide to not include the book. And dont judge a 3.0 version book to what they would do in a 4.0 book. There is nothing that says that they could not do monster write ups in a book just like they have done in the Dragon articles.
Let me point out, also, that you were complaining that the creation of a Dhampyr somehow takes away from their fleshing out existing races. If that's true, then wouldn't that be magnified a hundredfold if they were to shift resources to producing an entire supplement for monster races, rather than one measly Dragon article? So which would you rather have? Existing races getting shafted in order to produce material for dozens of monster races (Which, by the way, is no guarantee that they won't be playable in LFR. For all we know, such a book WOULD be allowed), or giving those races the attention they deserve by limiting the attention they put towards monster races to the occasional Dragon article and nothing more?
I can see your issue when it comes to Warforged, but Minotaurs and Gnolls exist in Forgotten Realms. Odds are Dhampyr's do, too. And seeing as how Drow are already a fully playable race... So I don't see the problem in having them be allowable PC races in LFR. Besides, if they let LFR dictate what races get released where, then they'd never publish anything. Or should the Goliath and Shifter be booted out of the PHB2 because they're not altogether appropriate Realms races?
Well at least those 2 races have been mentioned in a FR player resource. And something released in a book that comes out once a year is different than a magazine that can introduce 12 races a year. They can say this book or that is not authorized. If they tried to do it with the magazine they would have to create a list of each magazine or article from a magazine to not allow.
Let me point out, also, that you were complaining that the creation of a Dhampyr somehow takes away from their fleshing out existing races. If that's true, then wouldn't that be magnified a hundredfold if they were to shift resources to producing an entire supplement for monster races, rather than one measly Dragon article? So which would you rather have? Existing races getting shafted in order to produce material for dozens of monster races (Which, by the way, is no guarantee that they won't be playable in LFR. For all we know, such a book WOULD be allowed), or giving those races the attention they deserve by limiting the attention they put towards monster races to the occasional Dragon article and nothing more?
More than likely they are different writers that would work on the 2 items. And who knows what would be allowed because of WOTC's desire to be so open with everything.
Not to mention players run around and spend a lot of time killing these monsters then all of a sudden they are supposed to just accept them as party members and cooperate with them. All racial or regional enmities are supposed to just be forgotten.
As a real world example, try taking a member of Hamas and put him with an Israeli soldier, and force them to have to cooperate and work together because they have no other choice. Wouldnt work to well I can tell ya. And they are of the same race.
Kind of an extreme example but it should illustrate the point rather well.
Not to mention players run around and spend a lot of time killing these monsters then all of a sudden they are supposed to just accept them as party members and cooperate with them. All racial or regional enmities are supposed to just be forgotten.
As a real world example, try taking a member of Hamas and put him with an Israeli soldier, and force them to have to cooperate and work together because they have no other choice. Wouldnt work to well I can tell ya. And they are of the same race.
Kind of an extreme example but it should illustrate the point rather well.
Ok...so then what we have is LFR players walking around at cons saying "What type of group do you have?" and then decideing what to play...In real life prejudice is hard to deal with...I don't want to deal with it in a game...and lets look here at the basic races...Teiflings...Gensis...Drow...yea they all get allong well???
So should I not be able to play my drow rogue in the game with your elf wizard becuse in the game the two should not get along???
Should my Teifling infernal lock not be able to play with your human paliden???
if we let this mentality start now:
Not to mention players run around and spend a lot of time killing these monsters then all of a sudden they are supposed to just accept them as party members and cooperate with them. All racial or regional enmities are supposed to just be forgotten.
where does it end???
in a home brew game you can start at level 1 and get to know your team...in LFR that is not always the case..
Ok...so then what we have is LFR players walking around at cons saying "What type of group do you have?" and then decideing what to play...In real life prejudice is hard to deal with...I don't want to deal with it in a game...and lets look here at the basic races...Teiflings...Gensis...Drow...yea they all get allong well???
So should I not be able to play my drow rogue in the game with your elf wizard becuse in the game the two should not get along???
Should my Teifling infernal lock not be able to play with your human paliden???
if we let this mentality start now:
where does it end???
in a home brew game you can start at level 1 and get to know your team...in LFR that is not always the case..
Lol. Yeah dnd can have some wierd parties. I have no problem with Damphyir as a race there is enough of a tradition of them to support it. Google Romani vampire myths and you will find a lot. I cant wait to see how WOTC envisions them.
For instance, if it turns out like somebody had speculated that they would have the necrotic resistance. You could play it that your character has been touched by a dark god in some way, your quest could revolve around purifying your soul, or exploring the dark power you were given. No need to actually make it a stupid Dhampyr, just reflavour it to what you want.
Don't know why some people have such a problem reflavouring things. My current character is spellscarred but he isn't ACTUALLY spellscarred, it's the symptoms of his change into a fledgling primordial and once he is changed into that (essentially a new character) I'll use the Genasi template for him instead of the current template I am using.
See what I mean? Just because the race is Dhampyr doesn't mean you have to play it as one.
For those who mostly DM (including me) the fear is that players will all turn up with Damphyr characters, this will mean many DMs will need to alter their campaign worlds or at the very least take into account the history, influence, goals and idiosycracies of yet another race.
In reality it is unlikely to happen, one player will perhaps decide to play one, but only after the concept has been discussed for a few sessions, giving time to adjust.
For those who are mostly players, the Damphyr is "shiney and new" which means they will want to generate Damphyr characters and spend a bit of time min/maxing and stretching the rules to see how far such a character might go. Then cart it off to the next game session where they will try to get the DM to let them play the character (or in LFR... demand it as it will be "game legal").
In reality few will pursue this path to its conclusion, the Damphyr will soon become "old hat" and if such a race does prove to be "broken", it will soon get an errata to bring it back into line, when this happens most "power-gamers" drop the character (after a lot of whining and gnashing of teeth).
The main limiter to Damphyr in ongoing campaigns is existing characters. They will be of a higher level (or perhaps simply more developed) and few players will abandon such a character in favour of "the latest model"... just because it is new.
So while we speculate on whether the Damphyr is a PC race or simply a monster entry... keep in mind the Spiker (Manual of the Planes)... the who?
Exactly! :P
So while we speculate on whether the Damphyr is a PC race or simply a monster entry... keep in mind the Spiker (Manual of the Planes)... the who?
Exactly! :P
(Psst! We're talking about the 4E Manual of the Planes, right? Then I think you meant Bladelings, bro!
...Yeah, I know. I can't tell them apart either.)
(Psst! We're talking about the 4E Manual of the Planes, right? Then I think you meant Bladelings, bro!
...Yeah, I know. I can't tell them apart either.)
Lol... see!!!
They made such a huge campaign impact I can't even get their name right! :D
Roll on the Damphyr... the Bladeling is getting lonely!
Just on a secondary note. As a DM, I had a huge influx of Minotaur characters when that race was published in Dragon... however, when I pointed out that they no longer had the MM ability to wield oversized weapons... suddenly all but one Minotaur character went away!
I have also yet to see a Gnoll character brought to the table.
This is the reason I don't mind if the Damphyr is a PC race, if history is anything to go by, the Damphyr will become a curiosity rather than a staple of my LFR games.
I'd make every player who wanted to roll one make a hunger check if they spilled another creaturs blood.
If anyone needs a "gothic" style character in the realms then just roll a Shadar-kai......we really don't need this half-undead stuff.........(how is something half-undead anyway?)
I'd make every player who wanted to roll one make a hunger check if they spilled another creaturs blood.
According to the "stuff" I could find on Damphyr, they are 100% alive.
However, the circumstances of their birth (best left to the imagination) affords them some resistance to the powers of the undead... and Vampires in particular... their universal ability seems to be that they are able to detect those undead who disguise themselves as human (or other) beings.
So rather than being Vampires themselves, they seldom display any vampiric traits other than occasionally some minor physical features (sharp incisors for example) and an aversion to sunlight, they are far better suited to being Vampire Hunters.
In fact, their big theme seems to be that they do not want to be Vampires, but instead hate them and hunt them wherever possible.
However, I wouldn't be surprised if a D&D PC race was nothing like this, but instead a race of "wanna-be vampires", with pointy teeth, who dress in black a lot...
Well at least those 2 races have been mentioned in a FR player resource. And something released in a book that comes out once a year is different than a magazine that can introduce 12 races a year. They can say this book or that is not authorized. If they tried to do it with the magazine they would have to create a list of each magazine or article from a magazine to not allow.
The existence of the Dhampyr can be safely assumed, as we know for a fact that vampires exist in Faerun. Where exist vampires, so too exist Dhampyrs.
And I think you're vastly underestimating the number of playable PC races that would have to be in a Savage Species book for it to work. Odds are, it'd be a LOT more than 12. There's no way 12 would be enough to justify an entire hardcover book (especially since the idea is for it to be a player resource, so it really wouldn't have monster statblocks or anything of the sort). You can pack it full of Feats, Paragon Paths, Multiclass-Only Classes, Epic Destinies, etc, but there'd have to be a lot more playable races to make such a book work. Far more than Dragon could possibly publish in a year (and I very much doubt Dragon will ever publish 12 races in a year).
As for what it or isn't allowed, it isn't terribly complicated to handle.
"Warforged are not a playable race."
Done. If they can't put that into the campaign guidelines, then I think it's a stretch to say that a Savage Species book would be ruled out.
More than likely they are different writers that would work on the 2 items. And who knows what would be allowed because of WOTC's desire to be so open with everything.
So this one Dhampyr article is somehow detracting from coverage that should be provided for existing races, but an entire supplement dedicated to monster races as PC races would be, what, outsourced to other people and wouldn't actually have any of the regular development team working on it? That doesn't make a lick of sense.
Not to mention players run around and spend a lot of time killing these monsters then all of a sudden they are supposed to just accept them as party members and cooperate with them. All racial or regional enmities are supposed to just be forgotten.
As others have pointed out, that's already the case. Your PC's are already being asked to accept a member of one of the vilest, most evil races on the face of Faerun, the Drow. A minotaur or gnoll is nothing by comparison. And with the appropriate campaign card, you can play an Orc, too. Add to that the Tiefling and the bad rep that Half-Orcs have always had...
Pretty much = all oppositiion to the Dhampyr race.
I suggest these people go read the Saying Yes Article.
Guess what it's not acceptable for -your- game. If it's not broken, (one way or another) why be opposed to it?
Hell you like Drow enough. And that is by far evil beyond compare race wise. When you make beings that eat other sentient beings look vanilla (gnolls). Your race is EVIL.
I'm sorry if Drow, and the other monstrous races get pc write ups, why not a race that has -more- mythological basis (who are generally also opposed to evil versus BEING IT) than orcs, (who have a write up) OUTSIDE D&D...
Oh wait.. figured it out... You don't want new things coming into the fold...
We don't need incest and stagnation.
some people like Gothic Fantasy, introducing ways to incorporate it would do well for Wotc. (and no, I'm not talking wearing black, make up wearing emo freaks. Oh look I just described the Shadar Kai race as well as a demographic of people).
Just because "OH NOEZZZ IT"S NOT TRADITION" doesn't give you the right to say no for the rest of us.
D&D is more than traditional Tolkeinian and Gygaxian Fantasy. Get over it already.
Blade
Vampire Hunter D
Alucard (from Symphony of the Night, easily the best Castlevania game)
Conor from Angel (not exactly, but superpowered humanish vampire scion)
Dante from Devil May Cry (I know he's not a vampire scion, but close enough, and certainly fits the image).
Plus, Dhampyr seems iconic for avenger, assuming avenger turns out to be the magically charged monster hunter of the Van Helsing variety that I'm assuming it will be.
Dhampyr has more than enough pop-culture traction to be a good PC race. A lot more than minotaur and gnoll, certainly.
Blade
Vampire Hunter D
Alucard (from Symphony of the Night, easily the best Castlevania game)
Conor from Angel (not exactly, but superpowered humanish vampire scion)
Dante from Devil May Cry (I know he's not a vampire scion, but close enough, and certainly fits the image).
Plus, Dhampyr seems iconic for avenger, assuming avenger turns out to be the magically charged monster hunter of the Van Helsing variety that I'm assuming it will be.
Ooh that is a good idea. If you go to fantasy literature and older myths there are even more of them.
"But it's not in traditional D&D WAA WAA WAA"
Pretty much = all oppositiion to the Dhampyr race.
I suggest these people go read the Saying Yes Article.
Guess what it's not acceptable for -your- game. If it's not broken, (one way or another) why be opposed to it?
Hell you like Drow enough. And that is by far evil beyond compare race wise. When you make beings that eat other sentient beings look vanilla (gnolls). Your race is EVIL.
I'm sorry if Drow, and the other monstrous races get pc write ups, why not a race that has -more- mythological basis (who are generally also opposed to evil versus BEING IT) than orcs, (who have a write up) OUTSIDE D&D...
Oh wait.. figured it out... You don't want new things coming into the fold...
We don't need incest and stagnation.
some people like Gothic Fantasy, introducing ways to incorporate it would do well for Wotc. (and no, I'm not talking wearing black, make up wearing emo freaks. Oh look I just described the Shadar Kai race as well as a demographic of people).
Just because "OH NOEZZZ IT"S NOT TRADITION" doesn't give you the right to say no for the rest of us.
D&D is more than traditional Tolkeinian and Gygaxian Fantasy. Get over it already.
This.
"But it's not in traditional D&D WAA WAA WAA"
Pretty much = all oppositiion to the Dhampyr race.
Actually my oppisition is that I am a binary person. I don't like quantum things. To me you can't be a half-vampire because it just doesn't make any sense. Either you are alive(11), dead(00), an undead spirit(10), or an undead body(01). I don't like the idea of being in an (1/sqrt(2))|01>+(1/sqrt(2))|11> state when it comes to being living. That just doesn't make any sense to me....plus I prefer my vampires to be unable to procreate normally. Because you know they lack a pulse and therefore....ummm yeah.*cough*
Anyways I'll just be in the corner over here crying as my brain implodes from the realization I'll never escape my quantum computing class.
Actually my oppisition is that I am a binary person. I don't like quantum things. To me you can't be a half-vampire because it just doesn't make any sense. Either you are alive(11), dead(00), an undead spirit(10), or an undead body(01). I don't like the idea of being in an (1/sqrt(2))|01>+(1/sqrt(2))|11> state when it comes to being living. That just doesn't make any sense to me....
Wow, R.
:nerd : :P
Wow, R.
:nerd : :P
Oh shush you. :P I'm a Computer Engineering major, and two of my friends last year said "Let's take Quantum Computing next semester, it will be fun." I foolishly listened to them and one semester later I made it out suffering the least pain of the three of us. However I developed a complete hatred of quantum states, like the Dhampyr, in the process.
Oh shush you. :P I'm a Computer Engineering major, and two of my friends last year said "Let's take Quantum Computing next semester, it will be fun." I foolishly listened to them and one semester later I made it out suffering the least pain of the three of us. However I developed a complete hatred of quantum states, like the Dhampyr, in the process.
"Let's take Quantum Computing next semester, it will be fun."
Famous last words, apparently. :P
Actually my oppisition is that I am a binary person. I don't like quantum things. To me you can't be a half-vampire because it just doesn't make any sense. Either you are alive(11), dead(00), an undead spirit(10), or an undead body(01). I don't like the idea of being in an (1/sqrt(2))|01>+(1/sqrt(2))|11> state when it comes to being living. That just doesn't make any sense to me....plus I prefer my vampires to be unable to procreate normally. Because you know they lack a pulse and therefore....ummm yeah.*cough*
Anyways I'll just be in the corner over here crying as my brain implodes from the realization I'll never escape my quantum computing class.
Think of Vampires in this perspective then, to become a true vampire, you have to be one born as a "living vampire" which you get most of the perks of being a vampire and none of the downsides with. When you die you become a full fledged vampire. The other method is a Ritual (seriously it is which makes sense given so many myths say things like "It takes three days to become a vampire") which you die and are converted. Perhaps in the interim, should you get it on with someone it carries somewhat over to the child.
You just do your breeding when you're alive.
Any kids you might have, are Dhampyrs.
Reminds of the Hollows series by Kim Harrison. I like it.
Thats what I was thinking as well. Ooh that would make an interesting setting for a modern game. If they release a new version of modern I will work on a setting for the hollows.
However, seeing as I'm creating the character, a warlock, with Dracula as an ispiration, Dhampyr will possibly work better than Shadar-Kai.
...and so it begins...
Think of Vampires in this perspective then, to become a true vampire, you have to be one born as a "living vampire" which you get most of the perks of being a vampire and none of the downsides with. When you die you become a full fledged vampire. The other method is a Ritual (seriously it is which makes sense given so many myths say things like "It takes three days to become a vampire") which you die and are converted. Perhaps in the interim, should you get it on with someone it carries somewhat over to the child.
You just do your breeding when you're alive.
Any kids you might have, are Dhampyrs.
That actually is how many mythos present them. When a vamp is still fresh, they're often not quite undead yet.
...and so it begins...
Like I said, I was creating the guy a while before news of this came out, in October in fact. Also, he's mostly in jest, I don't know how to make characters who aren't. I got the idea when somebody pointed out that Dark Pact captures a lot of appropriate flavour and Fey can help pull off the 'turning into mist' part of the myth. Actually race makes up very little of what I've got going here, I'm just figuring that this new race might just put me further down the road he's going.
Like I said, I was creating the guy a while before news of this came out, in October in fact. Also, he's mostly in jest, I don't know how to make characters who aren't. I got the idea when somebody pointed out that Dark Pact captures a lot of appropriate flavour and Fey can help pull off the 'turning into mist' part of the myth. Actually race makes up very little of what I've got going here, I'm just figuring that this new race might just put me further down the road he's going.
Don't get me wrong... it's not an attack on you personally... more the begining of my fears for a Damphyr PC race.
If you read my post above (and D&D writers stick close to the mytholoigcal Damphyr origin/abilites), Damphyr are likely to be "anti-undead", having powers that allow them to combat these monsters (being able to sense undead and a spot of necrotic resistance), rather than emulate them.
I fear that the merest mention of "vampire"... halfbreed or not... brings visions of Anne Rice's effette, mauldin monstrosities bubbling to the surface and immediately certain players break out their Masquerade getups and trot off to my D&D game!
I have no problem with people who like/love vampires... they even have an RPG just for it... but I do get uncomfortable with that style of "latent sexual" gaming, especially at an open LFR table (which are the games I run), where there might be kids playing.
However I also get agitated with the "I am a [half] Vampire... I vant to bite your neck... blah!" type of [wanna-be] vampire character... the type who desparately wants to play an evil character and thinks this is a "backdoor" route to getting away with it.
So forgive me if I sound negative when it comes to a race of Half-Vampires, because while I can account for a new race in my games, I cannot account for new players... except to say that they always dissapoint when it comes to things like this.
roll 2d10 per attribute instead of 3d6
+1 str -1con
light sensitive (as per drow)
a thirst for blood
A d6 claw attack
and you counted as human for duel classing
then they had a chart to roll on...it gave eaithe ra blessing or a curse...
Yeah, not a fan of Anne Rice, born again anything or not, and hope this isn't some V:tM cross-over race. I agree that a true to myth Dhampyr would be awesome and fun for a vampire hunter character, I just don't think it's likely to happen. I was just posting that I thought Half-Vampire wasn't necessary, yet have a character who could use it, and might as well now that it looks like it's coming.
I just hope that any player who creates a "wanna-be vampire" character, for my games, doesn't get the hump when an overzealous Vampire hunter hammers a sharp stick through their chest... just in case...
Hey... if you wanna be a vampire... you gotta take the rough with the smooth right? ;)
Actually my oppisition is that I am a binary person. I don't like quantum things. To me you can't be a half-vampire because it just doesn't make any sense. Either you are alive(11), dead(00), an undead spirit(10), or an undead body(01). I don't like the idea of being in an (1/sqrt(2))|01>+(1/sqrt(2))|11> state when it comes to being living. That just doesn't make any sense to me....plus I prefer my vampires to be unable to procreate normally. Because you know they lack a pulse and therefore....ummm yeah.*cough*
How about a (10) in an (11) body? Why is that an issue?
How about a (10) in an (11) body? Why is that an issue?
Because that is impossible without doing the whole quantum state thing. The first digit represents whether you have a soul and the second digit represents having a physical body. Technically there should be a third quibit representing the mind also, but I didn't see a need for that since it had no impact on the discussion.
So anyways you can't have a 10 in a 11 body because that would make it into a 11 by the very presence of a body, at which point it is no longer undead. The only way to have a 10 and 11 at the same time would be through a quantum state.....although it would be a half ghost and not a half vampire, which makes my head feel like exploding a bit more than a half vampire as I'm not even sure how you would begin to explain that one in any way.
I like the Idea. It also makes sense on a business level. Vampires are ridiculously popular, it will sell books and bring people to the game. I will guess that we will also see an undead/lesser lich/wow type undead race as well, real soon.
If I see a zombie or a true undead it dies. Damphyir Ill take as they are half vampire and in traditional mythos driven to destroy true undead. The Noble Dead saga takes that route.
Because that is impossible without doing the whole quantum state thing. The first digit represents whether you have a soul and the second digit represents having a physical body. Technically there should be a third quibit representing the mind also, but I didn't see a need for that since it had no impact on the discussion.
So anyways you can't have a 10 in a 11 body because that would make it into a 11 by the very presence of a body, at which point it is no longer undead. The only way to have a 10 and 11 at the same time would be through a quantum state.....although it would be a half ghost and not a half vampire, which makes my head feel like exploding a bit more than a half vampire as I'm not even sure how you would begin to explain that one in any way.
Well mostly I meant an undead soul (such as that of a Vampire, as they can be raised, have minds, and ones not in dominance to their creator are completely free willed.) in a living body.
It's not really a hard thing for my mind to cope with, living body, soul of a diet restricted creature.
It's like...the body developed is that of a base race, human, elf, whatever. Then the blood of the vampire (since their body dies, but they have blood, it's not too far to assume they'd replace other fluids with corrupted blood, too) infuses the baby with vampiric powers, but the body never dies, because each day it's still receiving nutrients from its mother, growing and being nurtured and such.
Magic ftw?
I hate it when people try and colonize my tastes empirically by claiming something I like has no place in D&D games. You don't like vampires running around in your fantasy? Neat, don't allow them. I, on the other hand, do. I especially like stuff like this in Ravenloft inspired games. So, please, to people who hate the concept, don't preach your hate in a manner that suggests that nobody else should get a chance to enjoy the concept in their games.
I'm certainly not trying to tell you what to like or play. Simply stating my own tastes and fears for a PC Damphyr race.
As a GM who runs Living Realms games, if the Damphyr (in Dragon) is a PC race I have no choice, but to allow it in and make changes accordingly. That is an immutable fact, so there is no point in complaining about it.
However, Living games also specify that making Evil characters is not allowed. How many "wanna-be Vampire" characters are going to be taking this type of character in an attempt to be "evil by the back door"... a good portion I imagine...
I had the same problem with Orcs and Minotaurs (haven't had a Gnoll yet)... the "that's what I would do... I'm an Orc" excuse, when the player starts causing mayhem or doing offensive things.
If the character is well rounded and played with conviction, I fully support the players choice. If they choose it "cos vampires is cool and I'll get to bite people" then it is not.
I hate it when people try and colonize my tastes empirically by claiming something I like has no place in D&D games. You don't like vampires running around in your fantasy? Neat, don't allow them. I, on the other hand, do. I especially like stuff like this in Ravenloft inspired games. So, please, to people who hate the concept, don't preach your hate in a manner that suggests that nobody else should get a chance to enjoy the concept in their games.
I hope that's not how my post came across. I won't say something has no place in your game, even if I feel it has no place in mine. That's the beauty of a P&P RPG: it can be whatever each user or group wants it to be. In fact, I think that it's objectively a good idea to make a Dhampir PC race, even though I would never play one or allow one in my home game. I just don't want to see it become part of Eberron canon (which is a risk I take seriously, considering the importance of vampires and other intelligent undead in the setting).
Well mostly I meant an undead soul (such as that of a Vampire, as they can be raised, have minds, and ones not in dominance to their creator are completely free willed.) in a living body.
It's not really a hard thing for my mind to cope with, living body, soul of a diet restricted creature.
It's like...the body developed is that of a base race, human, elf, whatever. Then the blood of the vampire (since their body dies, but they have blood, it's not too far to assume they'd replace other fluids with corrupted blood, too) infuses the baby with vampiric powers, but the body never dies, because each day it's still receiving nutrients from its mother, growing and being nurtured and such.
Magic ftw?
But in 4ed vampires don't(or at least shouldn't based on my understanding of undead) have souls by the default fluff.
In 4ed there are three components to every living creature. The physical body, the soul, and the mind. The body is what allows physical interaction. The soul is what allows the body to move and the mind is where one's personality comes from. The two types of undead are created from the lack of one of these. When there is no physical body but the soul remains then you get an incorpreal undead. For physical undead what happens is that the soul is replaced with the raw energy of the Shadowfell to allow the body to move. In the cases of Liches and Vampires, the mind remains. However their soul is still replaced by raw shadow stuff, if that replacement did not take place then they aren't exactly undead.
So a vampire's "soul" would simply be raw shadow stuff. If you were to place that into a physical body then the body would simply become undead also, although perhaps a different kind of undead.
Now with this theory of undead, which I believe is in Worlds and Monsters, I just don't see anyway for there to be a "half-undead". If we assume that the vampire's physical body remains fully functional(although I'm not a fan of that idea, but meh) then there shouldn't be any undead traits passed on to the offspring since the undead nature isn't physical in orgin. If somehow the offspring's body were to contain both a soul and raw shadow stuff(although I've got no ideas as to how that would originate) then it should create more of a were-vampire as his physical state would depend on which of the two was in control of his body.
If I remember correctly, Vampires and Liches are two of the very few types of undead that have all 4 essences, unlike living creatures they have modified one or more of these. Liches have used a ritual that detached and safeguards their souls, and a Vampire's body and anima have been modified so that they only require blood to survive.
That being said, players can play Orcs in living Forgotten Realms!? I don't remember an Orc DDi article! Did I miss something!?
Ranadiel: Vampires DO have souls in 4e. Please see the Open Grave preview article found here: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20081215 . The specific paragraph of importance is this one:
Undead with Souls: In vivid contrast, the few kinds of undead that retain their souls, such as death knights, liches, mummies, and vampires, are intelligent beings that retain all the passions and mental complexities they possessed in life. These creatures are dangerous and cunning foes, and on rare occasions even more dangerous allies.
Some are driven by desires that approach the intensity of the soulless undead’s need to kill, but these desires do not utterly control their behavior. For instance, although vampires hunger for the blood of the living, this hunger is not the center of their existence. For many, it is simply a need that must be met, and they continue to focus their attention on many of the same passions they had when alive.
Because their undead state eliminates many of the distractions of life, both positive and negative, undead that retain souls can be exceptionally careful and patient planners.
So, I see nothing wrong with a living body that has the essence or soul of a vampire... a dhampire if you will.
That being said, players can play Orcs in living Forgotten Realms!? I don't remember an Orc DDi article! Did I miss something!?
Not quite. There're reward cards that let you play a Gnome, Shadar-Kai, or Orc using the stats out of the back off the Monster Manual. So orcs are available, but only through the use of a special reward card.
Pint Glass/Ramses: Fair enough. I misread your original posts a bit (as you two saying you don't want them to exist as a player option at all so that you would not have to deal with saying no to players in your games).
That being said, players can play Orcs in living Forgotten Realms!? I don't remember an Orc DDi article! Did I miss something!?
Ranadiel: Vampires DO have souls in 4e. Please see the Open Grave preview article found here: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20081215 . The specific paragraph of importance is this one:
So, I see nothing wrong with a living body that has the essence or soul of a vampire... a dhampire if you will.
I have not said I don't want them to be a player race, I just fear that they will be kidnapped by players who want to be "evil cos I is a vampire", thereby spoiling the race for DMs and those players who might find it an interesting alternative race.
Orcs are available in LFR through a reward card from RPGA.
As for how Damphyr are made... I'm sure it will be addressed in the article... frankly I really ain't concerned with the how, the fluff is the fluff.
I'm more worried about the likely suspects in my gaming pool, who will try to abuse a PC Damphyr race, because they can manipulate the fluff to try to make a character who is "evil-by-proxy".
Isn't that a really good reason why they SHOULD become Eberron canon?
I think the fact that some of us have expressed an objection to undead being able to procreate is a considerable reason why they should not. I don't know if this is a widely-held opinion, but it is definitely a factor that should be considered, since it would have far reaching effects on, for instance, the politics of Karrnath.
Now, if its fluff is changed -- if it is, in fact, not actually the natural child of a vampire and a human -- then hey, knock yourself out, put them in everything.
I have not said I don't want them to be a player race, I just fear that they will be kidnapped by players who want to be "evil cos I is a vampire", thereby spoiling the race for DMs and those players who might find it an interesting alternative race.
Orcs are available in LFR through a reward card from RPGA.
As for how Damphyr are made... I'm sure it will be addressed in the article... frankly I really ain't concerned with the how, the fluff is the fluff.
I'm more worried about the likely suspects in my gaming pool, who will try to abuse a PC Damphyr race, because they can manipulate the fluff to try to make a character who is "evil-by-proxy".
Sounds like the issue is someone playing say, an orc, and playing him like a run-of-the-mill Monster Manual orc. In other words, playing them more like how they are in the background. So in that case, the racial background is working against you.
In the case of the Dhampyr, however, if they stick to the myths about them being ardent vampire hunters, then those players won't have any cheesy excuses to fall back on. So unless the article portrays them in the same light as orcs, minotaurs, and gnolls in the Monster Manual, you'll be able to come down on them. We'll see how it turns out, but if the article portrays Dhampyr's as traditionally heroic, then they can't really use playing one as an excuse to act villainous the way they do when playing an orc or minotaur.
Ranadiel, there is a 4th element to creatures, Anima, that is the animating force. Zombies, skeletons and (most) constructs do not have souls, but still move do to having anima.
If I remember correctly, Vampires and Liches are two of the very few types of undead that have all 4 essences, unlike living creatures they have modified one or more of these. Liches have used a ritual that detached and safeguards their souls, and a Vampire's body and anima have been modified so that they only require blood to survive.
Wait I thought the anima was the soul.....bleh I need to look this up later.
-=Edit: Bleh. I was remembering everything but the names right.
In my previous posts whenever I said soul I meant animus and whenever I said mind I meant soul. So my basic point stands....I just did a poor job of explaining it.=-Wait I thought the anima was the soul.....bleh I need to look this up later.
-=Edit: Bleh. I was remembering everything but the names right.
Try thinking of anima as simular to blood. Every creature has anima as well as an anima type. Most humans have anima type NN, but some individuals have had the anima equivalent of a bone marrow transplant (the vampiric transformation ritual) and now have anima type SS. When these humans with SS type anima (vampires) mate with normal humans with type NN anima you end up with a person with type NS anima (Dhampyrs).
Try thinking of anima as simular to blood. Every creature has anima as well as an anima type. Most humans have anima type NN, but some individuals have had the anima equivalent of a bone marrow transplant (the vampiric transformation ritual) and now have anima type SS. When these humans with SS type anima (vampires) mate with normal humans with type NN anima you end up with a person with type NS anima (Dhampyrs).
.....That should still make them "were-vampires" though.:P
Wait I thought the anima was the soul.....bleh I need to look this up later.
-=Edit: Bleh. I was remembering everything but the names right.
I am not sure how your point still stands. Please see my above post (number 91). Vampires, in 4e, have souls (as per Open Grave). So, what is wrong with a living body that contains the soul of a vampire?
.....That should still make them "were-vampires" though.:P
How so? "Were-" implies shifting between two states. This implies that the two states are mixed. A Dhamypr has anima that is both natural and shadow at the same time.
I am not sure how your point still stands. Please see my above post (number 91). Vampires, in 4e, have souls (as per Open Grave). So, what is wrong with a living body that contains the soul of a vampire?
It is a living being because there is no difference between a vampire soul and a non-vampiric soul? The difference is in the animus.
How so? "Were-" implies shifting between two states. This implies that the two states are mixed. A Dhamypr has anima that is both natural and shadow at the same time.
I guess I just don't see the natural animus and the shadow animus mixing together. I see the two of them as being in constant conflict to be the driving force assuming they are there. I suppose that one could take the stance that they could coexist in harmony, but that just seems off to me. *shrugs*
I guess I just don't see the natural animus and the shadow animus mixing together. I see the two of them as being in constant conflict to be the driving force assuming they are there. I suppose that one could take the stance that they could coexist in harmony, but that just seems off to me. *shrugs*
Many things that seem counter intuitive, such as this, work out quite well. For instance, Tigers and Lions can breed together, creating a whole new creature of pure awesomeness. Not...a species, however, Liger males are sterile...but still, they're awesome.
Many things that seem counter intuitive, such as this, work out quite well. For instance, Tigers and Lions can breed together, creating a whole new creature of pure awesomeness. Not...a species, however, Liger males are sterile...but still, they're awesome.
Yeah but that is genetics. Genetics makes sense as it is just an extremely long binary sequence expressed in a non-binary format. We're talking about quantum undead here. :P
Yeah but that is genetics. Genetics makes sense as it is just an extremely long binary sequence expressed in a non-binary format. We're talking about quantum undead here. :P
Why are we talking quantum undead? Perhaps we are talking magenetics... specifically an extremely long binary sequence expressed in a non-binary format, which happens to quantify the exact pattern of animus that makes a creature what it is.
Yeah but that is genetics. Genetics makes sense as it is just an extremely long binary sequence expressed in a non-binary format. We're talking about quantum undead here. :P
Actually DNA is an extremely long quantum+ sequence expressed in a quaternary form (GATC). While some parts are determined by binary data (human sex is determined by the checking if one of 23rd chromosome pair has is a Y) most of it is done by checking certain for combinations and patterns of Guanine, Cytosine, Adenine and Thymine in certain places.
ABO Blood types are a good example of genetics not being binary. There are 2 chromosomes, 3 genetic possibilities (A, B, O), 9 possible inheritable combinations (AA, AB, AO, BA, BB, BO, OA, OB, OO), 6 ABO genotypes (AA, BB, OO, AB, AO, BO,) and 4 penotypes (A, B, AB, O).
O is untainted by A or B type antibodies, and reacts to them. Recessive Base.
A is tainted by A type antibodies, and does not react to them. Dominate over O.
B is tainted by B type antibodies, and does not react to them. Dominate over O.
a Gene will act unless a gene Dominate over them overrules it.
It is possible for a children of AO and BO parents to have the following blood types and be able to share blood with other siblings in the following ways:
OO - can give blood to all siblings; can only except blood from other OO siblings
AO - can give blood to AB and AO siblings; can except blood from OO and other AO siblings.
OB - can give blood to AB and OB siblings; can except blood from OO and other OB siblings.
Ab - can give blood only to other AB siblings; can except blood from all siblings
Do you guys ever wonder if you're thinking too much about this? :P
How did this thread become gentics 202 and quantum science 101...
and I am NOT getting college credit for this???
or was it theory work??
Many things that seem counter intuitive, such as this, work out quite well. For instance, Tigers and Lions can breed together, creating a whole new creature of pure awesomeness. Not...a species, however, Liger males are sterile...but still, they're awesome.
They're bred for their magical powers.
Actually DNA is an extremely long quantum+ sequence expressed in a quaternary form (GATC). While some parts are determined by binary data (human sex is determined by the checking if one of 23rd chromosome pair has is a Y) most of it is done by checking certain for combinations and patterns of Guanine, Cytosine, Adenine and Thymine in certain places.
ABO Blood types are a good example of genetics not being binary. There are 2 chromosomes, 3 genetic possibilities (A, B, O), 9 possible inheritable combinations (AA, AB, AO, BA, BB, BO, OA, OB, OO), 6 ABO genotypes (AA, BB, OO, AB, AO, BO,) and 4 penotypes (A, B, AB, O).
O is untainted by A or B type antibodies, and reacts to them. Recessive Base.
A is tainted by A type antibodies, and does not react to them. Dominate over O.
B is tainted by B type antibodies, and does not react to them. Dominate over O.
a Gene will act unless a gene Dominate over them overrules it.
It is possible for a children of AO and BO parents to have the following blood types and be able to share blood with other siblings in the following ways:
OO - can give blood to all siblings; can only except blood from other OO siblings
AO - can give blood to AB and AO siblings; can except blood from OO and other AO siblings.
OB - can give blood to AB and OB siblings; can except blood from OO and other OB siblings.
Ab - can give blood only to other AB siblings; can except blood from all siblings
It is still binary at the most basic level though, which you even mentioned. If you were to break it down into G, C, A, and T you could express the entire blood type into an obscenely long binary chain with something like G=00, C=01, A=10, and T=11. Or to do it another way, you could break thr blood types down into 4-bit binary numbers(you could probably break it down into 3 bit binary numbers, but that would make it a pain to handle offspring). So that:
OO=00 00
AO=00 01 or 01 00
BO=00 10 or 10 00
AB=01 10 or 10 01
Do you guys ever wonder if you're thinking too much about this? :P
But that would decrease my ability to ponder the idea of quantum undead.:P
Most of what Ranadial is objecting about the Dhamypr is based around a philosophical question, "Is a Dhamypr living or undead?" a question that binary logic (true, false) cannot answer and is trying to use a somewhat faulty understanding of genetics to disprove the plausibility of the state in order to avoid trying to answer the question using quantum logic(yes, no, maybe). What I was doing was explaining that genetic logic has no problem with the plausibility of Dhampyrs.
But vampirism isn't based in genetics, it is based on the state of the animus, which shouldn't be transferred via reproduction......how did we get on genetics again? I can't imagine that I was the one who brought it up.
The problem with applying binary logic to the undead is that you're already in a quantum state. The whole point of the undead is that they, by the very nature, are neither dead nor alive.
I can express undead in a non-quantum state though. I just need more than one bit. To perfectly precise I need three bits. The first bit represents moving body. The second bit represents a natural animus. The third bit represents a soul.
000=dead
111=alive
100=mindless undead
010=mindless "spirit"
001=departed soul
110=living animal
101=intellegent undead
011=intellegent "spirit"
A dhampyr would be in a (1/sqrt(2))|111> + (1/sqrt(2))|101> state. I mean in theory I could throw an additional bit in there to express being a dhampyr, but the bit wouldn't have any meaning.
It is still binary at the most basic level though, which you even mentioned. If you were to break it down into G, C, A, and T you could express the entire blood type into an obscenely long binary chain with something like G=00, C=01, A=10, and T=11. Or to do it another way, you could break thr blood types down into 4-bit binary numbers(you could probably break it down into 3 bit binary numbers, but that would make it a pain to handle offspring). So that:
OO=00 00
AO=00 01 or 01 00
BO=00 10 or 10 00
AB=01 10 or 10 01
You are mistaking possible translation of non-binary data into a binary form (Capital A is stored in binary as 01000001, but 01000001 also reads as 65) for the data actually being in binary (the answers to series of true/false questions). Even though DNA can be translated into binary does not mean that it is in binary.
But vampirism isn't based in genetics, it is based on the state of the animus, which shouldn't be transferred via reproduction......
It is done by fantasy Lamarckian inheritance: new characteristics acquired by a parent may be inherited by a child.
I can express undead in a non-quantum state though. I just need more than one bit. To perfectly precise I need three bits. The first bit represents moving body. The second bit represents a natural animus. The third bit represents a soul.
000=dead
111=alive
100=mindless undead
010=mindless "spirit"
001=departed soul
110=living animal
101=intellegent undead
011=intellegent "spirit"
A dhampyr would be in a (1/sqrt(2))|111> + (1/sqrt(2))|101> state. I mean in theory I could throw an additional bit in there to express being a dhampyr, but the bit wouldn't have any meaning.
Just because you can does not mean that you are doing so correctly. Wights are corporeal intelligent animate undead without souls; where do they fit in your chart?
Your problem Ranadiel is that you keep merging 2 of the 4 variables and leaving out the fact that each variable can have multiple answers. The 4 variables are body, mind, anima and soul and each variable can have an origin. A human would be a NNNN, a vampire would be a SNSN and a dhampyr would be a NNSN.
You are mistaking possible translation of non-binary data into a binary form (Capital A is stored in binary as 01000001, but 01000001 also reads as 65) for the data actually being in binary (the answers to series of true/false questions). Even though DNA can be translated into binary does not mean that it is in binary.
Okay technically it would be whatever base-4 is called, but what I meant is that it can directly be translated into binary with each individual bit in the translation having a meaning.
Just because you can does not mean that you are doing so correctly. Wights are corporeal intelligent animate undead without souls; where do they fit in your chart?
Your problem Ranadiel is that you keep merging 2 of the 4 variables and leaving out the fact that each variable can have multiple answers. The 4 variables are body, mind, anima and soul and each variable can have an origin. A human would be a NNNN, a vampire would be a SNSN and a dhampyr would be a NNSN.
Okay first off there is no mind component. There are only three parts body, animus, and soul.
Secondly wights would fall under 100, mindless undead. I just wasn't clear on what "mindless" meant. Mindless referring to them acting on base instinct regardless of how intellegent they are. In the case of wights, based off of their MM entry, it seems they act off of the hunger for their soul.
Okay first off there is no mind component. There are only three parts body, animus, and soul.
Secondly wights would fall under 100, mindless undead. I just wasn't clear on what "mindless" meant. Mindless referring to them acting on base instinct regardless of how intellegent they are. In the case of wights, based off of their MM entry, it seems they act off of the hunger for their soul.
Oh and there are differences between mindless and soulless undead.
Mindless Undead: The simplest kinds of undead, such as skeletons and zombies, have no psychological traits. These beings are mindless creatures capable of no more thought or emotion than a clockwork mechanism.
Soulless Undead: Creatures such as specters, wights, and wraiths are soulless beings that retain only remnants of the minds they had in life. They can be exceedingly cunning, and some can freely draw upon their living memories. However, these undead have been irrevocably changed by their transformations. Lacking souls, they are perpetually filled with a tormenting hunger for their lost souls, a hunger that can only be sated by devouring living creatures. These undead hate the living in part because they possess souls that the undead lack.
Some of these soulless undead are little more intelligent than cunning animals, whereas others retain the same intelligence they had in life. In either instance, their minds are far more focused than before. These undead have only two desires: to survive and to devour the living. They have no thoughts, emotions, or plans that do not involve attempting to satisfy these two drives. The most intelligent and strong-willed of these undead can make complex plans, but these plans consist of nothing more than ways to insure a continued supply of mortals to feed their hunger.
In previous editions the concepts of mind body and soul already existed in the game system. Anima was added in 4e to better explain certain types of undead.
So they would have have some toned down vampire physical abilities, but they would lack any that are based upon the vampire's undead nature as I can still not wrap my head around how a half-undead would work in 4ed.
Oh and there are differences between mindless and soulless undead.
In previous editions the concepts of mind body and soul already existed in the game system. Anima was added in 4e to better explain certain types of undead.
[nitpick]It is called animus not anima![/nitpick]
The mind is an aspect of the soul. *grumbles* Fine, I'm just going to quote Worlds and Monsters on this.
The animus is the seat of animalistic desires and survival instincts, and when coupled with shadow power in the body, it can engage in inhuman behavior......But an animus can never exceed the consciousness level of the living creature it was a part of. An animal raised as an undead creature can never be more than an animal. The animus of a living creature given enough power, can recall the memories of the living creature it once was, and even act in an intellegent manner. However, its urge-driven behavior is often bestial or evil.....
So in summary, the only difference between "mindless" undead and "souless" undead is that "souless" undead have a larger amount of energy in them making them capable of accessing echoes of the intellegence that their soul had before death(and with enough energy the full extent). However in principle they are identicle, souless bodies with their animus jumpstarted with shadow energy.....or bodiless animus jumpstarted with shadow energy.
from http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4dnd/calendar
12
DRA: Dhampyr
From http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4pr/20090105
01/12: A new sample undead template and power, to customize your critters.
It looks like the dhampyr might be a template instead of a unique creature.
That would be consistent with origins in the legends, but they might include more that just the dhampyrin that article.
Oh well.Dhampyr is definitely a player race, considering the name of the article is:
Playing Dhampyr
By Brian R. James
These tormented souls have the blood of vampires in their veins. Learn what it means to be one of the tainted dhampyr.
Ummm... "01/12: A new sample undead template and power, to customize your critters." Is a preview for Open Grave it has nothing to do with the Dhampyr.
Dhampyr is definitely a player race, considering the name of the article is:
Playing Dhampyr
By Brian R. James
These tormented souls have the blood of vampires in their veins. Learn what it means to be one of the tainted dhampyr.
Fantastic! I hadn't seen the article blurb, before, so thanks a bunch for trotting it out and allaying my fears.
Now hopefully the Dhampyr will be a +2 Str/+2 Cha race, which'll make it perfect for my Dhampyr Paladin character idea.Which is too bad.
Rattling Dex+Str (and sometimes + Cha) punches = Dhampyr to me!
DEX/CHA- Please no.
Two races is enough for this combo.STR/CHA- The best option IMO. It hasn't been done, and the flavor of classes that work with it is just too good to pass. EDIT: Dragonborn, duh...
CON/CHA- I'm pretty meh to this one. I'd rather they be at least okay at rogue and/or ranger.
STR/DEX- This could be neat. I dunno. Good alternative to bugbear.
DEX/CON- Gnoll already did this, but I don't think that's quite a valid reason not to do it again. I'd be okay with this, I suppose.
STR/CON- I just don't see this happening.
I don't really see and INT or WIS bonus, personally.
Oh, duh! Man, how did I manage to forget dragonborn? I love those guys!
I can picture Dhampyr having the same bonuses as Dragonborns. They're the bonuses that best represent powerful ancestry.
I don't really see the Int bonus. Vampires become superhuman when they become vampires, and one assumes that some of those traits get passed on to the Dhampyr. Stronger, more agile, and a more forceful personality I can see, but smarter? Yeah, the 3E Vampire got smarter, but Str, Dex, and Cha were the stats which provided the biggest bonuses. So I imagine the Dhampyr stat bonuses will be some combination of those two. Let's just hope it's the *right* combination (At least as far as I'm concerned. ;) *cough*dhampyrpaladin*cough*).
*cough* Dampyr rogue / pmc fighter *cough*
...what?
Would be nice if they got a +2 to Cha and then their choice of a +2 to either Strength OR Dexterity... but somehow I don't see that happening. :P
+2 Str
+2 Dex
+2 2 cha skills
my
+2 Str
+2 Dex
+2 2 cha skills
I like that. That does make the most sense. +2 to Intimidate and Diplomacy, +2 to Dexterity and Strength. Works for me.
Thoughts?
Bloodhunt could be a very good model for some bonuses to the Dhampyr. Necrotic resistance seems like it could be possible.
I'm also down for Necrotic resistance (5 + 1/2 level).
Ability Scores: Str/Cha +2
Size: Medium
Speed: 7 squares
Vision: Low-light
Languages: Common, choice of one other
Skill Bonuses: +2 Perception, +2 Stealth
Human Born: You can take feats that have human as prerequisite (as well as those specifically for Dhampyr) as long as you meet any other requirements.
Necrotic Resistance: You have necrotic resistance equal to 5+ one-half your level.
Just because Vampires are faster doesn't mean they're more dextrous. Like, of course they are, but it's not necessarily a related thing.
Supernatural speed or greater strength could easily be simulated by a racial [encounter] power that includes either a shift or a 1[W]/1DX damage component.
My own speculation would be:
Reasonable Chance
- +2 CON; +2 CHA
- Nectrotic Resistance 5 [increased at 11th/21st level]
- A "supernatural" encounter power (1DX+CON/DEX/CHA damage and a shift or fear effect)
- A sense undead ability; something like "ignore the penalties for poor light, cover or concealment, when using Perception to spot enemies with the Undead keyword"
- +2 bonus to Athletics and Intimidate skills
Poor Chance
- +2 STR (there are so many +STR races, it seems unreasonable to add another, unnatural "health" is much more in keeping with the mythical Damphyr)
- Undead origin; i.e. add the Undead keyword (seems a bit of a stretch to have undead as part of your character and very few enemies affect that keyword)
- Vampiric powers; i.e. a dominate racial [encounter] power, spider climb etc. (they will be unusually powerful for a low level character, much more likely to be a straight damage + shift, with perhaps a minor control effect)
- Radiant Vulnerability (vulnerable PCs isn't part of the new character design process)
That's just a few of my feelings on the race...
It would mean less Bugbear builds in Character Op. To them, Oversixed is a nice bonus that comes with the ONLY Str/Dex race.
I think Str/Dex reflects both D and Blade, the 2 best-known Dhampyrs in fiction, better than a bonus to Cha or Con. Con is pretty arguable in both cases, but I don't see either Con/Str or Con/Dex being as likely from a game mechanics perspective.
best known...Alucard would like a word with you...maybe several words...
I know the idea predates D&D, but I'm referring to putting it in as a PC race. They won't man up and let PCs play Orcs because 0RCZ R EVILL. So, they go ahead and come up with Half-Orcs. They won't let PCs play Vampires because VAMP!R3Z R EVILL. Therefore, they are going to use half-vampires.
Well if they have 1/2 Orc in PHBII they will likely have dual heritage like the 1/2 elf, so I'm hoping we'll see at least 2 or 3 orc racial feats there or in Dragon.
... because I want to play an Orc dual kukri wielding Tempest fighter. :D
Well if they have 1/2 Orc in PHBII they will likely have dual heritage like the 1/2 elf, so I'm hoping we'll see at least 2 or 3 orc racial feats there or in Dragon.
... because I want to play an Orc dual kukri wielding Tempest fighter. :D
Orcs rock! I think it's just a matter of time before they get the Dragon treatment.
I don't expect to see any Orc feats in PH2, but you're probably right about Dual Heritage. I expect Half-Orcs to have access to Human feats (from Dual Heritage) as well as Half-Orc-specific feats in that book.
The reason I suggested Cha as one of the stats to get the +2 has to do with the fact that forceful personalities and being highly attractive are common traits found in most heroic Dhampyrs. Of course this sometimes subverted, but still it is a common and often defining quality.
Yep. That's certainly true of Vampire Hunter D. Blade also has a pretty forceful personality, although he's not as magnetic as D.
Yep. That's certainly true of Vampire Hunter D. Blade also has a pretty forceful personality, although he's not as magnetic as D.
I don't disagree, but I do think that in both cases their physical prowess is more prominently presented than is their force of personality.
best known...Alucard would like a word with you...maybe several words...
Alucard can have as many words as he wants. If you ask random people off the street to name a half-vampire, I have no doubt that Blade is going to be your most common answer, and D the second most common. Though with anime gaining ground in pop culture, that may be reversing....
I don't disagree, but I do think that in both cases their physical prowess is more prominently presented than is their force of personality.
Physical prowess is always going to be more prominently presented, because it's so visual. It's easy to know Blade's strong when he jumps clear across an entire street. That doesn't mean, though, that when statting up a similar race, that the physical prowess should be the only aspects emulated. Especially when it's not just the physical aspects of vampires that impress people. It's the intensity and force of their personalities, too. That's one of the big draws, even moreso than how much they can bench press. The same should be true for the Dhampyr. Thus Str/Cha.
Alucard can have as many words as he wants. If you ask random people off the street to name a half-vampire, I have no doubt that Blade is going to be your most common answer, and D the second most common. Though with anime gaining ground in pop culture, that may be reversing....
See, it's my experience you run into more Alucard Cosplayers at conventions than D cosplayers.
Considering that vampires are generally faster, stronger, tougher, smarter, wiser, and more charismatic than humans would probably mean that half-vampires would probably fall somewhere in between. As you can't reasonably give them all the bonuses without coming up with the 4e version of LA than its probably best to have them focus on one area.
One thing I have an issue with is how can someone be a half-vampire? I almost maybe could've kinda sorta seen it in how they did it with Blade, but that can't be the way they all come into existence. Also, in the Blade series they talk about people who were "vampires since birth." How does that happen? You'd think a vampire wouldn't have working sexual organs. I seriously have a hard time imagining a pregnant vampire. Maybe they said it in one of the Blade movies and I just missed it.
Maybe they'll have a "pick your own stat bonus" similar to how humans have. There are probably so many ways to interpret what stat bonus they should get that it might be best just to let it go the way of the human.
Considering that vampires are generally faster, stronger, tougher, smarter, wiser, and more charismatic than humans would probably mean that half-vampires would probably fall somewhere in between. As you can't reasonably give them all the bonuses without coming up with the 4e version of LA than its probably best to have them focus on one area.
One thing I have an issue with is how can someone be a half-vampire? I almost maybe could've kinda sorta seen it in how they did it with Blade, but that can't be the way they all come into existence. Also, in the Blade series they talk about people who were "vampires since birth." How does that happen? You'd think a vampire wouldn't have working sexual organs. I seriously have a hard time imagining a pregnant vampire. Maybe they said it in one of the Blade movies and I just missed it.
In some of the traditional mythologies (Romanian, for one) vampires don't just get turned and are suddenly undead. It's a lot slower change, and over the time of their change, any child they beget bears a part of the curse. Hence, dhampyr.
I would have agreed with you then I began reading a series of traditional fantasy books where the main characters are a damphir, a fey hound, and an Elven Assasin. The first is titled Damphir, I cannot remeber the name of the author. But the series is amazing.
Its very good, the next book is due out soon, but I believe it features a new set of characters
See, it's my experience you run into more Alucard Cosplayers at conventions than D cosplayers.
It's kind of hard to accurately cosplay the creature in his hand.
It's kind of hard to accurately cosplay the creature in his hand.
Ehh, that has never stopped anthro moe. I've seen people cosplay anthro fighter jets.
Ehh, that has never stopped anthro moe. I've seen people cosplay anthro fighter jets.
Anthro...fighter jets...
Like, the ones in Robotech or something?
This is what Farmer is referring to by antro jets. Warning: Linked image has been known to contain an overdose of cuteness (a.k.a. kawaii; moe). Viewer digression advised.
That's less cute and more disturbing.
That's less cute and more disturbing.
I'm inclined to agree: that was just wierd
.This is what Farmer is referring to by antro jets. Warning: Linked image has been known to contain an overdose of cuteness (a.k.a. kawaii; moe). Viewer digression advised.
...That little neo-fascist girl appears to have missiles for legs.
This is what Farmer is referring to by antro jets. Warning: Linked image has been known to contain an overdose of cuteness (a.k.a. kawaii; moe). Viewer digression advised.
that sir ought to be revoked
EDIT: For the less strange, we have the Gundam girls:
I think it's safe to say that I just can't relate to Cosplay. At all.
Perhaps... I can however, enjoy it when they dress up as Succubi!
Perhaps... I can however, enjoy it when they dress up as Succubi!
"Hi, I'm an 18th level Paladin. Mind if I 'smite' you?";)
Perhaps... I can however, enjoy it when they dress up as Succubi!
any excuse to oogle...
This is what Farmer is referring to by antro jets. Warning: Linked image has been known to contain an overdose of cuteness (a.k.a. kawaii; moe). Viewer digression advised.
That from Strike Witches?
Its very good, the next book is due out soon, but I believe it features a new set of characters
NOOO I love Leisil and Mejere, not to mention the fey hound that is smarter than both of them. Ill still read it but I love those two characters. In fact if I play a damhpir Im going to play a fighter based on Mejere.
So... back on topic: Who else is pumped to finally see this "Dhampyr" article tonight? I'm really curious about what the heck these guys are exactly.
I am on pins and needles
So... back on topic: Who else is pumped to finally see this "Dhampyr" article tonight? I'm really curious about what the heck these guys are exactly.
Meh, should be interesting. I've been thinking, and I'm definitely starting to like the concept.
So... back on topic: Who else is pumped to finally see this "Dhampyr" article tonight? I'm really curious about what the heck these guys are exactly.
*starts praying* Come on kobold/gnome hybrids that are forced to dance the Macarena(sp) while in leiderhose(sp) at 2 every afternoon who just happen to have a random vampiric ancestor for no reason.:D
*starts praying* Come on kobold/gnome hybrids that are forced to dance the Macarena(sp) while in leiderhose(sp) at 2 every afternoon who just happen to have a random vampiric ancestor for no reason.:D
that could be cool
Meh, should be interesting. I've been thinking, and I'm definitely starting to like the concept.
I hear that, bro. I find that the less I think about how being "half-undead" actually works, the happier I am. That said, I'm open to the idea of characters "touched by death", so in the worst case scenario, I'll simply reflavour the Dhampyr's origins. We'll know tonight! (At 10PM here in Edmonton, assuming all relevant parts of teh intarwebz remain in working order.)
Sad damage.So, it's gonna get released at midnight, huh? Awesome. I can't wait!
As far as I know, it depends on where you live. I think the site releases are at midnight GMT, so here in western WA... should be 4:00 according to that theory, but more like 8:00 or 9:00.
Also, just a quick question: I always pronounced the word as I first saw it: Dhamphir. But, seeing as WotC spells it as Dhampyr, should I pronounce it as "Dam-Pyre" instead of "Dam-Fear"? And, was my originally pronunciation wrong anyway?
Ah, fantasy, sworn enemy of pronounciation.
I can't help but admire the irony of this statement.
Interesting that it's a template for any PC race. I must say I'm surprised to see this. It also seems to hint that more "Bloodline" feats, and thus more templates will show up in the future.
I can't help but admire the irony of this statement.
Interesting that it's a template for any PC race. I must say I'm surprised to see this.
Hey! I never said anything about spelling.
Finally, the article presents the Bloodknight paragon path (requires Vampire Heritage feat, Defender role) and the Deadstalker paragon path (requires only the Vampire Heritage feat), as well as monster stat blocks for Dhampyrs of three different levels:
- Bloodcrazed Duergar Dhampyr, Level 8 Elite Brute;
- Dhampyr Assassin, (human), Level 13 Elite Lurker; and,
- Dhampyr Coercer, (eladrin), Level 17 Elite Controller.
Right off the bat the most noticeable aspect is, it is not a true race. Instead at Level 1 there is a Vampiric Heritage feat you must take. Or later on if you and the DM can decide how this would happen. There are then different Racial Feats, as well as Paragon Paths you can take.
So what does the iniatial Vampiric Heritage Feat give you, and what do some of the other racial feats give you? Also, can you summarize the Paragon Path?
So what does the iniatial Vampiric Heritage Feat give you, and what do some of the other racial feats give you? Also, can you summarize the Paragon Path?
It gives you blood drain as an encounter power which is pretty lackluster. It also gives a bouns to perception and insight to recognize undead and other dhampyrs. One notable heroic tier feat unmentioned so far is Vampire Alacrity which gives +1 feat bonus to speed. Not bad at all. There is also one epic feat that makes all living, bloodied enemies grant combat advantage to you.
EDIT: While I like the idea behind this, and was surprised to see it be a template, I find blood drain to be a pretty terrible power. Luckily you don't have to swap any of your powers to get it. The power swap feat's powers aren't as bad, but you do have to swap a power to use them. I'm sure in most cases I'd never want to make the swap though, so I'm not sure I'd ever take these feats. Vampire Alacrity and the epic feat are decent though. So basically I dig the idea, but not the execution. Maybe if we get some more options I'd give it another look.
A vampire is one of the most feared adversaries an adventurer can face. Their ability to subvert your will or drain your blood are terrifying to even the most stalwart souls. But now you can fight back as a dhampyr -- a hero with the blood of a vampire ancestor flowing through your veins. This article gives you everything you need to play a dhampyr and introduces a new mechanic -- the Bloodline feat -- that doesn’t force you to give up your character's race.
[link]
A creature between the world of the living and the dead, the dhampyr is shrouded in secrecy and harbors a fierce bloodlust. A rare crossbreed with several of the powers of a vampire and none of the weaknesses, a dhampyr is thought to be born of the union of a vampire male and a mortal female. The truth is that such hybrids are far more common than many folk think.
also a handy way around that 30 year lifespan.
An alliance betwen Orcus and Yenoghu?
This is interesting in that it could still be restricted in LFR since it is not a true race write up. But the way things have gone. Unlikely. But I can hope
You don't like new things? New types of feats? Mixed heritages?
You don't like new things? New types of feats? Mixed heritages?
As has already been discussed, it isn't even that new. The poster just doesn't want it in "their" LFR. Which is fine. If they never bring it up as being an option, what is the likelihood that a player will want to play one? And if a player comes to the table who does, does it really hurt that much to acquiesce to their desire?
Gnoll Dhampyr- eating flesh AND bones.
also a handy way around that 30 year lifespan.
An alliance betwen Orcus and Yenoghu?
Ok that is funny I do have to admit
You don't like new things? New types of feats? Mixed heritages?
I dont think its any secret that I am not a fan of monster races. I think they are fine and great for home campaigns etc. I have even played them in home campaigns. I just dont like having them forced down our throats as being acceptable because its an article in Dragon.
I dont begrudge people wanting more and more options and having a desire to play such things. But in an organized world wide campaign it can cause situational problems that there are no rules mechanics to deal with in the campaign.
Case in point an Elf PC that is from a region that has for hundreds of years suffered raids by Gnolls where villages were destroyed and villagers murdered and eaten and perhaps worse, is now just supposed to accept the Gnoll PC in his party. Not to mention running adventures in that region and the Gnoll PC walks into town and the GM really has no recourse to have the townsfolk react in any real way they would. Because you dont want to derail the module. It can work in a home campaign where you have much more flexibility and the catch phrase of the moment "Dungeon Masters Empowerment" only goes so far.
Oh and nice work on the rituals compilation by the way.
Case in point an Elf PC that is from a region that has for hundreds of years suffered raids by Gnolls where villages were destroyed and villagers murdered and eaten and perhaps worse, is now just supposed to accept the Gnoll PC in his party.
Yes he must accept the gnoll into his party, however, he can do so with an appropriately begrudging attitude of "I'm only working with you because I need your help and you're the lesser of two evils". The kind of acceptance between two rivals who are forced to work together to defeat a common foe. There's a lot of roleplay depth that can be achieved there as long as the players remember that while their characters might hate each other they still need to treat their fellow players with respect.
It is nice how a character can attain an almost vampire like state, however this method would have been much better as a how to play a Vampire article. I believe that Dhampyrs should have had a racial benefit as being their own race.
The article is not bad, Im just disappointed that it didnt turn out like anything I was expecting at all.
Regardless though I will definitely be building my Dhampyr Half-Elf Beastmaster Ranger.
Friggin munchkins...
"BEAST MODE!"
Anyway, back on topic:
The Dhampyrs look pretty good. I would've prefered an actual race, but this way, there's more adaptability, so in the end, it works.
*cough* Anyway, yeah, I would've preferred a full race, too (With +2 Str/+2 Cha :P ), with a Half-Vampire multiclass-only class, but oh well. Can't really decide if I like this or not, though, as I've yet to look at the actual article. Damn.
Of course, this article cuts the legs out from the "sorcerer bloodlines" theory for the sorcerer class...
How so?
I wonder what other bloodline feats are in the works?
Infernal is pretty much covered by tiefling, lycanthropic by shifters, angelic by devas and elemental by genasi.
That leaves draconic, primordial, abyssal, fey and...?
Bel
So, I am trying to decide if I want to buy DDi for the Dhampyre. Are they very vampiric? Do they gain a blood drain? What are they like?
Are they very vampiric? Do they gain a blood drain? What are they like?
Here're quotes from two prior posts two pages back.
I'm impressed! I was sorta expecting a lame-ish new race, but instead, they gave us the concept of bloodline/heritage feats. Basically, you take the "Vampire Heritage" feat, which gives you the Dhampyr racial encounter power, blood drain, as well as a couple minor skill bonuses. You can take additional Vampire Heritage feats in the future, to gain more abilities such as mist form, bloodied regeneration, and dominating gaze, all three of which are daily powers. Further more, it explicitly says that taking the Vampire Heritage feat precludes you from taking any other (non-vampire) heritage feats in the future. (Thus, presumably there will be more for other heritages, such as Draconic.)
Finally, the article presents the Bloodknight paragon path (requires Vampire Heritage feat, Defender role) and the Deadstalker paragon path (requires only the Vampire Heritage feat), as well as monster stat blocks for Dhampyrs of three different levels:
Bloodcrazed Duergar Dhampyr, Level 8 Elite Brute;
Dhampyr Assassin, (human), Level 13 Elite Lurker; and,
Dhampyr Coercer, (eladrin), Level 17 Elite Controller.
Interestingly, each one has the "(vampire)" keyword listed alongside their type and origin, rather than the (undead) keyword.
It gives you blood drain as an encounter power which is pretty lackluster. It also gives a bouns to perception and insight to recognize undead and other dhampyrs. One notable heroic tier feat unmentioned so far is Vampire Alacrity which gives +1 feat bonus to speed. Not bad at all. There is also one epic feat that makes all living, bloodied enemies grant combat advantage to you.
EDIT: While I like the idea behind this, and was surprised to see it be a template, I find blood drain to be a pretty terrible power. Luckily you don't have to swap any of your powers to get it. The power swap feat's powers aren't as bad, but you do have to swap a power to use them. I'm sure in most cases I'd never want to make the swap though, so I'm not sure I'd ever take these feats. Vampire Alacrity and the epic feat are decent though. So basically I dig the idea, but not the execution. Maybe if we get some more options I'd give it another look.
Somebody else also mentioned a feat which improves the basic Blood Drain ability granted to you by the Vampire Heritage Feat.
Do all of the feats provide powers, or are there some passive benefits as well (other than the bonus to speed)? Are the powers that have been discussed so far the only ones in the article?
Heroic:
-Vampire Alacrity
-Mist Form (Power)
-Night's Sight
Paragon:
-Bloodied Regeneration (Power)
-Dominating Gaze (Power)
-Savage Bite
Epic:
-Scent of Blood
So its a even split.
9 speed ftw
not that it would or wouldn't be worth it from a crunch perspective, but think of the fun aspect.
Night's sight? Is that... darkvision?
No,
I think the reason it is not it's own race is to head off all the 'what about a _ _ _ _ _ dhampyr?
I wonder what other bloodline feats are in the works?
Infernal is pretty much covered by tiefling, lycanthropic by shifters, angelic by devas and elemental by genasi.
That leaves draconic, primordial, abyssal, fey and...?
Bel
Genasi would actually count for primordial, as I believe some of their creation myths tie them to the primordials. Draconic is also covered by dragonborn. :p
Really, I think that basically all of the ones you mentioned could in theory be done, despite already having races tied to the heritage.
-=Edit: Well I just finished reading the article, and I can say that I am quite happy with how it turned out. Mostly because it used the same definition for dhampyr that I finally accepted earlier in the thread(they are neither undead nor half-undead). Also I am looking forward to see what they do with the new mechanic.=-
I had a hunch they'd be producing 'lineage' feats, most likely for PHB2 or DMG2; it seemed imminent when some racial feats require you to simply be an eladrin, whereas others required you to be an eladrin and have fey step. I figured you would take a 'Half-blood' feat and be qualified as that race. I guess now my only qualm is that half-elves are their own race instead of being humans with 'Half-elf' or elves with 'Half-human.' If my hypothesis is correct, would a half-elf with the 'Half-human' feat be a quarter-elf?
(does not have DDI)So being a Dhampyr counts as multiclassing?
Think of it as "multi-racing."
It's functionally similar to multiclassing, but you can be both multiclassed and have a heratage.
Think of it as "multi-racing."
It's functionally similar to multiclassing, but you can be both multiclassed and have a heratage.
Awesome, now I can start on my Bloodlines projects.
Heh, I'm right again with my design thinking.
That post actually gave me a crazy idea for a character. Warforged Druid. Why so crazy? Because he's a Transformer! :D
"BEAST MODE!"
I had a player do this. I let him play a Druid (which I had previously banned in the great Vancian purge) purely because he ended his pitch with "Transform and roll out!!"
Great feedback folks. Thanks for reading.
Just read it and it's very cool. Thank you kindly, my good man. :D I've already got several ideas percolating in my head. Like one involving a character background I cooked up during 3E, but never got to play, with a character who was one of the Martyr's Progeny. Playing that character in LFR was pretty much nullified due to the 100 year time jump. But if that character were a Dhampyr...
I had a player do this. I let him play a Druid (which I had previously banned in the great Vancian purge) purely because he ended his pitch with "Transform and roll out!!"
Hah, that's awesome. Was he shape shifted into some kind of rolling creature, though? :P Geeze, it was a joke at first, but now I HAVE to play a Warforged Druid.
Plus pcs that play in my Eberron game can play a dhampyr and make themselves tied to the Blood of Vol somehow. Hell, they can be dhampyre pallys looking to destroy the things that made them the way they are.
Just out of curiosity, is the Dhampyr in Dragon alone, or will it also be in the Open Grave sourcebook?
DDi alone.
(Ok, rogues & fighters work as well, but still...
)On a related note: can somebody explain me the Savage Bite feat, which improves the aforementioned power? It says something on the lines of ''the target grants combat advantage to you'', but it doesn't specify the duration of this condition. How do you guys read that?
PS: I really hope I'm not breaking any forum rules with this post. I'm kinda new here, and tried hard to be as vague as I could. If there are any problems, I'll erase this post.
SAVAGE BITE: it's badly worded, but I guess you have combat advantage on THAT attack (the Blood Drain roll), and you don't have the requirement to grab the target. It basically solves the problem.
Ok... so I bought DDi for this month for the Dhampyr. Very cool. But to the person who said he worried about Warforged Dhampyr's, it would not work. They are living constructs, not living humanoids (even though they are humanoid in shape). Dhampyr's must be living humanoids in classification.
Warforged are conidered living constructs if you look at the monster manual entry on the term living construct you see that it specifically says a living construct is considered a living being for all intents and purposes (including powers that only effect living creatures and one would presume feats that require you to be a living creature) So yes by the rules a Dhampyr Warforged is possible though highly illogical
On a related note: can somebody explain me the Savage Bite feat, which improves the aforementioned power? It says something on the lines of ''the target grants combat advantage to you'', but it doesn't specify the duration of this condition. How do you guys read that?
I think its a typo and its supposed to say that with the savage bite feat if you have combat advantage against a target you can use your blood drain with out having to grab the target first. Thats what I gather from it
I think its a typo and its supposed to say that with the savage bite feat if you have combat advantage against a target you can use your blood drain with out having to grab the target first. Thats what I gather from it
That's what I thought of first. Specially considering... *Valien opens his Monster Manual again* Yep, that's exactly how the Vampire Lord ability works.
But then again, it would be a pretty crappy feat, specially on Paragon levels. Further researches (specifically: asking the opinion of my younger brother) led me to believe it works in the way LordArchaon suggested three posts ago. It makes me happier this way.
I supose we have to wait until the Dragon comes out, with corrected information. Or, not.
Hmm... From the words I'd say what I said. But thinking about it, it should rather be usable with combat advanatge only. After all it's really the same, just a bit more situational (and realistic, how the hell are you supposed to get so close if not at least with a small advantage?)
Actually, a power usable only when you have Combat Advantage and a power that GIVES you Combat Advantage have a FREAKING HUGE difference. In my opinion.
Plus, you kinda contradicted yourself there :P
No harm intended in any way.
Actually, a power usable only when you have Combat Advantage and a power that GIVES you Combat Advantage have a FREAKING HUGE difference. In my opinion.
Plus, you kinda contradicted yourself there :P
No harm intended in any way.
If the combat advantage is valid only for that attack, the only difference is that in one case you can do it when you want, in the other only when you have combat advantage, which is very common. I mean, the roll's gonna be the same, eventual sneak attack or extra CA damage is gonna be the same. If the feat granted you CA until the end of your next turn, it would be a huge difference, it would be really giving you CA. But a power that just grants you CA for that same attack and nothing more, is nothing so special. Only difference is waiting or not waiting for the enemy to give you CA. Of course it could be a big difference in some cases, but hey, flanking an opponent is nothing difficult.
Somebody tought of something to improve the s****y encounter power? What the hell, it requires that you grab the target. Half the classes in PHB don't even have the Str to do that. And how the hell will you convince me to play a vampire wannabe if I can't be a WIZARD vampire wannabe? :P
(Ok, rogues & fighters work as well, but still...
On a related note: can somebody explain me the Savage Bite feat, which improves the aforementioned power? It says something on the lines of ''the target grants combat advantage to you'', but it doesn't specify the duration of this condition. How do you guys read that?
PS: I really hope I'm not breaking any forum rules with this post. I'm kinda new here, and tried hard to be as vague as I could. If there are any problems, I'll erase this post.
Ok, so, the feat is worded really poorly. I am assuming it means either you can bite any target (without having to grab them) and all targets are considered to grant combat advantage to you against your bite attack, or else you can use your blood drain attack, without garbing an opponent, so long as they grant combat advantage to you. In any case, that feat allows your Dhampyr wizard to feed more easily. Moreover, the dominate ability should make feeding fairly easy for you.
Warforged are conidered living constructs if you look at the monster manual entry on the term living construct you see that it specifically says a living construct is considered a living being for all intents and purposes (including powers that only effect living creatures and one would presume feats that require you to be a living creature) So yes by the rules a Dhampyr Warforged is possible though highly illogical
I still say that when it says "living humanoids" they are specifically excluding living constructs... if only because a warforged vampire is perhaps the most illogical concept I have ever heard of. I would certainly never allow one in my games.
I still say that when it says "living humanoids" they are specifically excluding living constructs... if only because a warforged vampire is perhaps the most illogical concept I have ever heard of. I would certainly never allow one in my games.
Oh I highly agree it is very very illogical. I doubt I'd ever allow it either. However that doesn't change the fact that a hardcore rules lawer in a rpga campaign could probably get away with it if their dm is going by the book purely. The potiential exists as much as I'd never allow it I just had to point out the potiential exists
If the combat advantage is valid only for that attack, the only difference is that in one case you can do it when you want, in the other only when you have combat advantage, which is very common. I mean, the roll's gonna be the same, eventual sneak attack or extra CA damage is gonna be the same. If the feat granted you CA until the end of your next turn, it would be a huge difference, it would be really giving you CA. But a power that just grants you CA for that same attack and nothing more, is nothing so special. Only difference is waiting or not waiting for the enemy to give you CA. Of course it could be a big difference in some cases, but hey, flanking an opponent is nothing difficult.
Yeah, I get what you mean... it's just that I have a thing against powers that are usable only when certain conditions are met. Worsen by the fact that, in my group (3 people), only one of us goes melee. So, no flanking at all
Ok, so, the feat is worded really poorly. I am assuming it means either you can bite any target (without having to grab them) and all targets are considered to grant combat advantage to you against your bite attack, or else you can use your blood drain attack, without garbing an opponent, so long as they grant combat advantage to you. In any case, that feat allows your Dhampyr wizard to feed more easily. Moreover, the dominate ability should make feeding fairly easy for you.
Yeah, it does help the case. I'm not sold for the Dominate thing, though. If I'm not mistaken, you can't get it until level 15. It solves nothing.
I still say that when it says "living humanoids" they are specifically excluding living constructs... if only because a warforged vampire is perhaps the most illogical concept I have ever heard of. I would certainly never allow one in my games.
Why not? Here's a post I made about vampiric warforged. And dragonborn.
Maybe, but I have a cool idea. An inert warforged is just a pile of wood and metal, correct? What if the warforged had biological rust-proofing that kept it from falling apart, but now that it's dead, it needs iron to replace the iron that keeps rusting and falling off. There's your warforged vampire, gaining iron from the blood it sucks from the living.
Vampires in my world develop differently. For example, dragonborn have that huge snout, so fangs are sort of impractical. Instead, their lower mandible splits in two and their tongue develops a barb, á la the reaper vampires from Blade 2.
For a vampire Warforged just pull a Frankenstien, parts of it were made from the flesh of the undead.
Awesome idea! It would completely change them though. To still look like warforged they would be actually made of "dead wood" (originated in the Shadowfell maybe?)... That to stay alive... needs blood!!
I still say that when it says "living humanoids" they are specifically excluding living constructs... if only because a warforged vampire is perhaps the most illogical concept I have ever heard of. I would certainly never allow one in my games.
Technically, a Warforged is a Medium Natural Humanoid (Living Construct). So by the rules, a Dhampyr Warforged is possible (It's type is humanoid, and the Keyword Living Construct means it is living, thus a Living Humanoid).
Of course, as you said, in your home games you can do whatever you want. :D
Still, despite that, I'm really looking forward to playing a Dhampyr. Hopefully they'll be available for play in LFR once the full issue of Dragon is out. Or maybe I'll save it for use in a 4E Ravenloft game if I ever manage to find one?
I've been looking it over some more, and man, that Blood Drain power really irks me. Don't mean to come off overly negative, as I'm pretty positive about the other 90% of the article, but the part where you expend a healing surge when you use it really bugs me. So you can't drink any more blood once you're out of healing surges? That should really be changed to "and you regain a number of hit points equal to your healing surge value" or something like that. The low damage, the requirement that you have to grab a target first, all of that is fine. I just don't think you should expend a healing surge when you do it, as you're stealing someone elses vitality, not drawing on your own. Would be nice if it got downgraded to a move action, too, or maybe a minor action. Then you could initiate the hold and, if successful, inflict the bite in the same round without having to resort to Action Points.
Still, despite that, I'm really looking forward to playing a Dhampyr. Hopefully they'll be available for play in LFR once the full issue of Dragon is out. Or maybe I'll save it for use in a 4E Ravenloft game if I ever manage to find one?
Bet you're of the opinion that you shouldn't have to use a Healing Surge to benefit from a Healing Potion, too.
Think of it this way, the external influence, be it a potion, someones blood, an inspiring speech, are the catalyst for your body to recover. It couldn't do it without that external influence. Unless you'd rested for a few minutes, first.
One thing that bugs me more and seems to be more important that I previously thought, is that Vampire Alacrity gives you a FEAT bonus to speed. You're really all right with it being feat bonus? That means that by Paragon level, anyone could match the dhampyr's speed with the right feat. It basically means dhampyrs aren't faster at all, they just become speedy before the others, but then get matched because the bonuses don't stack.
Maybe it would be too much to make it an untyped bonus, but I think it should at least be a "power" bonus. It's not very clean to give off power bonuses with feats, but it's more logic, since that way it wouldn't stack with powers that give you bonuses to speed,but it would actually let your 11th level dhampyr with Vampire Alacrity and Fleet-footed be faster than your 11th level human with Fleet-footed.
Pcs aren't normal.
We've already been over this.
Pcs are super tough, strong, fast etc. They aren't normal.