Funnily enough when I picture Dhampir characters (and not just people playing dhampir because it's the closest to a vampire race) my first thought is always them in armour swinging a long sword, mostly because the first I ever encountered was Alucard in the Castlevania games. In real world lore they're vampire hunters and warriors against evil so a paladin would fit perfectly
I think of Donovan from Darkstalkers and of course Blade from Marvel as well. Both of which could work fine as Barbarians too.
Not aiming to be melodramatic - I think they’ve made a choice that looks almost unintended, because I can’t see why they’d encourage dhampirs to be strength builds or monks.
Why don't you think they're "encouraging" dhampir to be rogues with the free spider climb?
Spider Climb was already in the VRGR dhampir. The point being made here (as far as I can tell anyway), is that the changes are pushing the species towards strength-based character concepts.
And the counterpoint is that most if not all natural weapons use the same format, which probably hasn’t slowed the implementation of DEX class Tabaxi and similar concepts much.
Yeah, I've played two tabaxis -- one a wizard, the other a ranged Battle Master fighter who specialized in heavy crossbow. Trying to build the character around their melee attack never entered into the equation, and their movement feature was far more valuable to me
The dhampir bite is more useful than tabaxi claws, to be fair, but it's still not really something worth 'optimizing' around, if that word's even relevant here -- even OP is playing a dhampir sorcerer, which I assume isn't a melee build
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue) Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Not aiming to be melodramatic - I think they’ve made a choice that looks almost unintended, because I can’t see why they’d encourage dhampirs to be strength builds or monks. I can see a dhampir being a cool fit for a barbarian, but I’d rarely picture them in heavy armor. Of course you can play a mechanically suboptimal character, but this change is very much a steer, and it seems unnecessary.
I’m disappointed because I’m playing a dhampir sorcerer who uses vampiric bite in most sessions. My DM has asked me to switch from 2014 content to 2024 in the past, and in this case it’d take my attack modifier from +6 (with advantage when bloodied) to +2.
So I’m kind of making a fuss in case it turns out this was unintended, and they feel like errata-ing it back to being a Con attack roll.
The no-breathing thing was flavourful, and I’d take that over the mechanically superior necrotic resistance. Not sure why it needed to go.
1) Why wouldn't they be able to wear heavy armor or be strength-based? If scrawny Githyanki fighters can go around wearing fullplate and swinging greatswords, any species can. D&D moved away from racelocking that kind of thing eons ago.
2) Again, I wouldn't view "I have a bite attack I don't really use because I'm a caster/rogue" as "suboptimal." I can sympathize with the desire to 'use the whole animal' as it were, but an unarmed strike feature on my non-US character's sheet doesn't mean I'm not optimizing; to me this is like saying Aarakocra casters are suboptimal because they tend not to use their talons. It's a flavorful feature from the species sure but they get others.
3) I wouldn't mind if they had kept the no breathing thing but eh, I'm not exactly going to lose sleep over it either. For me, necrotic resist is way more fitting for what they are, on top of being mechanically stronger.
1) I’m not saying dhampir can’t wear heavy armor. Blade, for example, fits the idea of a fighter. I just think people picking dhampir are often leaning towards a vampire aesthetic that is normally more svelte.
2) Yeah, I get the argument with aarakocra and tabaxi. But as others here have said, the bite had uses besides pure damage. I’d be happy if it was a finesse weapon (which I also think the tabaxi attack should be).
3) I’m fairly lukewarm about resistances. They’re mechanically useful, but I think features that make something happen are usually more exciting than things that stop a thing happening.
Not aiming to be melodramatic - I think they’ve made a choice that looks almost unintended, because I can’t see why they’d encourage dhampirs to be strength builds or monks.
Why don't you think they're "encouraging" dhampir to be rogues with the free spider climb?
Spider Climb was already in the VRGR dhampir. The point being made here (as far as I can tell anyway), is that the changes are pushing the species towards strength-based character concepts.
And the counterpoint is that most if not all natural weapons use the same format, which probably hasn’t slowed the implementation of DEX class Tabaxi and similar concepts much.
Yeah, I've played two tabaxis -- one a wizard, the other a ranged Battle Master fighter who specialized in heavy crossbow. Trying to build the character around their melee attack never entered into the equation, and their movement feature was far more valuable to me
The dhampir bite is more useful than tabaxi claws, to be fair, but it's still not really something worth 'optimizing' around, if that word's even relevant here -- even OP is playing a dhampir sorcerer, which I assume isn't a melee build
I didn’t optimise around it as such… but I agreed with the DM before the campaign that as a character flaw there are times when I must attempt to bite someone (whenever I’m below 25% health and there is a non-undead monster or NPC I can reach with my movement, and has blood on them). I’ve even followed this when it’s provoked an opportunity attack from an undead that would have made me unconscious if it’d hit. It’s revealed my species to several people my character hasn’t wanted to know.
But the bite was actually pretty handy with +6 and advantage, doing damage and also healing. Now it has much less chance of hitting. It was also the weapon attack I made for opportunity attacks.
Not a melee build, but I spend a lot of time in the front line for a sorcerer. I’m a divine soul casting Spirit Guardians, doing what I can to not actually die from being in a dangerous spot!
Speaking of Spirit Guardians… one thing in the new book that does interest me is the Rebuke feat for its interaction with SG. If a creature with 30ft movement speed enters the SG, falls prone and stands up they have less than 5ft of movement left on that turn. Shame it’s only once per rest!
So the new dhampir gains necrotic resistance, but they now have to make the attack rolls of their vampiric bite with strength instead of constitution, and no longer get to make it with advantage if they’re bloodied. They also need to breathe now.
The change to the attack roll on vampiric bite is pretty rough! I doubt many dhampir are strength builds, as that’s not much of a vampire trope. I play a dhampir sorcerer, so going from a +3 to -1 for the attack roll doesn’t sound fun.
Not a big change from the original print in Van R book. This is not new. Slight change
So the new dhampir gains necrotic resistance, but they now have to make the attack rolls of their vampiric bite with strength instead of constitution, and no longer get to make it with advantage if they’re bloodied. They also need to breathe now.
The change to the attack roll on vampiric bite is pretty rough! I doubt many dhampir are strength builds, as that’s not much of a vampire trope. I play a dhampir sorcerer, so going from a +3 to -1 for the attack roll doesn’t sound fun.
Not a big change from the original print in Van R book. This is not new. Slight change
I really can’t agree. They’ve taken the feature that made the species feel like a dhampir, and taken it from something useful into a ribbon that will never be used for most builds. In my example, it’s gone from +6 with advantage (effectively a +10 or +11) to +2, at a stage in the game when most of my attack rolls would be +7.
So the new dhampir gains necrotic resistance, but they now have to make the attack rolls of their vampiric bite with strength instead of constitution, and no longer get to make it with advantage if they’re bloodied. They also need to breathe now.
The change to the attack roll on vampiric bite is pretty rough! I doubt many dhampir are strength builds, as that’s not much of a vampire trope. I play a dhampir sorcerer, so going from a +3 to -1 for the attack roll doesn’t sound fun.
Not a big change from the original print in Van R book. This is not new. Slight change
I really can’t agree. They’ve taken the feature that made the species feel like a dhampir, and taken it from something useful into a ribbon that will never be used for most builds. In my example, it’s gone from +6 with advantage (effectively a +10 or +11) to +2, at a stage in the game when most of my attack rolls would be +7.
Not everyone plays using "builds", for the record.
Law of averages says that most people just pick what they like.
Always remember to also think outside your playstyle with these things before decrying something.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
Am I the only person who thinks that none of the official Classes really fit the Vampire trope? I feel like it should really be a Class rather than a lineage. Or maybe a Subclass for each Class that makes it, eg, a Vampire Barb or a Vampire Warlock.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Not everyone plays using "builds", for the record.
Law of averages says that most people just pick what they like.
Always remember to also think outside your playstyle with these things before decrying something.
I was using the word "build" loosely. I'm not thinking of anything especially optimised or any clever interactions. My dhampir is a frontline sorcerer who has fallen unconscious more than anyone else in his party, and who was a character before he was a character sheet. He's a divine soul who takes radiant damage whenever he casts Bless.
My problem is precisely that this change does limit the playstyles people can use. Across the campaigns I play in, out of 20 characters in those parties, only 4 have a positive strength mod, but most have a positive constitution mod. They've taken a feature that complemented many character ideas, and made it only useful in a few, for no benefit that I can see.
Yes, anyone can pick a dhampir if they want to play one, but the vampiric bite was always the thing that made a character feel like a dhampir, and its rare that in combat people will choose the attack that'll probably miss over the one that'll probably hit especially if they need urgent healing. So I think this change will mean we see dhampirs that don't feel like dhampirs because they don't do the dhampir thing.
The fact that it still includes the weird detail that the damage is based on constitution makes me think that this was an oversight, and they meant to make both rolls constitution. I'd also be happy if it used the player's choice of str or dex (like the Grim Hollow dhampir). I'd make the same change to the tabaxi's claws too.
Not everyone plays using "builds", for the record.
Law of averages says that most people just pick what they like.
Always remember to also think outside your playstyle with these things before decrying something.
I was using the word "build" loosely. I'm not thinking of anything especially optimised or any clever interactions. My dhampir is a frontline sorcerer who has fallen unconscious more than anyone else in his party, and who was a character before he was a character sheet. He's a divine soul who takes radiant damage whenever he casts Bless.
My problem is precisely that this change does limit the playstyles people can use. Across the campaigns I play in, out of 20 characters in those parties, only 4 have a positive strength mod, but most have a positive constitution mod. They've taken a feature that complemented many character ideas, and made it only useful in a few, for no benefit that I can see.
Yes, anyone can pick a dhampir if they want to play one, but the vampiric bite was always the thing that made a character feel like a dhampir, and its rare that in combat people will choose the attack that'll probably miss over the one that'll probably hit especially if they need urgent healing. So I think this change will mean we see dhampirs that don't feel like dhampirs because they don't do the dhampir thing.
The fact that it still includes the weird detail that the damage is based on constitution makes me think that this was an oversight, and they meant to make both rolls constitution. I'd also be happy if it used the player's choice of str or dex (like the Grim Hollow dhampir). I'd make the same change to the tabaxi's claws too.
I am new, after a multiple decade break and have no experience/baggage from this century. So only knowing the 2024 rules, why would you ever want to use constitution as an attack bonus? Spells and attacks (not saves) should never be from Constitution. I can understand debating a bite attack should be dex not strength, but constitution should be a stand alone stat. To double up on constitution will be a huge advantage to that class/species. Maybe the damage statement is wrong and it should have been based on str/dex.
As from what I can tell with limited resources, every 2024 species/class uses something other then constitution for attacks, so based on that blueprint, it makes no sense to use it.
Am I the only person who thinks that none of the official Classes really fit the Vampire trope? I feel like it should really be a Class rather than a lineage. Or maybe a Subclass for each Class that makes it, eg, a Vampire Barb or a Vampire Warlock.
I can see vampires fitting well with rogue - maybe an arcane trickster with a lot of enchantment and necromancy spells? Barb also works well, depending on the type of vampire you're thinking of. Or any kind of enchantment or necromancy focus.
Grim Hollow has The First Vampire patron warlock which I'd suggest to anyone looking to play a vampire type character. It also has a dhampir I prefer to the VRGtR or ABoH versions, as it comes with some enchantment magic. It's definitely a little stronger than either though. If you're looking for level progression it also has a system of boons and flaws for transforming a character into a vampire in narrative-driven stages.
I reckon vampire/dhampir is right as a species rather than a job description. It lets people take vampires and do something surprising with them.
Not everyone plays using "builds", for the record.
Law of averages says that most people just pick what they like.
Always remember to also think outside your playstyle with these things before decrying something.
I was using the word "build" loosely. I'm not thinking of anything especially optimised or any clever interactions. My dhampir is a frontline sorcerer who has fallen unconscious more than anyone else in his party, and who was a character before he was a character sheet. He's a divine soul who takes radiant damage whenever he casts Bless.
My problem is precisely that this change does limit the playstyles people can use. Across the campaigns I play in, out of 20 characters in those parties, only 4 have a positive strength mod, but most have a positive constitution mod. They've taken a feature that complemented many character ideas, and made it only useful in a few, for no benefit that I can see.
Yes, anyone can pick a dhampir if they want to play one, but the vampiric bite was always the thing that made a character feel like a dhampir, and its rare that in combat people will choose the attack that'll probably miss over the one that'll probably hit especially if they need urgent healing. So I think this change will mean we see dhampirs that don't feel like dhampirs because they don't do the dhampir thing.
The fact that it still includes the weird detail that the damage is based on constitution makes me think that this was an oversight, and they meant to make both rolls constitution. I'd also be happy if it used the player's choice of str or dex (like the Grim Hollow dhampir). I'd make the same change to the tabaxi's claws too.
I am new, after a multiple decade break and have no experience/baggage from this century. So only knowing the 2024 rules, why would you ever want to use constitution as an attack bonus? Spells and attacks (not saves) should never be from Constitution. I can understand debating a bite attack should be dex not strength, but constitution should be a stand alone stat. To double up on constitution will be a huge advantage to that class/species. Maybe the damage statement is wrong and it should have been based on str/dex.
As from what I can tell with limited resources, every 2024 species/class uses something other then constitution for attacks, so based on that blueprint, it makes no sense to use it.
It is unusual. I have a feeling there was maybe one other player-side attack in the game that uses Con, but I can’t think what? The Dragonborn breath weapon also uses Con. I think it’s to allow more character options, and they can sort-of justify the species attacks as being determined by the character’s health.
There are some monsters with implicitly constitution-based attacks, but it’s rare.
And yeah, I’d be happy for the attack to use the player’s choice of Str or Dex. I was just thinking it was weird that they left the damage as being Con based, but not the attack. That’s another thing that’s very unusual - using different modifiers for the attack and damage.
It is unusual. I have a feeling there was maybe one other player-side attack in the game that uses Con, but I can’t think what?
There is at least one: the original 5e version of the Genasi species (from Princes of the Apocalypse) used Constitution as the spellcasting ability for their species-granted spells, and the Fire Genasi's cantrip was Produce Flame, which would involve a Constitution attack roll. This was changed in the updated version published in Monsters of the Multiverse to be the player's choice of Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma.
I can't think of literally anything else where an attack uses two different abilities for the attack roll and the damage roll.
I agree that it would be better to have the choice between Strength and Dexterity, as in Grim Hollow and BG3 (as if the bite had the Finesse property).
However, I don't see the vampire bite as an attack that should be made during combat, but rather against an enemy who is clearly at a disadvantage. They may be stunned, unconscious, charmed, seduced, dying (0 HP), or simply willing. This aligns with most of the video games I've played, where the vampire bite serves as a finishing attack, and I think that makes more sense. The target needs to be prepared beforehand, whether it's a spellcaster enchanting or paralyzing them, a rogue attacking the target by surprise from behind, a warrior immobilizing them with their powerful hands, or stunning them with a strong blow to the head. This is how it works in Legacy of Kain, Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines, Vampyr, Bloodrayne, to name a few.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think of Donovan from Darkstalkers and of course Blade from Marvel as well. Both of which could work fine as Barbarians too.
Yeah, I've played two tabaxis -- one a wizard, the other a ranged Battle Master fighter who specialized in heavy crossbow. Trying to build the character around their melee attack never entered into the equation, and their movement feature was far more valuable to me
The dhampir bite is more useful than tabaxi claws, to be fair, but it's still not really something worth 'optimizing' around, if that word's even relevant here -- even OP is playing a dhampir sorcerer, which I assume isn't a melee build
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
1) I’m not saying dhampir can’t wear heavy armor. Blade, for example, fits the idea of a fighter. I just think people picking dhampir are often leaning towards a vampire aesthetic that is normally more svelte.
2) Yeah, I get the argument with aarakocra and tabaxi. But as others here have said, the bite had uses besides pure damage. I’d be happy if it was a finesse weapon (which I also think the tabaxi attack should be).
3) I’m fairly lukewarm about resistances. They’re mechanically useful, but I think features that make something happen are usually more exciting than things that stop a thing happening.
I didn’t optimise around it as such… but I agreed with the DM before the campaign that as a character flaw there are times when I must attempt to bite someone (whenever I’m below 25% health and there is a non-undead monster or NPC I can reach with my movement, and has blood on them). I’ve even followed this when it’s provoked an opportunity attack from an undead that would have made me unconscious if it’d hit. It’s revealed my species to several people my character hasn’t wanted to know.
But the bite was actually pretty handy with +6 and advantage, doing damage and also healing. Now it has much less chance of hitting. It was also the weapon attack I made for opportunity attacks.
Not a melee build, but I spend a lot of time in the front line for a sorcerer. I’m a divine soul casting Spirit Guardians, doing what I can to not actually die from being in a dangerous spot!
Speaking of Spirit Guardians… one thing in the new book that does interest me is the Rebuke feat for its interaction with SG. If a creature with 30ft movement speed enters the SG, falls prone and stands up they have less than 5ft of movement left on that turn. Shame it’s only once per rest!
Not a big change from the original print in Van R book. This is not new. Slight change
I really can’t agree. They’ve taken the feature that made the species feel like a dhampir, and taken it from something useful into a ribbon that will never be used for most builds. In my example, it’s gone from +6 with advantage (effectively a +10 or +11) to +2, at a stage in the game when most of my attack rolls would be +7.
Not everyone plays using "builds", for the record.
Law of averages says that most people just pick what they like.
Always remember to also think outside your playstyle with these things before decrying something.
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
Am I the only person who thinks that none of the official Classes really fit the Vampire trope? I feel like it should really be a Class rather than a lineage. Or maybe a Subclass for each Class that makes it, eg, a Vampire Barb or a Vampire Warlock.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I was using the word "build" loosely. I'm not thinking of anything especially optimised or any clever interactions. My dhampir is a frontline sorcerer who has fallen unconscious more than anyone else in his party, and who was a character before he was a character sheet. He's a divine soul who takes radiant damage whenever he casts Bless.
My problem is precisely that this change does limit the playstyles people can use. Across the campaigns I play in, out of 20 characters in those parties, only 4 have a positive strength mod, but most have a positive constitution mod. They've taken a feature that complemented many character ideas, and made it only useful in a few, for no benefit that I can see.
Yes, anyone can pick a dhampir if they want to play one, but the vampiric bite was always the thing that made a character feel like a dhampir, and its rare that in combat people will choose the attack that'll probably miss over the one that'll probably hit especially if they need urgent healing. So I think this change will mean we see dhampirs that don't feel like dhampirs because they don't do the dhampir thing.
The fact that it still includes the weird detail that the damage is based on constitution makes me think that this was an oversight, and they meant to make both rolls constitution. I'd also be happy if it used the player's choice of str or dex (like the Grim Hollow dhampir). I'd make the same change to the tabaxi's claws too.
I am new, after a multiple decade break and have no experience/baggage from this century. So only knowing the 2024 rules, why would you ever want to use constitution as an attack bonus? Spells and attacks (not saves) should never be from Constitution. I can understand debating a bite attack should be dex not strength, but constitution should be a stand alone stat. To double up on constitution will be a huge advantage to that class/species. Maybe the damage statement is wrong and it should have been based on str/dex.
As from what I can tell with limited resources, every 2024 species/class uses something other then constitution for attacks, so based on that blueprint, it makes no sense to use it.
I can see vampires fitting well with rogue - maybe an arcane trickster with a lot of enchantment and necromancy spells? Barb also works well, depending on the type of vampire you're thinking of. Or any kind of enchantment or necromancy focus.
Grim Hollow has The First Vampire patron warlock which I'd suggest to anyone looking to play a vampire type character. It also has a dhampir I prefer to the VRGtR or ABoH versions, as it comes with some enchantment magic. It's definitely a little stronger than either though. If you're looking for level progression it also has a system of boons and flaws for transforming a character into a vampire in narrative-driven stages.
I reckon vampire/dhampir is right as a species rather than a job description. It lets people take vampires and do something surprising with them.
It is unusual. I have a feeling there was maybe one other player-side attack in the game that uses Con, but I can’t think what? The Dragonborn breath weapon also uses Con. I think it’s to allow more character options, and they can sort-of justify the species attacks as being determined by the character’s health.
There are some monsters with implicitly constitution-based attacks, but it’s rare.
And yeah, I’d be happy for the attack to use the player’s choice of Str or Dex. I was just thinking it was weird that they left the damage as being Con based, but not the attack. That’s another thing that’s very unusual - using different modifiers for the attack and damage.
There is at least one: the original 5e version of the Genasi species (from Princes of the Apocalypse) used Constitution as the spellcasting ability for their species-granted spells, and the Fire Genasi's cantrip was Produce Flame, which would involve a Constitution attack roll. This was changed in the updated version published in Monsters of the Multiverse to be the player's choice of Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma.
I can't think of literally anything else where an attack uses two different abilities for the attack roll and the damage roll.
pronouns: he/she/they
I agree that it would be better to have the choice between Strength and Dexterity, as in Grim Hollow and BG3 (as if the bite had the Finesse property).
However, I don't see the vampire bite as an attack that should be made during combat, but rather against an enemy who is clearly at a disadvantage. They may be stunned, unconscious, charmed, seduced, dying (0 HP), or simply willing. This aligns with most of the video games I've played, where the vampire bite serves as a finishing attack, and I think that makes more sense. The target needs to be prepared beforehand, whether it's a spellcaster enchanting or paralyzing them, a rogue attacking the target by surprise from behind, a warrior immobilizing them with their powerful hands, or stunning them with a strong blow to the head. This is how it works in Legacy of Kain, Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines, Vampyr, Bloodrayne, to name a few.