Green-Flame Blade requires "a melee weapon worth at least 1 sp"
I would argue that there are a number of reasons a Dhampir's teeth would be worth AT LEAST 1 sp.
In most settings, I imagine dhampir would be fairly unique creatures.
As an adventurer with many enemies, a PC's teeth would probably be prized as a trophy.
If they were ever sold into servitude, a PC would likely fetch a much higher price than 1sp.
If Dhampir teeth were sold on some kind of black market, I expect people would pay more than 1sp.
I could go on, but you see where i'm going with this. Fanged bite... Green-Flame Blade. It can work. I must stress, that I'm not looking to get extra healing from this combo. I simply love the idea of a flaming bite that damaged multiple enemies. Especially for a warlock or former tiefling/dragonborn dhampir.
Your teeth aren't the weapon, your bite is - the action. Your teeth and jaw could be worth a billion plat on the black market, and your bite wouldn't be worth anything.
BB and GFB were deliberately modified in TCOE to stop working with unarmed strikes and natural weapons. I don't know why, but they were. There's no sense trying to worm around that when the spells are so broken now they don't even work with magic weapons.
BB and GFB were deliberately modified in TCOE to stop working with unarmed strikes and natural weapons. I don't know why, but they were. There's no sense trying to worm around that when the spells are so broken now they don't even work with magic weapons.
Of course they work with magic weapons. They work with any melee weapon that is a real weapon that your DM decides costs more that 1sp.
They don't work with improvised weapons like a rock you found, because rocks are cheaper than 1sp and they aren't really weapons until you attack with them. They don't work with natural weapons because you can't buy someone's teeth and glue them into your own head and bite with them. Same with unarmed strikes.
If someone is selling you a +1 longsword for less than 1sp then I want to know where you are buying your magic items.
The spells work with magic items, and they work with any weapon worth at least 1 sp. Though the vampiric bite does not have a price listed, a DM could easily rule otherwise, and they do count as a weapon. The only RAW issue with using Green-Flame Blade/Booming Blade with the vampiric bite is the new price mechanic (maybe getting braces could change that, or filling your teeth with gold).
RAW, it doesn't work. RAI, it's almost definitely not intended to work. However, RAF rules whenever the DM wants it to.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
It's odd that the Dhampir bite counts as a melee weapon when all the other innate weapons are treated as unarmed strikes.
I would agree with the above that by RAW it certainly doesn't work. However, it wouldn't take much to convince me to let people use the cantrips with unarmed strikes or improvised weapons. But then, I do tend to be in favor of things that allow adventurers to fight competently when they are caught out of their normal gear.
Your teeth aren't the weapon, your bite is - the action. Your teeth and jaw could be worth a billion plat on the black market, and your bite wouldn't be worth anything.
BB and GFB were deliberately modified in TCOE to stop working with unarmed strikes and natural weapons. I don't know why, but they were. There's no sense trying to worm around that when the spells are so broken now they don't even work with magic weapons.
It clearly states that your bite counts as a simple weapon. That feels very intentional to me and that wording opens the bite up in a way other natural weapons haven't been.
Personally, I can't see how you would avoid damaging yourself with green flame bursting out of your fangs. It would look cool. Green Dragon Breath. I wouldn't allow it myself. It's not like Dhampirs need any more buffs. I really don't see using this spell that you cast on yourself having a good outcome when coming out of your own body parts.
I don't personally see how this is a buff. If I'm a dhampir striking with a dagger, I have a simple weapon that that does 1d4. If I'm a dhampir biting, I have a simple weapon that does 1d4 damage. Mechanically they are exactly the same. The only difference is the dagger is bog standard and the bite makes the player feel like they're doing something cool and original. Which is something more DMs should encourage.
Simple weapon, Martial weapon, in fact *any* kind of weapon, it makes no difference. Your fangs have no intrinsic value while they remain in your head. If you pull them out, you could sell them, but that would pull the fangs right out of your argument wouldn't it? You'd have to buy them back and hold them in your hand, and that would be kind of fangless. I suppose you could sell them, buy them back, and attach them back in your head somehow, like with glue. You've paid the price, you get your Green Flame.
I still have to wonder about hurting yourself. Getting your fangs pulled has got to hurt and do damage to something, probably the fangs. Those are somewhat delicate. Getting them back in your head might break them again. Green Flame is probably hot enough to crack them given the damage it does. Then it crumbles just like your argument. A mouth full of Green Flame can't taste very good and you will probably burn your tongue. I really think you should put the blade back in your Green Flame Blade. That will keep you far enough away that you won't burn yourself, your argument, or your sword. If you do happen to break your sword somehow, you can probably sell it and have enough left over after you buy your sword back that you can afford to buy your fangs back too. It might take a bite out of your wallet, but that's much better all the way around. :-)
You could flavor it as having the fire be injected through the fangs, like snakes inject venom through their teeth. Also, it's magic. Why would Green-Flame Blade on your Teeth hurt the caster anymore than Shadow of Moil or similar spells that produce effects that seem like they would harm the caster? Or, for that matter, why it doesn't hurt for you to attack with a dagger using Green-Flame Blade when you're literally setting it on fire in your hand. "Realistically" that should hurt the caster, right?
The only RAW issue with this combination is a lack of a price for the Vampiric Bite. If the DM ignores that or allows the Vampiric Bite to get a value in some manner, this combo would work perfectly fine and wouldn't/shouldn't RAW damage the player using it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
"Your teeth aren't the weapon, your bite is - the action. Your teeth and jaw could be worth a billion plat on the black market, and your bite wouldn't be worth anything. "
This is actually explicitly not the case.
Your fanged bite is a natural weapon, which counts as a simple melee weapon with which you are proficient. You add your Constitution modifier, instead of your Strength modifier, to the attack and damage rolls when you attack with this bite. It deals 1d4 piercing damage on a hit. While you are missing half or more of your hit points, you have advantage on attack rolls you make with this bite.
When you attack with this bite and hit a creature that isn’t a Construct or an Undead, you can empower yourself in one of the following ways of your choice:
You regain hit points equal to the piercing damage dealt by the bite.
You gain a bonus to the next ability check or attack roll you make; the bonus equals the piercing damage dealt by the bite.
You can empower yourself with this bite a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus, and you regain all expended uses when you finish a long rest.
Your teeth aren't the weapon, your bite is - the action. Your teeth and jaw could be worth a billion plat on the black market, and your bite wouldn't be worth anything.
This is actually explicitly not the case.
Your fanged bite is a natural weapon, which counts as a simple melee weapon with which you are proficient.
Fixed your post.
While what you say is true, it doesn't change the answer because natural weapons have no RAW "worth".
Forget about the gold. The real issue is that material components need to be held in your hand and even if you find some workaround for that (e.g. a spell scroll), the spell says you brandish the weapon used in the casting as part of its effect. You'd have to rip your fangs out of your mouth, and then you've got no bite and no weapon, just some teeth.
The gold cost is just there to make it clear you're expected to wave your weapon around as part of the casting. It's purely a narrative thing. The DM can assign whatever value they deem appropriate to things that don't have a price listed (i.e. no price isn't the same as 0 gold.)
It's odd that the Dhampir bite counts as a melee weapon when all the other innate weapons are treated as unarmed strikes.
Tabaxi claws and the likes are given an exception to count as unarmed strikes so they play nice with Martial Arts, but they're still considered natural weapons. The Dhampir bite was likely excluded because lunging at your opponent face-first isn't a very practical martial arts move.
It's odd that the Dhampir bite counts as a melee weapon when all the other innate weapons are treated as unarmed strikes.
Tabaxi claws and the likes are given an exception to count as unarmed strikes so they play nice with Martial Arts, but they're still considered natural weapons. The Dhampir bite was likely excluded because lunging at your opponent face-first isn't a very practical martial arts move.
The dhampir's bite is the only one that is not an unarmed strike.
[Edit]I think I misunderstood the point of the "exception" sentence, but still, there are no less than 4 "lunging head first" natural weapons here. It not working with martial Arts is probably to keep it balanced more than anything.
[Edit]I think I misunderstood the point of the "exception" sentence, but still, there are no less than 4 "lunging head first" natural weapons here. It not working with martial Arts is probably to keep it balanced more than anything.
You're probably right, I totally forgot about longtooth Shifters. I don't personally count the ram attacks though because you're not going in face first and the horns do provide some degree of protection.
RAW it doesn't work. The bite is the weapon, not the fangs, and neither have a written value. BUT... as a DM I'd allow the "Rule of Cool" to override that ruling. Especially if you were under the effects of a Dragon's Breath spell.
You dont need to hold a weapon in your hands to brandish it. Look up the definition of Brandish. "The wolf brandished it's teeth at the foe as it growled." Also as for the momentary value of dhampir fangs, the question you have to ask is. Would anyone be willing to by this for a sp? People would buy vampire fangs. So, I see no reason people wouldn't buy the fangs of rarer subspecies of vampire.
You dont need to hold a weapon in your hands to brandish it. Look up the definition of Brandish. "The wolf brandished it's teeth at the foe as it growled." Also as for the momentary value of dhampir fangs, the question you have to ask is. Would anyone be willing to by this for a sp? People would buy vampire fangs. So, I see no reason people wouldn't buy the fangs of rarer subspecies of vampire.
The typical ruling is that the weapon must have a defined value, this is what causes problems with an Armorer's Thunder Gauntlets (though it arguably shouldn't, since armour has a defined value). A Dhampir's teeth don't have any defined value, unlike a longsword which you can easily look up in equipment. Your DM can certainly rule that an NPC might be willing to buy your teeth, but as long as they're still stuck inside your head they have no value (they'd need to be removed to be sellable), and it's a house-ruling regardless.
I'd also say that you don't "brandish" teeth; a wolf might bare it's teeth, but to brandish something is more specifically to "wave or flourish" which you can't really do with teeth, you can show them, or you can bite with them, that's about it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
The Words Bare and Brandish can be used almost equally when trying to show off ones weapons. You can indeed Brandish your Teeth. You can wave or flourish them. You might say, "Well your not waving your teeth your waving around your head." That is because Your teeth are attached to your head. However by that same logic, when you wave around a weapon you are really only waving around your hand and arm. The weapon is just currently attached to your hand.
The Words Bare and Brandish can be used almost equally when trying to show off ones weapons. You can indeed Brandish your Teeth. You can wave or flourish them. You might say, "Well your not waving your teeth your waving around your head." That is because Your teeth are attached to your head. However by that same logic, when you wave around a weapon you are really only waving around your hand and arm. The weapon is just currently attached to your hand.
In this Video of Two Hippos Fighting and I would say they are brandishing their teeth as opposed to Baring them.
This is getting more tenuous; you can bare a weapon in the sense of "bare the blade", i.e- unsheath the weapon to display it, or possibly signal intent (same as a wolf baring its teeth). I'm not sure what point you're trying to make about the hand or wrist; you use your hand and wrist to wave the sword, but a flourish is typically a demonstration of your ability to actually use the weapon, it's a bit more than just shaking it around. As for the hippos, they're baring their teeth in a threat display, this is not brandishing them as a weapon, even if they do use them as a weapon, none of these are the same thing.
In legal terms (which we should not need to go into) there are specific charges of "brandishing a weapon" that do not include fists or teeth; to qualify, a weapon must almost always be some form of object or implement that can be understood to threaten bodily harm.
You can certainly bare your teeth in a threatening manner, especially so if you have fangs, but to be try and argue that that constitutes brandishing when it doesn't reasonably fit the definition is a stretch. To interpret rules as written you shouldn't have to go beyond the simplest, understood definition of a word, especially when something very clearly is not rules as intended; booming blade and green-flame blade were specifically altered to prevent their use with natural and summoned weapons.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade states that it needs to be a weapon. "Your fanged bite is a natural weapon, which counts as a simple melee weapon with which you are proficient." Where as Unarmed strikes specifically say "none of which count as weapons" Time limited Summoned Weapons cant have value which is why they don't work. (Although Jeremy Crofter did say, "This change has nothing to do with prohibiting or allowing Shadow Blade to combine with Booming/Green-Flame Blade. It's about fixing those two cantrips. As DM, I'd allow those them to combo, since I make liberal use of the rule on improvised weapons.")
When I comes down to it, Vampire Fangs and by extension Dhampir would have some kind of value over 1 sp. I doesn't matter if they are still in the creature's mouth, they have value. Worse case scenario, all you would have to do is add a Gold or Silver implants to give 1 sp or more worth to it.
Okay hear me out...
Green-Flame Blade requires "a melee weapon worth at least 1 sp"
I would argue that there are a number of reasons a Dhampir's teeth would be worth AT LEAST 1 sp.
I could go on, but you see where i'm going with this. Fanged bite... Green-Flame Blade. It can work. I must stress, that I'm not looking to get extra healing from this combo. I simply love the idea of a flaming bite that damaged multiple enemies. Especially for a warlock or former tiefling/dragonborn dhampir.
Your teeth aren't the weapon, your bite is - the action. Your teeth and jaw could be worth a billion plat on the black market, and your bite wouldn't be worth anything.
BB and GFB were deliberately modified in TCOE to stop working with unarmed strikes and natural weapons. I don't know why, but they were. There's no sense trying to worm around that when the spells are so broken now they don't even work with magic weapons.
Of course they work with magic weapons. They work with any melee weapon that is a real weapon that your DM decides costs more that 1sp.
They don't work with improvised weapons like a rock you found, because rocks are cheaper than 1sp and they aren't really weapons until you attack with them. They don't work with natural weapons because you can't buy someone's teeth and glue them into your own head and bite with them. Same with unarmed strikes.
If someone is selling you a +1 longsword for less than 1sp then I want to know where you are buying your magic items.
The spells work with magic items, and they work with any weapon worth at least 1 sp. Though the vampiric bite does not have a price listed, a DM could easily rule otherwise, and they do count as a weapon. The only RAW issue with using Green-Flame Blade/Booming Blade with the vampiric bite is the new price mechanic (maybe getting braces could change that, or filling your teeth with gold).
RAW, it doesn't work. RAI, it's almost definitely not intended to work. However, RAF rules whenever the DM wants it to.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
It's odd that the Dhampir bite counts as a melee weapon when all the other innate weapons are treated as unarmed strikes.
I would agree with the above that by RAW it certainly doesn't work. However, it wouldn't take much to convince me to let people use the cantrips with unarmed strikes or improvised weapons. But then, I do tend to be in favor of things that allow adventurers to fight competently when they are caught out of their normal gear.
It clearly states that your bite counts as a simple weapon. That feels very intentional to me and that wording opens the bite up in a way other natural weapons haven't been.
I don't personally see how this is a buff. If I'm a dhampir striking with a dagger, I have a simple weapon that that does 1d4. If I'm a dhampir biting, I have a simple weapon that does 1d4 damage. Mechanically they are exactly the same. The only difference is the dagger is bog standard and the bite makes the player feel like they're doing something cool and original. Which is something more DMs should encourage.
You could flavor it as having the fire be injected through the fangs, like snakes inject venom through their teeth. Also, it's magic. Why would Green-Flame Blade on your Teeth hurt the caster anymore than Shadow of Moil or similar spells that produce effects that seem like they would harm the caster? Or, for that matter, why it doesn't hurt for you to attack with a dagger using Green-Flame Blade when you're literally setting it on fire in your hand. "Realistically" that should hurt the caster, right?
The only RAW issue with this combination is a lack of a price for the Vampiric Bite. If the DM ignores that or allows the Vampiric Bite to get a value in some manner, this combo would work perfectly fine and wouldn't/shouldn't RAW damage the player using it.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
"Your teeth aren't the weapon, your bite is - the action. Your teeth and jaw could be worth a billion plat on the black market, and your bite wouldn't be worth anything. "
This is actually explicitly not the case.
Your fanged bite is a natural weapon, which counts as a simple melee weapon with which you are proficient. You add your Constitution modifier, instead of your Strength modifier, to the attack and damage rolls when you attack with this bite. It deals 1d4 piercing damage on a hit. While you are missing half or more of your hit points, you have advantage on attack rolls you make with this bite.
When you attack with this bite and hit a creature that isn’t a Construct or an Undead, you can empower yourself in one of the following ways of your choice:
You can empower yourself with this bite a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus, and you regain all expended uses when you finish a long rest.
Fixed your post.
While what you say is true, it doesn't change the answer because natural weapons have no RAW "worth".
Forget about the gold. The real issue is that material components need to be held in your hand and even if you find some workaround for that (e.g. a spell scroll), the spell says you brandish the weapon used in the casting as part of its effect. You'd have to rip your fangs out of your mouth, and then you've got no bite and no weapon, just some teeth.
The gold cost is just there to make it clear you're expected to wave your weapon around as part of the casting. It's purely a narrative thing. The DM can assign whatever value they deem appropriate to things that don't have a price listed (i.e. no price isn't the same as 0 gold.)
Tabaxi claws and the likes are given an exception to count as unarmed strikes so they play nice with Martial Arts, but they're still considered natural weapons. The Dhampir bite was likely excluded because lunging at your opponent face-first isn't a very practical martial arts move.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Tabaxi claws, leonin claws, satyr ram, Aaracokra talons, lizardfolk bite, longtooth shifter shifting feature, centaur hooves, minotaur horns, and simic hybrid grappling appendages.
The dhampir's bite is the only one that is not an unarmed strike.
[Edit]I think I misunderstood the point of the "exception" sentence, but still, there are no less than 4 "lunging head first" natural weapons here. It not working with martial Arts is probably to keep it balanced more than anything.
Haha thanks, I made the post and then realized I hit reply instead of quote and was feeling lazy.
Replace some teeth with gold, steel, or adamantine? Mithril maybe? Lol
But yeah, they're not hand held, so I guess it doesn't work anyway.
Id allow it, just bb and gfb wouldn't empower for more
You're probably right, I totally forgot about longtooth Shifters. I don't personally count the ram attacks though because you're not going in face first and the horns do provide some degree of protection.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
RAW it doesn't work. The bite is the weapon, not the fangs, and neither have a written value. BUT... as a DM I'd allow the "Rule of Cool" to override that ruling. Especially if you were under the effects of a Dragon's Breath spell.
You dont need to hold a weapon in your hands to brandish it. Look up the definition of Brandish. "The wolf brandished it's teeth at the foe as it growled." Also as for the momentary value of dhampir fangs, the question you have to ask is. Would anyone be willing to by this for a sp? People would buy vampire fangs. So, I see no reason people wouldn't buy the fangs of rarer subspecies of vampire.
The typical ruling is that the weapon must have a defined value, this is what causes problems with an Armorer's Thunder Gauntlets (though it arguably shouldn't, since armour has a defined value). A Dhampir's teeth don't have any defined value, unlike a longsword which you can easily look up in equipment. Your DM can certainly rule that an NPC might be willing to buy your teeth, but as long as they're still stuck inside your head they have no value (they'd need to be removed to be sellable), and it's a house-ruling regardless.
I'd also say that you don't "brandish" teeth; a wolf might bare it's teeth, but to brandish something is more specifically to "wave or flourish" which you can't really do with teeth, you can show them, or you can bite with them, that's about it.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
The Words Bare and Brandish can be used almost equally when trying to show off ones weapons. You can indeed Brandish your Teeth. You can wave or flourish them. You might say, "Well your not waving your teeth your waving around your head." That is because Your teeth are attached to your head. However by that same logic, when you wave around a weapon you are really only waving around your hand and arm. The weapon is just currently attached to your hand.
Fighting Hippos
In this Video of Two Hippos Fighting and I would say they are brandishing their teeth as opposed to Baring them.
This is getting more tenuous; you can bare a weapon in the sense of "bare the blade", i.e- unsheath the weapon to display it, or possibly signal intent (same as a wolf baring its teeth). I'm not sure what point you're trying to make about the hand or wrist; you use your hand and wrist to wave the sword, but a flourish is typically a demonstration of your ability to actually use the weapon, it's a bit more than just shaking it around. As for the hippos, they're baring their teeth in a threat display, this is not brandishing them as a weapon, even if they do use them as a weapon, none of these are the same thing.
In legal terms (which we should not need to go into) there are specific charges of "brandishing a weapon" that do not include fists or teeth; to qualify, a weapon must almost always be some form of object or implement that can be understood to threaten bodily harm.
You can certainly bare your teeth in a threatening manner, especially so if you have fangs, but to be try and argue that that constitutes brandishing when it doesn't reasonably fit the definition is a stretch. To interpret rules as written you shouldn't have to go beyond the simplest, understood definition of a word, especially when something very clearly is not rules as intended; booming blade and green-flame blade were specifically altered to prevent their use with natural and summoned weapons.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Sorry if you find this tenuous, but you are just wrong.
brandish, Noun:
An act or instance of waving something menacingly or exhibiting something ostentatiously or aggressively.
Those Hippos are indeed Brandishing their teeth. however, they are also baring their teeth.
Weapon, Noun
A thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage.
Both your teeth and your fists fit this definition. Now that you are bringing in what is legally defined as a weapon. Here, Courts have found that various parts of a body can be weapons.
Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade states that it needs to be a weapon. "Your fanged bite is a natural weapon, which counts as a simple melee weapon with which you are proficient." Where as Unarmed strikes specifically say "none of which count as weapons" Time limited Summoned Weapons cant have value which is why they don't work. (Although Jeremy Crofter did say, "This change has nothing to do with prohibiting or allowing Shadow Blade to combine with Booming/Green-Flame Blade. It's about fixing those two cantrips. As DM, I'd allow those them to combo, since I make liberal use of the rule on improvised weapons.")
When I comes down to it, Vampire Fangs and by extension Dhampir would have some kind of value over 1 sp. I doesn't matter if they are still in the creature's mouth, they have value. Worse case scenario, all you would have to do is add a Gold or Silver implants to give 1 sp or more worth to it.