Worth noting as well is that Dhampir and Reborn are humanoids and undead (or constructs), which means they can't benefit from the effects of Cure Wounds and the like(?)
Or am I misinterpreting something?
Nothing in the features suggests that so I would say they are treated as any other PC for those spells.
From the text of Cure Wounds: This spell has no effect on undead or constructs.
But they do affect Humanoids, which all of these Lineages are as well.
It doesn't state "This doesn't work on undead, unless they are also human." or something along those lines, so being in other groups is irrelevant.
Worth noting as well is that Dhampir and Reborn are humanoids and undead (or constructs), which means they can't benefit from the effects of Cure Wounds and the like(?)
Or am I misinterpreting something?
Nothing in the features suggests that so I would say they are treated as any other PC for those spells.
From the text of Cure Wounds: This spell has no effect on undead or constructs.
But they do affect Humanoids, which all of these Lineages are as well.
It doesn't state "This doesn't work on undead, unless they are also human." or something along those lines, so being in other groups is irrelevant.
You're missing the statement in the UA that introduces multiple creature types for PCs that if it works on one of your creature types, it works on you, even if the other creature type is excluded. So Cure Wounds works on a Humanoid/Undead because it works on a Humanoid, but Turn Undead also works on you because it works on Undead. This is very clearly outlined in the document.
Worth noting as well is that Dhampir and Reborn are humanoids and undead (or constructs), which means they can't benefit from the effects of Cure Wounds and the like(?)
Or am I misinterpreting something?
Nothing in the features suggests that so I would say they are treated as any other PC for those spells.
From the text of Cure Wounds: This spell has no effect on undead or constructs.
The UA says that if a spell effects one of the two types the character it is, the spell effects them.
And the spell specifically overrides that general rule.
Worth noting as well is that Dhampir and Reborn are humanoids and undead (or constructs), which means they can't benefit from the effects of Cure Wounds and the like(?)
Or am I misinterpreting something?
Nothing in the features suggests that so I would say they are treated as any other PC for those spells.
From the text of Cure Wounds: This spell has no effect on undead or constructs.
But they do affect Humanoids, which all of these Lineages are as well.
It doesn't state "This doesn't work on undead, unless they are also human." or something along those lines, so being in other groups is irrelevant.
From the UA itself (emphasis mine:)
"Having More Than One Type. Some creatures are of more than one creature type. If an effect works on at least one of a creature’s types, that effect can work on that creature. For example, if you are both a Humanoid and an Undead, cure wounds works on you, since the spell works on a Humanoid."
Worth noting as well is that Dhampir and Reborn are humanoids and undead (or constructs), which means they can't benefit from the effects of Cure Wounds and the like(?)
Or am I misinterpreting something?
Nothing in the features suggests that so I would say they are treated as any other PC for those spells.
From the text of Cure Wounds: This spell has no effect on undead or constructs.
The UA says that if a spell effects one of the two types the character it is, the spell effects them.
And the spell specifically overrides that general rule.
Yes, a spell written over seven years ago overrides a rule introduced last Tuesday which specifically calls out the example we're using as valid. That makes wonderful sense.
Worth noting as well is that Dhampir and Reborn are humanoids and undead (or constructs), which means they can't benefit from the effects of Cure Wounds and the like(?)
Or am I misinterpreting something?
Nothing in the features suggests that so I would say they are treated as any other PC for those spells.
From the text of Cure Wounds: This spell has no effect on undead or constructs.
But they do affect Humanoids, which all of these Lineages are as well.
It doesn't state "This doesn't work on undead, unless they are also human." or something along those lines, so being in other groups is irrelevant.
You're missing the statement in the UA that introduces multiple creature types for PCs that if it works on one of your creature types, it works on you, even if the other creature type is excluded. So Cure Wounds works on a Humanoid/Undead because it works on a Humanoid, but Turn Undead also works on you because it works on Undead. This is very clearly outlined in the document.
The specific rule in the spell overrides the general UA rule.
Also from UA: "For example, the text of the cure wounds spell specifies that the spell doesn’t work on a creature that has the Construct or Undead type."
I get the feeling this UA was thrown together to beat a deadline, rather than a internally tested document. Most of the questions in this thread aren't based on niche situations or a combination of obscure rules. They should have been hashed out & clearly resolved before the UA saw the light of day. <Insert Dhampir Joke Here>
Worth noting as well is that Dhampir and Reborn are humanoids and undead (or constructs), which means they can't benefit from the effects of Cure Wounds and the like(?)
Or am I misinterpreting something?
Nothing in the features suggests that so I would say they are treated as any other PC for those spells.
From the text of Cure Wounds: This spell has no effect on undead or constructs.
But they do affect Humanoids, which all of these Lineages are as well.
It doesn't state "This doesn't work on undead, unless they are also human." or something along those lines, so being in other groups is irrelevant.
You're missing the statement in the UA that introduces multiple creature types for PCs that if it works on one of your creature types, it works on you, even if the other creature type is excluded. So Cure Wounds works on a Humanoid/Undead because it works on a Humanoid, but Turn Undead also works on you because it works on Undead. This is very clearly outlined in the document.
The specific rule in the spell overrides the general UA rule.
Also from UA: "For example, the text of the cure wounds spell specifies that the spell doesn’t work on a creature that has the Construct or Undead type."
That bit appears in the section immediately before the section Envoy quoted, deliberately setting up the known dynamic before then illustrating how this new twin-type dynamic alters and subverts it. I don't understand how there's a question about this.
Worth noting as well is that Dhampir and Reborn are humanoids and undead (or constructs), which means they can't benefit from the effects of Cure Wounds and the like(?)
Or am I misinterpreting something?
Nothing in the features suggests that so I would say they are treated as any other PC for those spells.
From the text of Cure Wounds: This spell has no effect on undead or constructs.
The UA says that if a spell effects one of the two types the character it is, the spell effects them.
And the spell specifically overrides that general rule.
Yes, a spell written over seven years ago overrides a rule introduced last Tuesday which specifically calls out the example we're using as valid. That makes wonderful sense.
There is no statute of limitations on "specific overrides general". Nothing stops WotC from adding a errata to Cure Wounds.
Note that this is a reason I expressed dislike for the whole 'more than one type' system introduced here; it would work far better to have it be a special trait that specifies its exact interactions rather than suddenly inventing a new system for multiple types.
Worth noting as well is that Dhampir and Reborn are humanoids and undead (or constructs), which means they can't benefit from the effects of Cure Wounds and the like(?)
Or am I misinterpreting something?
Nothing in the features suggests that so I would say they are treated as any other PC for those spells.
From the text of Cure Wounds: This spell has no effect on undead or constructs.
But they do affect Humanoids, which all of these Lineages are as well.
It doesn't state "This doesn't work on undead, unless they are also human." or something along those lines, so being in other groups is irrelevant.
You're missing the statement in the UA that introduces multiple creature types for PCs that if it works on one of your creature types, it works on you, even if the other creature type is excluded. So Cure Wounds works on a Humanoid/Undead because it works on a Humanoid, but Turn Undead also works on you because it works on Undead. This is very clearly outlined in the document.
The specific rule in the spell overrides the general UA rule.
Also from UA: "For example, the text of the cure wounds spell specifies that the spell doesn’t work on a creature that has the Construct or Undead type."
I get the feeling this UA was thrown together to beat a deadline, rather than a internally tested document. Most of the questions in this thread aren't based on niche situations or a combination of obscure rules. They should have been hashed out & clearly resolved before the UA saw the light of day. <Insert Dhampir Joke Here>
I always love when people quote documents only to prove their point. The obvious quote about Cure wounds not working on Undead or constructs in the UA doc is meant to demonstrate that as it says that creature types have no rules, but some things have rules about creature type.
The statement is then followed by a section about "what if a creature has two types" - then so long as the spell effects one type it effects the creature. Full Text quoted below:
List of Types. Here’s a list of the game’s creature types in alphabetical order: Aberration, Beast, Celestial, Construct, Dragon, Elemental, Fey, Fiend, Giant, Humanoid, Monstrosity, Ooze, Plant, Undead. These types don’t have rules themselves, but some rules in the game affect creatures of certain types in different ways. For example, the text of the cure wounds spell specifies that the spell doesn’t work on a creature that has the Construct or Undead type.
Having More Than One Type. Some creatures are of more than one creature type. If an effect works on at least one of a creature’s types, that effect can work on that creature. For example, if you are both a Humanoid and an Undead, cure wounds works on you, since the spell works on a Humanoid.
Game designers have been very clear on how more than one creature type will work.
Worth noting as well is that Dhampir and Reborn are humanoids and undead (or constructs), which means they can't benefit from the effects of Cure Wounds and the like(?)
Or am I misinterpreting something?
Nothing in the features suggests that so I would say they are treated as any other PC for those spells.
From the text of Cure Wounds: This spell has no effect on undead or constructs.
But they do affect Humanoids, which all of these Lineages are as well.
It doesn't state "This doesn't work on undead, unless they are also human." or something along those lines, so being in other groups is irrelevant.
You're missing the statement in the UA that introduces multiple creature types for PCs that if it works on one of your creature types, it works on you, even if the other creature type is excluded. So Cure Wounds works on a Humanoid/Undead because it works on a Humanoid, but Turn Undead also works on you because it works on Undead. This is very clearly outlined in the document.
The specific rule in the spell overrides the general UA rule.
Also from UA: "For example, the text of the cure wounds spell specifies that the spell doesn’t work on a creature that has the Construct or Undead type."
I get the feeling this UA was thrown together to beat a deadline, rather than a internally tested document. Most of the questions in this thread aren't based on niche situations or a combination of obscure rules. They should have been hashed out & clearly resolved before the UA saw the light of day. <Insert Dhampir Joke Here>
I always love when people quote documents only to prove their point. The obvious quote about Cure wounds not working on Undead or constructs in the UA doc is meant to demonstrate that as it says that creature types have no rules, but some things have rules about creature type.
The statement is then followed by a section about "what if a creature has two types" - then so long as the spell effects one type it effects the creature. Full Text quoted below:
List of Types. Here’s a list of the game’s creature types in alphabetical order: Aberration, Beast, Celestial, Construct, Dragon, Elemental, Fey, Fiend, Giant, Humanoid, Monstrosity, Ooze, Plant, Undead. These types don’t have rules themselves, but some rules in the game affect creatures of certain types in different ways. For example, the text of the cure wounds spell specifies that the spell doesn’t work on a creature that has the Construct or Undead type.
Having More Than One Type. Some creatures are of more than one creature type. If an effect works on at least one of a creature’s types, that effect can work on that creature. For example, if you are both a Humanoid and an Undead, cure wounds works on you, since the spell works on a Humanoid.
Game designers have been very clear on how more than one creature type will work.
Yeah, this is a pretty simple system they've got here. I'm into it.
One of the things about Dhampir I'm not fond of is how the hunger aspect is entirely character flavor with no downsides, all upsides. It's not really much of a need to feed if you never need to actually feed.
One idea I suggested in the feedback survey to change that would be instead of flat having two creature types it had a malleable creature type.
Right after feeding your type changes to Humanoid, after a specified amount of time your type changes to Humanoid and Undead, after a further amount of time your type becomes straight Undead.
One of the things about Dhampir I'm not fond of is how the hunger aspect is entirely character flavor with no downsides, all upsides. It's not really much of a need to feed if you never need to actually feed.
One idea I suggested in the feedback survey to change that would be instead of flat having two creature types it had a malleable creature type.
Right after feeding your type changes to Humanoid, after a specified amount of time your type changes to Humanoid and Undead, after a further amount of time your type becomes straight Undead.
Yeah feels very "Blade" where you are just mostly positive with little negative. You would have the social/cultural impacts of it as well as you would show up as Undead to those with the ability to search for them which could cause problems for the party I suppose. You are right though you should have to do a WIS roll if you haven't fed for the day or week or something.
One of the things about Dhampir I'm not fond of is how the hunger aspect is entirely character flavor with no downsides, all upsides. It's not really much of a need to feed if you never need to actually feed.
One idea I suggested in the feedback survey to change that would be instead of flat having two creature types it had a malleable creature type.
Right after feeding your type changes to Humanoid, after a specified amount of time your type changes to Humanoid and Undead, after a further amount of time your type becomes straight Undead.
Yeah feels very "Blade" where you are just mostly positive with little negative. You would have the social/cultural impacts of it as well as you would show up as Undead to those with the ability to search for them which could cause problems for the party I suppose. You are right though you should have to do a WIS roll if you haven't fed for the day or week or something.
Not sure how to reconcile the dual nature, but I agree I think as proposed Dhamphyr is clearly a portmanteau of Daywalker Vampire (a porthmanteau under the Gothline portmanteau).
And yeah, the "hunger" just being fluff doesn't smell right. There should be consequences for needing to feed in a way none of the other characters do. Say you're way out on the glaciers in Icewind Dale. Is your party's ranger's survival check to find food for the party also going to include "fresh" stuff for you? (Ooo, if you're the ranger and have the hunger, do you have to hunt separately for the party and your special dietary needs?). The Dhamphyr is the outlier among the three feature wise and I think it needs some mechanical consequences beyond an edge that's just flavor. If you do the bag of rats, that's fine, but depending on your game's level of grit, one's bag of rats isn't a conucopia forever providing a bounty of life essence, it's got to be fed etc.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Dhampir should also get sunlight sensitivity to balance them out a bit more. Blade didn't have Sunlight Hypersensitivity (that Vampires have), but he definitely didn't like full sunlight.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Yes, I was having fun with the D in Dhampir. However, that wikipedia article is a bit murky, and some of its citations aren't making the authoritative claims the article purports them to be doing (at least the ones in French). Dhampir can mean vampiric offspring, but it also means simply vampire, varying from myth to myth. The article's best feature is actually the talk section that breaks down (so to speak) the translation and lore the article is trying to claim authoritatively.
There are some lineages, so to speak, of folklore using the word Dhampir to describe vampire spawn (spawned one way or other) rejecting their vampire nature and instead defending people from vampires (which might actually be fun precedent for the "sheepdog" analogy used in some contemporary myths or folk psychology about contemporary "guardians" and "rough and ready men" but that's a massive digression), but the Dhampir presented in the UA seems more Blade than Balkan, especially in comparison to the other Gothlines.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It doesn't state "This doesn't work on undead, unless they are also human." or something along those lines, so being in other groups is irrelevant.
You're missing the statement in the UA that introduces multiple creature types for PCs that if it works on one of your creature types, it works on you, even if the other creature type is excluded. So Cure Wounds works on a Humanoid/Undead because it works on a Humanoid, but Turn Undead also works on you because it works on Undead. This is very clearly outlined in the document.
And the spell specifically overrides that general rule.
From the UA itself (emphasis mine:)
"Having More Than One Type. Some creatures are of more than one creature type. If an effect works on at least one of a creature’s types, that effect can work on that creature. For example, if you are both a Humanoid and an Undead, cure wounds works on you, since the spell works on a Humanoid."
Source:https://media.wizards.com/2021/dnd/downloads/UA2021_GothicLineages.pdf
(Page 1; last paragraph)
Yes, a spell written over seven years ago overrides a rule introduced last Tuesday which specifically calls out the example we're using as valid. That makes wonderful sense.
The specific rule in the spell overrides the general UA rule.
Also from UA: "For example, the text of the cure wounds spell specifies that the spell doesn’t work on a creature that has the Construct or Undead type."
I get the feeling this UA was thrown together to beat a deadline, rather than a internally tested document. Most of the questions in this thread aren't based on niche situations or a combination of obscure rules. They should have been hashed out & clearly resolved before the UA saw the light of day. <Insert Dhampir Joke Here>
That bit appears in the section immediately before the section Envoy quoted, deliberately setting up the known dynamic before then illustrating how this new twin-type dynamic alters and subverts it. I don't understand how there's a question about this.
There is no statute of limitations on "specific overrides general". Nothing stops WotC from adding a errata to Cure Wounds.
Note that this is a reason I expressed dislike for the whole 'more than one type' system introduced here; it would work far better to have it be a special trait that specifies its exact interactions rather than suddenly inventing a new system for multiple types.
Headdesk.gif
Time to unfollow this particular thread.
That's fine and dandy, but you are demonstrably wrong in this case. The UA itself uses Cure Wounds as an example, even.
I always love when people quote documents only to prove their point. The obvious quote about Cure wounds not working on Undead or constructs in the UA doc is meant to demonstrate that as it says that creature types have no rules, but some things have rules about creature type.
The statement is then followed by a section about "what if a creature has two types" - then so long as the spell effects one type it effects the creature. Full Text quoted below:
Game designers have been very clear on how more than one creature type will work.
Yeah, this is a pretty simple system they've got here. I'm into it.
One of the things about Dhampir I'm not fond of is how the hunger aspect is entirely character flavor with no downsides, all upsides.
It's not really much of a need to feed if you never need to actually feed.
One idea I suggested in the feedback survey to change that would be instead of flat having two creature types it had a malleable creature type.
Right after feeding your type changes to Humanoid, after a specified amount of time your type changes to Humanoid and Undead, after a further amount of time your type becomes straight Undead.
Yeah feels very "Blade" where you are just mostly positive with little negative. You would have the social/cultural impacts of it as well as you would show up as Undead to those with the ability to search for them which could cause problems for the party I suppose. You are right though you should have to do a WIS roll if you haven't fed for the day or week or something.
Not sure how to reconcile the dual nature, but I agree I think as proposed Dhamphyr is clearly a portmanteau of Daywalker Vampire (a porthmanteau under the Gothline portmanteau).
And yeah, the "hunger" just being fluff doesn't smell right. There should be consequences for needing to feed in a way none of the other characters do. Say you're way out on the glaciers in Icewind Dale. Is your party's ranger's survival check to find food for the party also going to include "fresh" stuff for you? (Ooo, if you're the ranger and have the hunger, do you have to hunt separately for the party and your special dietary needs?). The Dhamphyr is the outlier among the three feature wise and I think it needs some mechanical consequences beyond an edge that's just flavor. If you do the bag of rats, that's fine, but depending on your game's level of grit, one's bag of rats isn't a conucopia forever providing a bounty of life essence, it's got to be fed etc.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Dhampir should also get sunlight sensitivity to balance them out a bit more. Blade didn't have Sunlight Hypersensitivity (that Vampires have), but he definitely didn't like full sunlight.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
(Dhampirs are human/vampire hybrid creatures with hundreds of years of history)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhampir?wprov=sfla1
I was not aware of that. Nice to know.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Yes, I was having fun with the D in Dhampir. However, that wikipedia article is a bit murky, and some of its citations aren't making the authoritative claims the article purports them to be doing (at least the ones in French). Dhampir can mean vampiric offspring, but it also means simply vampire, varying from myth to myth. The article's best feature is actually the talk section that breaks down (so to speak) the translation and lore the article is trying to claim authoritatively.
There are some lineages, so to speak, of folklore using the word Dhampir to describe vampire spawn (spawned one way or other) rejecting their vampire nature and instead defending people from vampires (which might actually be fun precedent for the "sheepdog" analogy used in some contemporary myths or folk psychology about contemporary "guardians" and "rough and ready men" but that's a massive digression), but the Dhampir presented in the UA seems more Blade than Balkan, especially in comparison to the other Gothlines.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.