Actually there are rules for lycanthrope PCs in the MM, so I'll bite.
Those rules are more so for creating monsters than PCs, they effectively kill the character by putting it under the DM's control, and they're a power boost completely outside of race, class, and feats, so there's no way to track or balance them without creating adhoc character level adjustments, something that 5e seems to have done away with.
However, if you were to use those rules for PCs, I would rule it like this; anything that isn't a part of your race can stick around, so lycanthropy would endure largely unchanged, assuming your DM doesn't have a rule like 'lycanthropes are immune to vampirism' or the like.
Actually there are rules for lycanthrope PCs in the MM, so I'll bite.
Those rules are more so for creating monsters than PCs, they effectively kill the character by putting it under the DM's control, and they're a power boost completely outside of race, class, and feats, so there's no way to track or balance them without creating adhoc character level adjustments, something that 5e seems to have done away with.
However, if you were to use those rules for PCs, I would rule it like this; anything that isn't a part of your race can stick around, so lycanthropy would endure largely unchanged, assuming your DM doesn't have a rule like 'lycanthropes are immune to vampirism' or the like.
I dunno. While I think reasonable folks can disagree as to suitability of lycanthrope in any given game. The MM section I'm referring to is specifically "Player Characters as Lycanthropes" and while the MM entry for Vampire in its "Player Characters as Vampires" does suggest the DM "might take control" of a vampirically cursed PC, that's just not in the text of the Lycanthrope entry, and since the MM is written alphabetically ... it's really not advised.
Let's also note that like the day before we went on this tangent D&D Beyond published an article all about playing Lycanthrope characters, utilizing the MM guidance, in prep for the new Van Richten's guide. Does that mean Lycanthropy will get further support in 5e via this book? That would be a very optimistic conjecture for wannabe were-PCs but I doubt DDB has such an inside scoop and are just writing thematic article in anticipation.
Again, I think Lycanthropy PCs are a DMs option. I would have to give it a hard think and not make it a split second decision at my table, I'm also house rules conservative about who can and can't become lycanthropes (Dragonborn, Lizardfolk, anyone with clearly non mammalian basis no. I'm also on the fence about elves for "reasons.").
I prefer my options, and you may claim lycanthropes are immune to vampirism but we all know that's propaganda spread by the various factions that will stop at nothing to prevent the existence of vamp-lyc abominations walking amongst the world. Those who believe in the Chosen One spread similar rumors to keep the Chosen Ones existence a secret.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Actually there are rules for lycanthrope PCs in the MM, so I'll bite.
Those rules are more so for creating monsters than PCs, they effectively kill the character by putting it under the DM's control, and they're a power boost completely outside of race, class, and feats, so there's no way to track or balance them without creating adhoc character level adjustments, something that 5e seems to have done away with.
However, if you were to use those rules for PCs, I would rule it like this; anything that isn't a part of your race can stick around, so lycanthropy would endure largely unchanged, assuming your DM doesn't have a rule like 'lycanthropes are immune to vampirism' or the like.
I dunno. While I think reasonable folks can disagree as to suitability of lycanthrope in any given game. The MM section I'm referring to is specifically "Player Characters as Lycanthropes" and while the MM entry for Vampire in its "Player Characters as Vampires" does suggest the DM "might take control" of a vampirically cursed PC, that's just not in the text of the Lycanthrope entry, and since the MM is written alphabetically ... it's really not advised.
Let's also note that like the day before we went on this tangent D&D Beyond published an article all about playing Lycanthrope characters, utilizing the MM guidance, in prep for the new Van Richten's guide. Does that mean Lycanthropy will get further support in 5e via this book? That would be a very optimistic conjecture for wannabe were-PCs but I doubt DDB has such an inside scoop and are just writing thematic article in anticipation.
From the Lycanthrope entry: "If the character embraces the curse, his or her alignment becomes the one defined by the lycanthrope. The DM is free to decide that a change in alignment places the character under DM control until the curse of lycanthropy is removed," but you are otherwise correct; I use those rules to create monsters more than PCs. The issue I have with using them for PCs is that you're left with a situation where a player is more powerful than the others at the table for no measurable reason. It's not a class feature, race feature, feat, or anything, it just kinda. . . is. Trying to balance around it is largely guesswork in my opinion, which is a thing that bothers me personally.
I'd love it if we got support for lycanthrope or vampire characters in Van Richten's. I've tried a few different versions of both in my own homebrew, and my favorite version is as Feats. They're not tied to class or race like some other homebrew I've seen, so if I want to make a vampire lizardfolk wizard nothing's stopping me.
Again, I think Lycanthropy PCs are a DMs option. I would have to give it a hard think and not make it a split second decision at my table, I'm also house rules conservative about who can and can't become lycanthropes (Dragonborn, Lizardfolk, anyone with clearly non mammalian basis no. I'm also on the fence about elves for "reasons.").
There are canon wereravens, so I'm not sure that's a fair restriction.
I prefer my options, and you may claim lycanthropes are immune to vampirism but we all know that's propaganda spread by the various factions that will stop at nothing to prevent the existence of vamp-lyc abominations walking amongst the world. Those who believe in the Chosen One spread similar rumors to keep the Chosen Ones existence a secret.
Based on my own interpretations? Vampires aren't humanoids, so they can't contract lycanthropy, but if a lycanthrope were reduced to a 0 hit point maximum and laid in the earth. . . That's what I call a Pricolici.
True, and absolutely right about a lycanthrope being a asymmetric power grab within a party. I'd probably rein that in by almost treating "mastering the curse" as multi classing or what used to be dual classing way back in AD&D. That is, the lycanthrope curse is so afflicting, the PC's experience for (I dunno, I'm thinking out loud and not looking at table) probably at least a level or two can't go to class advancement while they get their curse under control. If they don't control the curse, then they go the path of the NPC.
We'll agree to disagree as to whether D&D is an appropriate game to play through the story arc of Underworld.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Those rules are more so for creating monsters than PCs, they effectively kill the character by putting it under the DM's control, and they're a power boost completely outside of race, class, and feats, so there's no way to track or balance them without creating adhoc character level adjustments, something that 5e seems to have done away with.
However, if you were to use those rules for PCs, I would rule it like this; anything that isn't a part of your race can stick around, so lycanthropy would endure largely unchanged, assuming your DM doesn't have a rule like 'lycanthropes are immune to vampirism' or the like.
I dunno. While I think reasonable folks can disagree as to suitability of lycanthrope in any given game. The MM section I'm referring to is specifically "Player Characters as Lycanthropes" and while the MM entry for Vampire in its "Player Characters as Vampires" does suggest the DM "might take control" of a vampirically cursed PC, that's just not in the text of the Lycanthrope entry, and since the MM is written alphabetically ... it's really not advised.
Let's also note that like the day before we went on this tangent D&D Beyond published an article all about playing Lycanthrope characters, utilizing the MM guidance, in prep for the new Van Richten's guide. Does that mean Lycanthropy will get further support in 5e via this book? That would be a very optimistic conjecture for wannabe were-PCs but I doubt DDB has such an inside scoop and are just writing thematic article in anticipation.
Again, I think Lycanthropy PCs are a DMs option. I would have to give it a hard think and not make it a split second decision at my table, I'm also house rules conservative about who can and can't become lycanthropes (Dragonborn, Lizardfolk, anyone with clearly non mammalian basis no. I'm also on the fence about elves for "reasons.").
I prefer my options, and you may claim lycanthropes are immune to vampirism but we all know that's propaganda spread by the various factions that will stop at nothing to prevent the existence of vamp-lyc abominations walking amongst the world. Those who believe in the Chosen One spread similar rumors to keep the Chosen Ones existence a secret.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
From the Lycanthrope entry: "If the character embraces the curse, his or her alignment becomes the one defined by the lycanthrope. The DM is free to decide that a change in alignment places the character under DM control until the curse of lycanthropy is removed," but you are otherwise correct; I use those rules to create monsters more than PCs. The issue I have with using them for PCs is that you're left with a situation where a player is more powerful than the others at the table for no measurable reason. It's not a class feature, race feature, feat, or anything, it just kinda. . . is. Trying to balance around it is largely guesswork in my opinion, which is a thing that bothers me personally.
I'd love it if we got support for lycanthrope or vampire characters in Van Richten's. I've tried a few different versions of both in my own homebrew, and my favorite version is as Feats. They're not tied to class or race like some other homebrew I've seen, so if I want to make a vampire lizardfolk wizard nothing's stopping me.
There are canon wereravens, so I'm not sure that's a fair restriction.
Based on my own interpretations? Vampires aren't humanoids, so they can't contract lycanthropy, but if a lycanthrope were reduced to a 0 hit point maximum and laid in the earth. . . That's what I call a Pricolici.
True, and absolutely right about a lycanthrope being a asymmetric power grab within a party. I'd probably rein that in by almost treating "mastering the curse" as multi classing or what used to be dual classing way back in AD&D. That is, the lycanthrope curse is so afflicting, the PC's experience for (I dunno, I'm thinking out loud and not looking at table) probably at least a level or two can't go to class advancement while they get their curse under control. If they don't control the curse, then they go the path of the NPC.
We'll agree to disagree as to whether D&D is an appropriate game to play through the story arc of Underworld.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I just realized I could be a Dhampnir Blood Hunter Order of the Lycanthrope.