So, I posted this on the race detail page and in the [UA] Gothic Linage post, but have not seen any response. Just looking for some clarification here on the Dhampir. In the description it states;
Your creature type is both Humanoid and Undead.
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.
Does that also mean you are effected by something that would work on the undead, say Turn Undead or radiant damage? Or does your humanoid side negate that? I have seen videos where they state that you gain all the strengths of a vampire, but none of the weaknesses (your basic definition of a dhampir), but I have also seen people try and throw in the weaknesses of a vampire (like sunlight sensitivity). Just some clarification would be great.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
‘A’OHE PU’U KI’EKI’E KE HO’A’O ‘IA E PI’I – (No cliff is so tall it cannot be climbed.)
So, I posted this on the race detail page and in the [UA] Gothic Linage post, but have not seen any response. Just looking for some clarification here on the Dhampir. In the description it states;
Your creature type is both Humanoid and Undead.
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.
Does that also mean you are effected by something that would work on the undead, say Turn Undead or radiant damage? Or does your humanoid side negate that? I have seen videos where they state that you gain all the strengths of a vampire, but none of the weaknesses (your basic definition of a dhampir), but I have also seen people try and throw in the weaknesses of a vampire (like sunlight sensitivity). Just some clarification would be great.
radiant damage works the same as normal but if anything works on one it works on you so turn undead would work but so would cure wounds
I guess my confusion comes in that it doesn't seem to fit the usual definition of a Dhampir. Also, in the description it states;
Poised between the worlds of the living and the dead, dhampirs retain their grip on life yet are endlessly tested by vicious hungers. Their ties to the undead grant dhampirs a taste of a vampire’s deathless prowess in the form of increased speed, darkvision, and a life-draining bite.
It only mentions the urge to feed being connected to the Undead part of the creature type (which fits with the Dhampir definition). It is play test though and will hopefully be fleshed out if the add it as official content.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
‘A’OHE PU’U KI’EKI’E KE HO’A’O ‘IA E PI’I – (No cliff is so tall it cannot be climbed.)
It's definitely somewhat unclear how the hybrid types would work in some cases.
1. Is a dhampir (humanoid/undead) affected by Cause Fear? ("A construct or an undead is immune to this effect.") 2. If you hit a dhampir with Chill Touch, does it have "disadvantage on attack rolls against you"? 3. Would Antilife Shell prevent a dhampir from passing through? 4. Could Mending repair a humanoid/construct (reborn)? 5. Would a dhampir cleric be affected by its own Turn Undead?
The way the UA is written I think the answer is yes to all three. That means that the hybrid humanoid/undead nature is mostly a negative trait.
It's definitely somewhat unclear how the hybrid types would work in some cases.
1. Is a dhampir (humanoid/undead) affected by Cause Fear? ("A construct or an undead is immune to this effect.") 2. If you hit a dhampir with Chill Touch, does it have "disadvantage on attack rolls against you"? 3. Would Antilife Shell prevent a dhampir from passing through? 4. Could Mending repair a humanoid/construct (reborn)? 5. Would a dhampir cleric be affected by its own Turn Undead?
The way the UA is written I think the answer is yes to all three. That means that the hybrid humanoid/undead nature is mostly a negative trait.
No, the rules are pretty clear and straight forwards. "If it would affect at least one of your types, it affects you." People are just misapplying the rules.
Dhampirs are affected by Cause Fear. Humanoids are affected by the spell, ergo the dhampir is.
Dhampirs are affected by Chill Touch's disadvantage effect. It would affect undead, ergo the dhampir is affected.
Anti-life shell affects humanoids. Ergo, the dhampir is affected by anti-life shell.
Mending targets objects, not creatures; even on actual monster golems, the use is questionable, since golems are technically creatures and not objects. Even if we agree that the spell can target Construct creatures (which, yes, would then target the construct-based Risen), the spell is limited to repairing superficial damage, or maybe even broken bones, but not lost HP. This is the whole "HP is not meat" thing in play.
You are susceptible to Turn Undead, but hitting yourself with your own Turn Undead? Technically, you would, since you count as a creature that can see or hear yourself, and you can be affected by it.
Yes, dual typing is actually closer to a flaw than advantage. Who ever said that it was supposed to be an advantage?
I like the idea of a Reborn Cleric running away from with itself, though I imagine you could simply say the Cleric in question turns those within the Cleric's radius and not the point of origin or "turning point."
I'm actually looking forward to seeing UA or working on my own humanoid/fey lineages for Eladrin and Shader-Kai.
I think folks want lineages to allow for "best of both worlds" builds but Mephista's right you get to be both, warts and all.
I guess my confusion comes in that it doesn't seem to fit the usual definition of a Dhampir. Also, in the description it states;
Poised between the worlds of the living and the dead, dhampirs retain their grip on life yet are endlessly tested by vicious hungers. Their ties to the undead grant dhampirs a taste of a vampire’s deathless prowess in the form of increased speed, darkvision, and a life-draining bite.
It only mentions the urge to feed being connected to the Undead part of the creature type (which fits with the Dhampir definition). It is play test though and will hopefully be fleshed out if the add it as official content.
You're using the description specific to the Dhampir as a way to ignore the general traits of being undead. Not all undead have a life draining bite, hunger, speed etc. Dhampir do. Dhampir are half typed by undead so in addition to the traits listed, there are all those traits that undead have, including susceptible to turning.
The linked Fandom page isn't really all that authoritative on the word Dhampir. The page speaks to very recent pop culture (the stuff of Fandom) and completely ignores the more complicated or vague. It's corralling a bunch of pop culture characters in line with one interpretation of the word, and some of the subjects are more fan labeling than canonical within its references. Was Blade ever canonically called a Dhampir in the comics or movies? Or just Daywalker? Same with Conor for Angel? Maybe, but I don't know. When I think of Dhampir I go back to the European languages and folklore the word comes from (where etymologically "d" and "v" have some overlap and migration). Yes there are myths of people being born of a mother with a vampire lineage, but that's not the only use of the word Dhampir, sometimes it just meant vampire. Sometimes these were super powered heroes crusading against vampires, sometimes they were something more wretched. Look the word up in wikipedia (it was floated in this section of the forum a while back), and then also realize a lot of the foreign language sources aren't saying what the entry authors claim they say, and then check the discussion section.
It's possible these lineages will be sorted out differently, but the UA "if it effects your type it effects you" has that WOTC keep it simple vibe that I think leads to balance with their current sense of balance as well as avoids complications.
Yes, dual typing is actually closer to a flaw than advantage. Who ever said that it was supposed to be an advantage?
Oh I don't have a problem with it being a flaw. It could maybe come with a warning though, as it may be hard to recognise it as a flaw without quite a deep understanding of the rules and effects of the game.
Yes, dual typing is actually closer to a flaw than advantage. Who ever said that it was supposed to be an advantage?
Oh I don't have a problem with it being a flaw. It could maybe come with a warning though, as it may be hard to recognise it as a flaw without quite a deep understanding of the rules and effects of the game.
You may be onto something there. Undead though are pretty easy to grasp, I mean the Turning ability is a core class feature. However, I'd agree that there should be a table explaining the universal traits, undead, fey, fiends, celestial etc hold as "types" if D&D wanted to be serious about this lineage proposal as it fleshes out, since the idea as I sense it is to allow for customization.
Add Necromancer's 14th Level "command undead" feature to the list of susceptibilities (which will require a table agreement on how to handle potential PvP).
Okay, but loophole to the turn undead thing. I realize that technically it doesn't completely deafening you, but the rules of turn undead state that the undead must be able to see or hear you, since you can't see yourself (and vampires have no reflection) and you cover your ears couldn't you then avoid your own ability? The DM could always rule things differently anyways, but like, technically you wouldn't meet the requirements for the effect to work on you.
Although, I would still give the ruling on all of this to my DM, they have the final say at my table after all. If they want to ignore certain rules for a better game then let's go, if they want to follow the rules then just look for the loopholes in the rules. They usually come with their own built in loopholes, especially when it comes to DnD.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So, I posted this on the race detail page and in the [UA] Gothic Linage post, but have not seen any response. Just looking for some clarification here on the Dhampir. In the description it states;
Does that also mean you are effected by something that would work on the undead, say Turn Undead or radiant damage? Or does your humanoid side negate that? I have seen videos where they state that you gain all the strengths of a vampire, but none of the weaknesses (your basic definition of a dhampir), but I have also seen people try and throw in the weaknesses of a vampire (like sunlight sensitivity). Just some clarification would be great.
‘A’OHE PU’U KI’EKI’E KE HO’A’O ‘IA E PI’I – (No cliff is so tall it cannot be climbed.)
radiant damage works the same as normal but if anything works on one it works on you so turn undead would work but so would cure wounds
I am leader of the yep cult:https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/off-topic/adohands-kitchen/82135-yep-cult Pronouns are she/her
I guess my confusion comes in that it doesn't seem to fit the usual definition of a Dhampir. Also, in the description it states;
It only mentions the urge to feed being connected to the Undead part of the creature type (which fits with the Dhampir definition). It is play test though and will hopefully be fleshed out if the add it as official content.
‘A’OHE PU’U KI’EKI’E KE HO’A’O ‘IA E PI’I – (No cliff is so tall it cannot be climbed.)
It's definitely somewhat unclear how the hybrid types would work in some cases.
1. Is a dhampir (humanoid/undead) affected by Cause Fear? ("A construct or an undead is immune to this effect.")
2. If you hit a dhampir with Chill Touch, does it have "disadvantage on attack rolls against you"?
3. Would Antilife Shell prevent a dhampir from passing through?
4. Could Mending repair a humanoid/construct (reborn)?
5. Would a dhampir cleric be affected by its own Turn Undead?
The way the UA is written I think the answer is yes to all three. That means that the hybrid humanoid/undead nature is mostly a negative trait.
No, the rules are pretty clear and straight forwards. "If it would affect at least one of your types, it affects you." People are just misapplying the rules.
Dhampirs are affected by Cause Fear. Humanoids are affected by the spell, ergo the dhampir is.
Dhampirs are affected by Chill Touch's disadvantage effect. It would affect undead, ergo the dhampir is affected.
Anti-life shell affects humanoids. Ergo, the dhampir is affected by anti-life shell.
Mending targets objects, not creatures; even on actual monster golems, the use is questionable, since golems are technically creatures and not objects. Even if we agree that the spell can target Construct creatures (which, yes, would then target the construct-based Risen), the spell is limited to repairing superficial damage, or maybe even broken bones, but not lost HP. This is the whole "HP is not meat" thing in play.
You are susceptible to Turn Undead, but hitting yourself with your own Turn Undead? Technically, you would, since you count as a creature that can see or hear yourself, and you can be affected by it.
Yes, dual typing is actually closer to a flaw than advantage. Who ever said that it was supposed to be an advantage?
I like the idea of a Reborn Cleric running away from with itself, though I imagine you could simply say the Cleric in question turns those within the Cleric's radius and not the point of origin or "turning point."
I'm actually looking forward to seeing UA or working on my own humanoid/fey lineages for Eladrin and Shader-Kai.
I think folks want lineages to allow for "best of both worlds" builds but Mephista's right you get to be both, warts and all.
You're using the description specific to the Dhampir as a way to ignore the general traits of being undead. Not all undead have a life draining bite, hunger, speed etc. Dhampir do. Dhampir are half typed by undead so in addition to the traits listed, there are all those traits that undead have, including susceptible to turning.
The linked Fandom page isn't really all that authoritative on the word Dhampir. The page speaks to very recent pop culture (the stuff of Fandom) and completely ignores the more complicated or vague. It's corralling a bunch of pop culture characters in line with one interpretation of the word, and some of the subjects are more fan labeling than canonical within its references. Was Blade ever canonically called a Dhampir in the comics or movies? Or just Daywalker? Same with Conor for Angel? Maybe, but I don't know. When I think of Dhampir I go back to the European languages and folklore the word comes from (where etymologically "d" and "v" have some overlap and migration). Yes there are myths of people being born of a mother with a vampire lineage, but that's not the only use of the word Dhampir, sometimes it just meant vampire. Sometimes these were super powered heroes crusading against vampires, sometimes they were something more wretched. Look the word up in wikipedia (it was floated in this section of the forum a while back), and then also realize a lot of the foreign language sources aren't saying what the entry authors claim they say, and then check the discussion section.
It's possible these lineages will be sorted out differently, but the UA "if it effects your type it effects you" has that WOTC keep it simple vibe that I think leads to balance with their current sense of balance as well as avoids complications.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Oh I don't have a problem with it being a flaw. It could maybe come with a warning though, as it may be hard to recognise it as a flaw without quite a deep understanding of the rules and effects of the game.
You may be onto something there. Undead though are pretty easy to grasp, I mean the Turning ability is a core class feature. However, I'd agree that there should be a table explaining the universal traits, undead, fey, fiends, celestial etc hold as "types" if D&D wanted to be serious about this lineage proposal as it fleshes out, since the idea as I sense it is to allow for customization.
Add Necromancer's 14th Level "command undead" feature to the list of susceptibilities (which will require a table agreement on how to handle potential PvP).
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Okay, but loophole to the turn undead thing. I realize that technically it doesn't completely deafening you, but the rules of turn undead state that the undead must be able to see or hear you, since you can't see yourself (and vampires have no reflection) and you cover your ears couldn't you then avoid your own ability? The DM could always rule things differently anyways, but like, technically you wouldn't meet the requirements for the effect to work on you.
Although, I would still give the ruling on all of this to my DM, they have the final say at my table after all. If they want to ignore certain rules for a better game then let's go, if they want to follow the rules then just look for the loopholes in the rules. They usually come with their own built in loopholes, especially when it comes to DnD.