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.
This is how it is written my question lies in can this ability be used on creatures that are dead? I argued as a player that it wouldn't because I feel like there would need to be more than just blood creating this enhancement/healing but DM and others argued otherwise. Curious on others thoughts on this racial ability and if it can be used on creatures freshly killed.
Corpses are considered objects, not creatures, so they would be invalid targets.
That said, the "DM is always right". You don't have to agree with them, but their world operates the way they say it does.
In many cases NPCs aren't given the benefit of death saving throws, so it could be rationalized that some "dead" creatures aren't really dead, they're just unconscious and assumed to die, if no one intervenes.
Personally, this is not RAW/RAI at all but if it was a freshly killed creature's corpse that died the very last round, I'd rule in favor of the Rule of Cool and make this option available. I'd flavor this as sucking the last remaining energy from the creature's lifeforce as it slowly dies.
They do have to waste an attack to do it and are limited in uses per long rest so unless this is the last enemy of the encounter, it's not necessarily an efficient use of their action economy, especially if they only have the one attack per round.
Also, no damage is being dealt because the corpse is already at 0 HP; so neither benefit would apply.
Damage is still dealt, the HP just isn't reduced. That's why you can take an amount of damage that would kill you outright, and it will kill you outright, even if you're at 0. (Otherwise you could survive a building falling on you, but only if you'd been reduced to 0 first, which would clearly be absurd.)
Ultimately as a DM you need to decide whether you want a dhampir to be someone who bites the living like a rabid animal, or someone who bites the dead like a vulture, or someone who bites the dying like some bizarre sadist. Because ruling one way or another will result in that narrative playing out across your game. So pick one you're happy with.
Personally, I would only have it work on targets with nonzero HP.
Corpses are considered creatures when you're casting Revivify on them.
But I think that's just the ol' natural language fuzziness again. I think your interpretation is correct.
Corpses are objects. Revivify just has broken wording that RAW prevents the spell from being useful, because to target a creature that has died, you'd need to be on the same plane as them, and you generally are not - you're on the prime material and they're in some afterlife, in general. The usual fix is to change the wording so the spell targets corpses of creatures that have died [...].
Corpses are considered creatures when you're casting Revivify on them.
But I think that's just the ol' natural language fuzziness again. I think your interpretation is correct.
Corpses are objects. Revivify just has broken wording that RAW prevents the spell from being useful, because to target a creature that has died, you'd need to be on the same plane as them, and you generally are not - you're on the prime material and they're in some afterlife, in general. The usual fix is to change the wording so the spell targets corpses of creatures that have died [...].
I don't believe there's anything in the rules to suggest a departed soul is a creature. Though sometimes they are turned into creatures, that usually doesn't occur until after they've been judged by Kelemvor (in the Realms, anyway).
Thanks for the responses! They all generally lined around what I was thinking of it as so ima just talk to the DM and obviously whatever they choose goes but you all laid out valid points.
I don't think there's a valid reason that a Battle Master's superiority dice would not count as the piercing damage dealt by the bite. Same with hunter's mark, the College of Swords' maneuvers, and the War Domain's Divine Strike.
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.
This is how it is written my question lies in can this ability be used on creatures that are dead? I argued as a player that it wouldn't because I feel like there would need to be more than just blood creating this enhancement/healing but DM and others argued otherwise. Curious on others thoughts on this racial ability and if it can be used on creatures freshly killed.
To what other's have said, there should be a distinction between dead and dying. Narrative wise, it makes complete sense that a Dhampir's way to coup de grace a dying (unconscious) enemy is to drain it of it's blood. The core issue here is mechanics v. narrative. Because the game design doesn't want the DM making death saving throws for a swarm of 20+ creatures in a combat, enemies reduced to 0 hit points go directly to dead, do not pass go. Only specifically named NPCs are given the benefit of "dying" by most DMs to allow a party member to bandage them and later interrogate them.
That said, I specifically use what I call the "Revivify Rule" with regards to a Dhampir's Fanged Bite. If a creature was reduced to 0 hit points within the last minute, they're only mostly dead. They just need a "Revive" - not a "Raise." And as well all know, mostly dead is slightly alive. So I allow party members the ability to attempt to Bandage (Medicine DC 10, +2 per Round of being at 0 HP) them, or perform attacks like a Fanged Bite within this window. It makes all the narrative sense in the world to me.
That said, this is my current debate concerning Fanged Bite: It's got a number of uses equal to one's Proficiency Bonus. But it's also a natural weapon. Is the ability to invoke the bite limited to uses, or is it the benefits gains limited by uses. I think it's the latter because the text for the ability says, "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." The key being "empower yourself." Not that you can perform the bite itself. But in the DnD Beyond interface, it limits the bite to 1 Action, it doesn't appear as a weapon option. But then again, so does "Unarmed Strike" and we all know a fighter with extra attack can take multiple unarmed strikes.
This is an important distinction, because having a bite natural weapon that uses Con Modifier and gains advantage when you're bloodied is potentially a great thing to be able to use in the right circumstances, regardless of the empowerment effect. It's great for Monks, Martial Fighters, and Barbarians.
When you empower yourself, you choose one of the two additional effects. But the bite is a weapon you can use without empowering it.
I question the wisdom of making a weapon that scales on Constitution, but there you have it.
My guess is to make it user friendly. Different classes and builds rely on different main stats. Everyone benefits from constitution.
The synergy it has with a Monk is frightening, being the bite is treated as a simple weapon, it benefits from being a Monk Weapon. So now it's no longer 1d4, it's 1d6 at 5th, and 1d8 at 11th. And the advantage on the bite is a built-in, not an empowerment, it makes a bloodied Dhampir Monk especially nasty. Honestly, it really makes for a great NPC adversary, and you can have a lot of fun with blood-lust and perhaps the NPC ignoring the fight once it drops a party member to feast on it for a round.
My question for you is this now. How would you handle the timing of the empowerment? Does it have to be declared before the attack that it's being used, and thus, possibly wasted on a missed attack? Or do you allow a player to declare use of the empowerment after the hit was successful, but before damage is rolled? I lean towards the latter, but I feel like in conjunction with things like Fighter's Maneuvers or fishing for a Crit and then using a Maneuver on top of it, and then declaring the drain can get crazy.
When you empower yourself, you choose one of the two additional effects. But the bite is a weapon you can use without empowering it.
I question the wisdom of making a weapon that scales on Constitution, but there you have it.
My guess is to make it user friendly. Different classes and builds rely on different main stats. Everyone benefits from constitution.
The synergy it has with a Monk is frightening, being the bite is treated as a simple weapon, it benefits from being a Monk Weapon. So now it's no longer 1d4, it's 1d6 at 5th, and 1d8 at 11th. And the advantage on the bite is a built-in, not an empowerment, it makes a bloodied Dhampir Monk especially nasty. Honestly, it really makes for a great NPC adversary, and you can have a lot of fun with blood-lust and perhaps the NPC ignoring the fight once it drops a party member to feast on it for a round.
My question for you is this now. How would you handle the timing of the empowerment? Does it have to be declared before the attack that it's being used, and thus, possibly wasted on a missed attack? Or do you allow a player to declare use of the empowerment after the hit was successful, but before damage is rolled? I lean towards the latter, but I feel like in conjunction with things like Fighter's Maneuvers or fishing for a Crit and then using a Maneuver on top of it, and then declaring the drain can get crazy.
The battle master has 1d4 + 1d8 + Con right at level three with the maneuver dice.
The way I read it, you can always empower it if you have uses left. Being bloodied just gives you advantage on the bite. Unless I'm missing something, below half hit points and your bite always has advantage.
The timing is pretty cut and dry. "When you attack with this bite and hit a creature that isn’t a Construct or an Undead, you can empower yourself[.]"
The only puzzling thing is whether you get to see your damage roll before you decide. But you definitely don't spend the use if you miss.
Interesting question. It only says “when you attack” with your bite. The team who writes this stuff need to do a better job covering all bases, and at least try not to leave room for ambiguity.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
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.
This is how it is written my question lies in can this ability be used on creatures that are dead? I argued as a player that it wouldn't because I feel like there would need to be more than just blood creating this enhancement/healing but DM and others argued otherwise. Curious on others thoughts on this racial ability and if it can be used on creatures freshly killed.
Corpses are considered objects, not creatures, so they would be invalid targets.
That said, the "DM is always right". You don't have to agree with them, but their world operates the way they say it does.
In many cases NPCs aren't given the benefit of death saving throws, so it could be rationalized that some "dead" creatures aren't really dead, they're just unconscious and assumed to die, if no one intervenes.
Corpses are considered creatures when you're casting Revivify on them.
But I think that's just the ol' natural language fuzziness again. I think your interpretation is correct.
Also, no damage is being dealt because the corpse is already at 0 HP; so neither benefit would apply.
Personally, this is not RAW/RAI at all but if it was a freshly killed creature's corpse that died the very last round, I'd rule in favor of the Rule of Cool and make this option available. I'd flavor this as sucking the last remaining energy from the creature's lifeforce as it slowly dies.
They do have to waste an attack to do it and are limited in uses per long rest so unless this is the last enemy of the encounter, it's not necessarily an efficient use of their action economy, especially if they only have the one attack per round.
Damage is still dealt, the HP just isn't reduced. That's why you can take an amount of damage that would kill you outright, and it will kill you outright, even if you're at 0. (Otherwise you could survive a building falling on you, but only if you'd been reduced to 0 first, which would clearly be absurd.)
Ultimately as a DM you need to decide whether you want a dhampir to be someone who bites the living like a rabid animal, or someone who bites the dead like a vulture, or someone who bites the dying like some bizarre sadist. Because ruling one way or another will result in that narrative playing out across your game. So pick one you're happy with.
Personally, I would only have it work on targets with nonzero HP.
Corpses are objects. Revivify just has broken wording that RAW prevents the spell from being useful, because to target a creature that has died, you'd need to be on the same plane as them, and you generally are not - you're on the prime material and they're in some afterlife, in general. The usual fix is to change the wording so the spell targets corpses of creatures that have died [...].
I don't believe there's anything in the rules to suggest a departed soul is a creature. Though sometimes they are turned into creatures, that usually doesn't occur until after they've been judged by Kelemvor (in the Realms, anyway).
Thanks for the responses!
They all generally lined around what I was thinking of it as so ima just talk to the DM and obviously whatever they choose goes but you all laid out valid points.
Can anyone think of a reason why a Dhampir Battle Master Fighter could not add Superiority Dice damage to the bite and reap all the benefits?
I don't think there's a valid reason that a Battle Master's superiority dice would not count as the piercing damage dealt by the bite. Same with hunter's mark, the College of Swords' maneuvers, and the War Domain's Divine Strike.
Partway through the quest for absolute truth.
Nope, it seems like that should work just fine. Seems exciting!
To what other's have said, there should be a distinction between dead and dying. Narrative wise, it makes complete sense that a Dhampir's way to coup de grace a dying (unconscious) enemy is to drain it of it's blood. The core issue here is mechanics v. narrative. Because the game design doesn't want the DM making death saving throws for a swarm of 20+ creatures in a combat, enemies reduced to 0 hit points go directly to dead, do not pass go. Only specifically named NPCs are given the benefit of "dying" by most DMs to allow a party member to bandage them and later interrogate them.
That said, I specifically use what I call the "Revivify Rule" with regards to a Dhampir's Fanged Bite. If a creature was reduced to 0 hit points within the last minute, they're only mostly dead. They just need a "Revive" - not a "Raise." And as well all know, mostly dead is slightly alive. So I allow party members the ability to attempt to Bandage (Medicine DC 10, +2 per Round of being at 0 HP) them, or perform attacks like a Fanged Bite within this window. It makes all the narrative sense in the world to me.
That said, this is my current debate concerning Fanged Bite: It's got a number of uses equal to one's Proficiency Bonus. But it's also a natural weapon. Is the ability to invoke the bite limited to uses, or is it the benefits gains limited by uses. I think it's the latter because the text for the ability says, "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." The key being "empower yourself." Not that you can perform the bite itself. But in the DnD Beyond interface, it limits the bite to 1 Action, it doesn't appear as a weapon option. But then again, so does "Unarmed Strike" and we all know a fighter with extra attack can take multiple unarmed strikes.
This is an important distinction, because having a bite natural weapon that uses Con Modifier and gains advantage when you're bloodied is potentially a great thing to be able to use in the right circumstances, regardless of the empowerment effect. It's great for Monks, Martial Fighters, and Barbarians.
When you empower yourself, you choose one of the two additional effects. But the bite is a weapon you can use without empowering it.
I question the wisdom of making a weapon that scales on Constitution, but there you have it.
My guess is to make it user friendly. Different classes and builds rely on different main stats. Everyone benefits from constitution.
The synergy it has with a Monk is frightening, being the bite is treated as a simple weapon, it benefits from being a Monk Weapon. So now it's no longer 1d4, it's 1d6 at 5th, and 1d8 at 11th. And the advantage on the bite is a built-in, not an empowerment, it makes a bloodied Dhampir Monk especially nasty. Honestly, it really makes for a great NPC adversary, and you can have a lot of fun with blood-lust and perhaps the NPC ignoring the fight once it drops a party member to feast on it for a round.
My question for you is this now. How would you handle the timing of the empowerment? Does it have to be declared before the attack that it's being used, and thus, possibly wasted on a missed attack? Or do you allow a player to declare use of the empowerment after the hit was successful, but before damage is rolled? I lean towards the latter, but I feel like in conjunction with things like Fighter's Maneuvers or fishing for a Crit and then using a Maneuver on top of it, and then declaring the drain can get crazy.
The battle master has 1d4 + 1d8 + Con right at level three with the maneuver dice.
The way I read it, you can always empower it if you have uses left. Being bloodied just gives you advantage on the bite. Unless I'm missing something, below half hit points and your bite always has advantage.
The timing is pretty cut and dry. "When you attack with this bite and hit a creature that isn’t a Construct or an Undead, you can empower yourself[.]"
The only puzzling thing is whether you get to see your damage roll before you decide. But you definitely don't spend the use if you miss.
Interesting question. It only says “when you attack” with your bite. The team who writes this stuff need to do a better job covering all bases, and at least try not to leave room for ambiguity.