Vampiric Touch

Would love if A monk can, once per turn, can use this with one of its unarmed attacks while concentrating.  Instead, the monk can lose int MA attack to make the Spell Attack BUT can-do flurry of blows as a bonus action.  Does this bean a Cleric/Monk and do this in Medium or Heavy armor?

Just have to get 5 levels in CLERIC to get V. Touch at base level.

Need to Decide what class features I want for Multi Classing.

This needs to do 3d8. I know it also heals (a small amount) but it's worse for damage than Shadowblade and Flameblade. 

If the distant spell metamagic was used to increase the range to 30 feet, would that only affect the initial attack or would the range remain 30 feet for the duration of the spell?

Ah, you are right, I got thrown off by the word touch in the spell name.

So, because the range of the spell is self and 'not' touch, this spell can't be used in conjunction with a Familiar I'm guessing?

I think the spell has a range of self because you are enchanting yourself to be able to make these kind of attacks for the next minute. So the range of the spell is self but the range of the attack is whatever your melee attack range is.

Indeed. I agree with that conclusion. I was just elaborating on why I think the spell is listed as a range of "Self" instead of a "Touch".

If the attacked creature is resistant to Necrotic damage, it obviously takes half damage (rounded down).  Would it affect the amount healed?

Let's say 3d6 and roll 8.
Normal: 8 damage. 4 healed
Resistant: 4 damage. 4 or 2 healed?
Immune: 0 damage. 4 or 0 healed?

As a player, I don't know how much damage the creature actually took (only the DM knows that).  Because of that, I would argue that I would be healed for 4, regardless of the creature being resistant or immune to Necrotic damage.

Quote from wagnarokkr >>

Quote from rpgking111 >>

If the attacked creature is resistant to Necrotic damage, it obviously takes half damage (rounded down).  Would it affect the amount healed?

Let's say 3d6 and roll 8.
Normal: 8 damage. 4 healed
Resistant: 4 damage. 4 or 2 healed?
Immune: 0 damage. 4 or 0 healed?

As a player, I don't know how much damage the creature actually took (only the DM knows that).  Because of that, I would argue that I would be healed for 4, regardless of the creature being resistant or immune to Necrotic damage.

The damage dealt to the target is the damage dealt to the target. If they only take half, you only heal half. If they don't take any, you don't get any healing. Your knowledge or lack of knowledge of the creature's resistances doesn't have any impact on how the spell works.

 That makes sense from a mechanics standpoint.  But from a DM/player perspective - the DM would reveal that the target is resistant/immune to the damage so the player knows they heal for half/0.

I've played with DMs who do not reveal resistance/immune information in any form.  Others will straight up say it's immune/resistant.  While others might use language like "it doesn't seem to take as much damage as you think it would".

Or maybe the DM I played with who refused to reveal resistances was just a bad DM. lol

Edit: Thank you for your response!