A member of my group has stated that if/when his current character dies he may be interested on playing as a Dhampir as his race (with the group and GM's approval, mainly GM tho). I would like to know if compared to the basic races, those presented in the Core Rulebook, if it is balanced?
A member of my group has stated that if/when his current character dies he may be interested on playing as a Dhampir as his race (with the group and GM's approval, mainly GM tho). I would like to know if compared to the basic races, those presented in the Core Rulebook, if it is balanced?
I'd allow it.
There's nothing particularly powerfull or awesome about them, and if anything, I find them a bit...weaksauce. Much lulz for the party every time the Cleric channels positive energy to heal the party and nukes the Dhampir... should be a good popcorn moment.
Was there anything YOU felt was 'too much'?
Channel energy only hurts me when it is channeled to damage undead. I'm enjoying playing this dhampir at least and that's the important part. :)
Channel energy only hurts me when it is channeled to damage undead. I'm enjoying playing this dhampir at least and that's the important part. :)
True true.
AS long as the party Cleric is aware of this, then happy gaming :)
The resist energy drain ability seems like not weaksauce to me...
I would say they are fairly well balanced as a PC race.
I'm making one with the intention of pretending to be human, and hoping a random good cleric doesnt try to hurt undead and then catch on when I start keeling over in pain >D
I was quite surprised to find that most of the "playable" races in the Bestiary 2 seemed quite balanced. The only one I'd be careful about, is the Fetchling.
Being able to ignore energy drain until the point where it drained all levels away is actually a pretty powerful feature, but considering the amount of creatures who can actually do that, it's also awfully specific, so I see it more as a cool gimmick, than a powerful ability.
Was there anything YOU felt was 'too much'?
Actually I am the one who is considering the character, but I prefer to take myself out of a question when asking it (don't know why I do that tho), I just wanted to check since I am the only one with the Bestiary 2 in my party (for the moment at least). One member of my group brought up asking on the forums to see what other's think so I did.
And thanks everyone for the answers, the Channel Energy doesn't really bother me since the people in my group are all playing one of the 6 neutral and evil alignments. Our cleric is Evil so his channel energy is actually good for me.
If I was your DM I would allow it but never, ever, ever allow you anywhere near a LifeDrinker greataxe or its equivalent! :)
But would be a great class for like inquisitor or paladin. One of the chosen to root out and destroy undead because you by large are immune to their gentle caresses....
My best friend is VERY interested in playing a Dhampir when I GM "Carrion Crown"... not sure when that will be... but he has expressed an interest.
And I'm seriously thinking of allowing it.
Dean
I'm a bit iffy on the Ifrit sorcerer combination -- but then again fire is a really weak element so I would probably let it go...
But starting with a 22 charisma as a level 1 sorcerer? That's harsh.
Bhampir will "look" strong if they face undead with energy drain... but its only a look since it can still kill them.
I'm a bit iffy on the Ifrit sorcerer combination -- but then again fire is a really weak element so I would probably let it go...
But starting with a 22 charisma as a level 1 sorcerer? That's harsh.
Bhampir will "look" strong if they face undead with energy drain... but its only a look since it can still kill them.
Uh, Ifrit have a -2 Cha Racial modifier. That means the affinity just cancels out the negative and you have a max (effective) 18 Cha. In all other ways said Sorcerer has a max 16 Cha.
Given the feedback so far, I'll allow the Dhampir race to be used. I haven't gotten my hands on the Bestiary 2 yet, but if it's as balanced as everybody says, I see no reason why not. We can work out the roleplay aspects of the racial choice if and when the time comes.
My GM let me make a dhampir rogue for Carrion Crown. Personally, I think the rogue is the best way to go for the class, with the bonus to bluff and Dexterity and Charisma. The Constitution penalty is a downer, but whatever. The Detect Undead 3/day is nice too. An undead hunting ranger or inquisitor would be good too.
I'd actually be very interested in playing a Dhampir UNDEAD HUNTER PALADIN! Thinking along the lines of Vampire Hunter D, Zero Kiryuu in Vampire Knight, Castlevania's Alucard and Blade.
Maybe multiclass him into a sorcerer/eldritch knight with the Undead (Sanguine) bloodline, and have him make will saves to avoid drinking the blood of any appropriate-sized creature after each fight-I mean seriously, the sanguine bloodline was MADE for Dhampir characters. And as a cool gimmick, the character could temporarily grow fangs whilst drinking the blood, and his eyes could go blood-red after drinking blood.
Uh, Ifrit have a -2 Cha Racial modifier. That means the affinity just cancels out the negative and you have a max (effective) 18 Cha. In all other ways said Sorcerer has a max 16 Cha.I'm a bit iffy on the Ifrit sorcerer combination -- but then again fire is a really weak element so I would probably let it go...
But starting with a 22 charisma as a level 1 sorcerer? That's harsh.
Bhampir will "look" strong if they face undead with energy drain... but its only a look since it can still kill them.
Oread have a -2 CHA, Ifrit have a +2 CHA. That's ok though, because Fire resistance is the most common energy resistance in the game.
EDIT : On subject, nothing wrong with a Dhampir PC. They're pretty evenly matched with base races. Same for the others in the BII. Closest to being overpowered is the Fetchling, but it's nowhere near the Aasimar/Tiefling, so it's all good.
Oread have a -2 CHA, Ifrit have a +2 CHA. That's ok though, because Fire resistance is the most common energy resistance in the game.
EDIT : On subject, nothing wrong with a Dhampir PC. They're pretty evenly matched with base races. Same for the others in the BII. Closest to being overpowered is the Fetchling, but it's nowhere near the Aasimar/Tiefling, so it's all good.
Or the Ifrit could choose to pick up non-fire spells and have a large advantage with them.
|
I'd actually be very interested in playing a Dhampir UNDEAD HUNTER PALADIN! Thinking along the lines of Vampire Hunter D, Zero Kiryuu in Vampire Knight, Castlevania's Alucard and Blade.
Maybe multiclass him into a sorcerer/eldritch knight with the Undead (Sanguine) bloodline, and have him make will saves to avoid drinking the blood of any appropriate-sized creature after each fight-I mean seriously, the sanguine bloodline was MADE for Dhampir characters. And as a cool gimmick, the character could temporarily grow fangs whilst drinking the blood, and his eyes could go blood-red after drinking blood.
+1 Been wanting to play a D/Alucard for a long time and I never paid attention to Sanguine blood line until now making it more viable...still too bad you will be living off of potions and negative energy since your lay on hands will be the death of you.
|
I would like to know if compared to the basic races, those presented in the Core Rulebook, if it is balanced?
Any of the races with the "As a PC" entry, with the exception of the noble drow, are acceptable as a PC race, if you ask me.
Also, relevant link.
|
A member of my group has stated that if/when his current character dies he may be interested on playing as a Dhampir as his race (with the group and GM's approval, mainly GM tho). I would like to know if compared to the basic races, those presented in the Core Rulebook, if it is balanced?
Well, Paizo seems to think so, as the Dhampir will be one of the new races given treatment in the Advanced Race Guide. You may want to wait for that to come out before making a Dhampir, since will probably feature alternative racial traits and alternative favored class bonuses.
I think a Dhampir Sorcerer with the Undead (Sanguinary) bloodline would be awesomesauce. Sanguinary lets you restore HP by drinking slain foes blood.
Of course, you could also just Eldritch Heritage that power (I think).
Ok if the both of you had looked at the post date for my OP you would notice it has been close to 7 months since this was posted. There is no need to bring this back up to top when it should have been buried long ago.
the necromancer in our Kingmaker campaign is a dhampir. overall, the race is well balanced. in some cases, she's actually been weaker than the rest of the party. not being able to drink normal potions of healing REALLY hurts, and the immunity to level drain hasn't really been terribly useful. the stat boosts are nice though, and she's had some very fun roleplaying moments as the 'creepy necro chick'.
if someone wants to play a dhampir, I'd say go for it. overally, it's not a bad race to have in a game. I'd say orcish sorcerer/barbarians are far more unbalanced than a half vampire.
My best friend is VERY interested in playing a Dhampir when I GM "Carrion Crown"... not sure when that will be... but he has expressed an interest.
And I'm seriously thinking of allowing it.
Dean
I'm playing a Dhampir Sorceress in Carrion Crown. My best advice is to have at least one level in divine casting to gain Inflict Light Wounds or invest in a few wands. With the potential for damage, you are basically your only healer. I also went with the Sanguine/Undead archetype which allows for a d6 of healing by drinking the blood of the recently deceased (We had to off a few deer in the beginning lol).
we have a dhampir magus in our carrion crown party and its a pain in the ass, we have an oracle of life that had to learn inflict just to keep him in one piece. dunno how but he made it to lvl 4....
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Just another necro note.
Dhampir's do not take damage when a cleric channels energy to harm undead. They are not undead, they have negative energy affinity. So channeling to harm undead does nothing to them.
Channeling to heal living, on the other hand, hurts the bajesus out of them. They are living, just take damage from positive energy.
Channeling to heal undead does nothing for a dhampir, they are not undead, so they are unaffected by the negative energy.
Channeling to hurt living heals them instead, as they are living, but are healed by negative energy.
Rule of thumb : If you're trying to affect undead with your channel, you don't affect the dhampir. If you're channeling to affect living with your channel, you reverse the effect on the dhampir.
On a side note, since I originally posted, I've begun playing a dhampir oracle of metal, and the best use I've found so far was my stepping in front of a Harm spell aimed at our dwarven fighter by an anti-paladin. The look on his face when I thanked him for the spell (healed me up to full) was priceless. :)
mdt I think you aren't right on that.
Negative Energy Affinity (Ex)
The creature is alive, but reacts to positive and negative energy as if it were undead—positive energy harms it, negative energy heals it.
It reacts as if it were undead -- you channel to heal undead you are going to heal the Dhampir. You channel to hurt undead you are going to hurt the Dhampir -- it's how he reacts to it.
mdt I think you aren't right on that.
It reacts as if it were undead -- you channel to heal undead you are going to heal the Dhampir. You channel to hurt undead you are going to hurt the Dhampir -- it's how he reacts to it.Negative Energy Affinity (Ex)
The creature is alive, but reacts to positive and negative energy as if it were undead—positive energy harms it, negative energy heals it.
No you aren't, it doesn't say the Dhampir is undead, it says it reacts to positive and negative energy as if it were undead.
Channel Energy (Su): Regardless of alignment, any cleric can release a wave of energy by channeling the power of her faith through her holy (or unholy) symbol. This energy can be used to cause or heal damage, depending on the type of energy channeled and the creatures targeted.A good cleric (or one who worships a good deity) channels positive energy and can choose to deal damage to undead creatures to heal living creatures. An evil cleric (or one who worships an evil deity) channels negative energy and can choose to deal damage to living creatures to heal undead creatures. A neutral cleric who worships a neutral deity (or one who is not devoted to a particular deity) must choose whether she channels positive or negative energy. Once this choice is made, it cannot be reversed. This decision also determines whether the cleric casts spontaneous cure or inflict spells (see spontaneous casting).
. The amount of damage dealt or healed is equal to 1d6 points of damage plus 1d6 points of damage for every two cleric levels beyond 1st (2d6 at 3rd, 3d6 at 5th, and so on). Creatures that take damage from channeled energy receive a Will save to halve the damage. The DC of this save is equal to 10 + 1/2 the cleric's level + the cleric's Charisma modifier. Creatures healed by channeled energy cannot exceed their maximum hit point total—all excess healing is lost. A cleric may channel energy a number of times per day equal to 3 + her Charisma modifier. This is a standard action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity. A cleric can choose whether or not to include herself in this effect. A cleric must be able to present her holy symbol to use this ability.
See the bolded bits above. If you are channeling to heal undead, you cannot affect a living creature. A dhampir is, as we saw, a living creature. It is simply affected by the energy directed at it as if it were undead, it is not an undead, and doesn't count as an undead for channeling. It's a living creature. If you channel to affect living creatures, then the dhampir is targeted.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I for one am currently playing and dhampir undeadlord celric in a jade reagent ap. It hasnt proving to be an issue yaet in fact he has been a blast to rp.
They are weak.
If you are going on a balace scale yes they are on the weak side, but i play a charcther usaully for reason of this is what id like to play and have the most fun with it i can. they are not weak enough to pull down the rest the party so if its what youd like to run then have fun with it and dont let anyone discourge you, not everyone needs to be an optimizer.
|
It reacts as if it were undead -- you channel to heal undead you are going to heal the Dhampir. You channel to hurt undead you are going to hurt the Dhampir -- it's how he reacts to it.
The dhampir does not have the Undead type, and so is not affected when the channel targets undead. The dhampir is a Humanoid (dhampir) type creature.
It reacts as if it were undead -- you channel to heal undead you are going to heal the Dhampir. You channel to hurt undead you are going to hurt the Dhampir -- it's how he reacts to it.The dhampir does not have the Undead type, and so is not affected when the channel targets undead. The dhampir is a Humanoid (dhampir) type creature.
At most that means he is completely unaffected by the ability -- you can not channel to heal and harm at the same time.
At most that means he is completely unaffected by the ability -- you can not channel to heal and harm at the same time.It reacts as if it were undead -- you channel to heal undead you are going to heal the Dhampir. You channel to hurt undead you are going to hurt the Dhampir -- it's how he reacts to it.The dhampir does not have the Undead type, and so is not affected when the channel targets undead. The dhampir is a Humanoid (dhampir) type creature.
You're not. You're channeling to heal living creatures. He just reacts the opposite way.
Here's an example. You cast cure light on a dhampir and a skeleton. You are casting it on a living creature when you cast it on the dhampir, but it still does damage, because the NEA reverses it's effects. You didn't somehow magically cast it to harm him, but it still harmed him.
Same effect, but inflict light instead, you wanted to hurt him, but because of his NEA he heals instead.
It's honestly not that complex Abraham. Your intentions have nothing to do with it, when channeling, except picking a target type (Living vs Undead), and an energy type (positive vs negative).
If you pick living targets, then the dhampir is affected, since he's alive. IF you pick undead, he's now, since he's not undead. Then you apply the energy to him, and based on the type, he's healed or harmed, regardless of your intent.
|
|
At most that means he is completely unaffected by the ability -- you can not channel to heal and harm at the same time.It reacts as if it were undead -- you channel to heal undead you are going to heal the Dhampir. You channel to hurt undead you are going to hurt the Dhampir -- it's how he reacts to it.The dhampir does not have the Undead type, and so is not affected when the channel targets undead. The dhampir is a Humanoid (dhampir) type creature.
That's pretty much what I said.
It's honestly not that complex Abraham. Your intentions have nothing to do with it, when channeling, except picking a target type (Living vs Undead), and an energy type (positive vs negative).
No actually that's exactly what you do not do.
You pick a type and then based on the energy type you channel you either heal or harm that type. As such you can't choose to harm living creatures with positive energy (with specific feats) and you can't choose to heal living creatures with negative energy. The positive energy specifically chosen to heal cannot harm undead.
However for the purposes of negative and positive energy you are treated as undead. Those are the exact words from the Negative energy affinity. When it comes to positive energy you are treated as undead -- therefore it can't harm you (or heal you)... you are ignored.
As such if a cleric channels negative energy to heal undead:
It's negative energy -- you are treated as undead for negative energy -- you are healed.
They choose to affect undead -- you react as undead to negative energy therefore you heal.
|
|
Channeling energy causes a burst that affects all creatures of one type
The creature is alive, but reacts to positive and negative energy as if it were undead
It does not react to channeling as if undead, only positive and negative energy.
It is still a living type, and thus is treated as such for channeling. The ability does not alter the targeting of the channeling, only the result.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
However for the purposes of negative and positive energy you are treated as undead. Those are the exact words from the Negative energy affinity. When it comes to positive energy you are treated as undead -- therefore it can't harm you (or heal you)... you are ignored.As such if a cleric channels negative energy to heal undead:
It's negative energy -- you are treated as undead for negative energy -- you are healed.They choose to affect undead -- you react as undead to negative energy therefore you heal.
Please quote where it says you are treated as undead for channeling. Nothing in the ability says you are treated as the Undead type. It says you are healed by negative energy, and harmed by positive.
Your interpretation would mean that an Undead bane weapon would do damage to the Dhampir. However, he does not have the Undead subtype. Because he does not have the undead subtype, he is not undead. Nothing in the ability says 'You are treated as undead'.
Yet again, I'll quote...
Negative Energy Affinity (Ex) The creature alive, but reacts to positive and negative energy as if it were undead—positive energy harms it, negative energy heals it.Format: negative energy affinity; Location: Defensive Abilities.
Note that it says 'you react to positive and negative energy as if undead', it does not, as you keep saying, say that you are treated as undead.
When you channel, you pick a target type. Alive or Undead. Those are your only two target choices. The first type, Alive, is all living creatures.
Is a Dhampir alive? Yes.
Is a Dhampir Undead? No.
There fore a Dhampir is not a valid target when you channel to affect Undead. End of story.
When you channel to affect Living, a Dhampir is a valid target. Now you apply the energy you are channeling. If it's positive energy, the Dhampir is harmed. If it's negative, it's healed.
See how simple that is?
I am in complete disagreement with you, and I'll simply leave it at that, I do not read it the way you do and do not agree with your interpretation of the abilities in question.
I used to feel the same way Abraham. But after dozens of arguments (you can check my posting history on Dhampir), I've been convinced I was wrong. The wording is very clear. It doesn't say the creature is undead, it says very explicitly it is alive.
If you treat it as undead, it has to show up on detect undead spells, take damage from undead bane, and can't be resurrected.
Since the power doesn't say any of those things, it can only be that when the creature comes into contact with positive energy, it's harmed. When it comes into contact with negative energy, it's healed. And nothing in the power says it's type is changed for purposes of channeling.
|
|
Honestly, that's all the Undead type should be. 'This creature is hurt by positive energy and healed by negative energy'. Then you wouldn't need all those rules about what to do for HP without a Con score and the like, and you could turn ANYTHING into an undead version without rebuilding the stat block.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks, TOZ.
I am now considering houseruling all undead to have con scores. They remain immune to all things that would bother a con score, but it represents the general sturdiness of those bones or zombified flesh. All extant undead get a con score equal to their cha, to save trouble.
It would save a lot of problems, since I want to make undead a (difficult but not impossible) PC option.
However for the purposes of negative and positive energy you are treated as undead. Those are the exact words from the Negative energy affinity. When it comes to positive energy you are treated as undead -- therefore it can't harm you (or heal you)... you are ignored.
Actually Abraham, you're being a bit misleading. The "exact words" from Negative Energy Affinity, as you say mention nothing about being "treated as undead for the purposes of positive and negative energy". The exact words are:
The creature is alive, but reacts to positive and negative energy as if it were undead, positive energy harms it, negative energy heals it.
Your interpretation had NEA treating the dhampir as undead for all purposes relating to channeling energy. By RAW, it's only treated as undead for how it reacts, not how it's targeted. For targeting, it's alive, and as such would be targeted when channeling to affect living creatures.
This is a very minor difference I admit, but it is actually a bit more harmful to the dhampir. By your interpretation, a dhampir player would only get hurt by channeling when a cleric channeling to harm undead. Okay, not that big a problem. It's situational, and hitting the undead with a sword/hammer/etc works just as well, if not better. By RAW, the dhampir gets hurt when his team cleric channels to heal the party. A bit more of a problem, especially at lower levels where a lot of groups with a cleric rely on channeling for most of their healing between fights since the cleric doesn't have that many healing spells yet.
|
|
It's a very big problem at low levels, as our Sunday game showed. My cleric did not know about the dhampir's nature, and nearly ended up killing him when he tried to save him from a trap. From then on, he had to be careful about where he channeled, as he has not been able to take Selective Channeling yet.
|
|
I used to feel the same way Abraham. But after dozens of arguments (you can check my posting history on Dhampir), I've been convinced I was wrong. The wording is very clear. It doesn't say the creature is undead, it says very explicitly it is alive.
If you treat it as undead, it has to show up on detect undead spells, take damage from undead bane, and can't be resurrected.
Since the power doesn't say any of those things, it can only be that when the creature comes into contact with positive energy, it's harmed. When it comes into contact with negative energy, it's healed. And nothing in the power says it's type is changed for purposes of channeling.
I would have to agree with Abraham. The affinity is a specific exception to the general rules of channeling energy. It would trump the general. They are effected as if they were undead.