|
In 'You Only Die Twice,' the characters are transformed into undead. What would happen with someone playing a Dhampir character that they got from a PFS Boon? No change? (This is purely theoretical)
Lets look at the Template giving
1. You gain a bite attack that deals 1d6 points of damage if you are Medium or 1d4 points of damage if you are Small.
2. You gain two claw attacks that each deal 1d6 points of damage if you are Medium or 1d4 points of damage if you are Small.
3. You gain darkvision 60 feet and scent.
4. If you are Small, you gain a +1 natural armor bonus. If you are Medium or larger, you gain a +2 natural armor bonus.
Note that in this form, you will detect as an undead creature (such as with detect undead, but not with magic that reveals your true form, such as true seeing) and are treated as undead for the purposes of channeled energy, cure spells, and inflict spells, but not for other effects that specifically target or react differently to undead (such as disrupt undead, hide from undead, and searing light).
Now lets look at Dhampir
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.
Negative Energy Affinity seems to be the same, or at least covers the note from Template above, so no change.
|
Of course; that would make sense. It would be fun trying to describe 'you look like a zombie vampire' to that player, though.
Well you can still do that...
|
I don't think it's highly necessary to drink from the cup if they are a dhampir. I'm sure you can find plenty of them in the estates of the Blood Lords in Geb. But I think its definitely the call of the GM at the table as to whether or not it is necessary.
/I'd err on the side of it not being necessary, but would grant it if the PC wanted it anyway.
|
I don't think it's highly necessary to drink from the cup if they are a dhampir. I'm sure you can find plenty of them in the estates of the Blood Lords in Geb. But I think its definitely the call of the GM at the table as to whether or not it is necessary.
/I'd err on the side of it not being necessary, but would grant it if the PC wanted it anyway.
+1
Why disguise yourself as undead, when you are pretty much already there?
|
Why disguise yourself as undead, when you are pretty much already there?
1 problem, part of the reason to drink from the Cup is so you detect as an Undead, and a Dhampir does not.
|
Why are always 'problems' discussed here and not opportunities?
Take the Damphir player aside - ask if he wants to drink from the cup or not. If he is fine without drinking, start the introduction as:
Venture Captain speaks up: "Welcome fellow Pathfinders. You are here on a special mission and we have selected (insert Damphir player name here) specially as he will blend in most naturally with the environment we will send you.
But he can't do it alone and so we need a sacrifice from you to accompany him. Etc.
Players like to break from the boxed text and have a more personal introduction to a game. A Damphir in the party gives a great opportunity to role play that out.
As I said above - ask the player ahead - but then just go with the flow.
|
Why are always 'problems' discussed here and not opportunities?
Because he will put the whole group at danger if he does not detect as undead, and a doubt The VC would want that or the group.
|
Thod wrote:Why are always 'problems' discussed here and not opportunities?Because he will put the whole group at danger if he does not detect as undead, and a doubt The VC would want that or the group.
Did I miss that Undead are 'save' in this scenario? I can go back into it and check each individual encounter and list the difference - using spoiler tags of course.
From what I remember - I played it and GMed it once - the added danger is a big as a player in full plate who can't stealth and puts the group in danger in lots of encounters that would better be solved by stealth.
|
This is how I see it
Act 1: The group tries to concsript the 'undead' and won't mind to have a Damphir as long as it bolsters their numbers. It will make an interesting role play but should not change any numbers for diplomacy.
Act 2: A Damphir in a group of Undead is guilty by association and shouldn't change how the Pharasma priests act. It will make an interesting role play but should not change any numbers for diplomacy.
Act 3: the Haunt doesn't care
Act 4: joktan will fight either way
Act 5: the Ghoul Worm will fight either way
As I said - this is my personal opinion. But I can't see an issue at all. Unless maybe you have a pure Damphir party. But as long as you have more 'Undead' as Damphirs I can't see a problem.
|
Huh? I am not sure what you are asking..
The idea behind drinking from the cup is to be able to Hide in plain sight and not let it known that the PFS is there. To do this they all have to be seen as Undead, if one does not drink from the cup then they don't detect as undead, therefore putting the group to unknown extra danger the template is supposed to remove.
No matter how much a Dhampir looks like an undead, he is Not, and once put under scrutiny he would be detected therefor putting the group in Danger.
The VC has no prior knowledge that that group will not run into authorities that will do just that, so would not chance it.
|
You are using prior knowledge, The VC has no clue what they will be facing, or that they will be facing things that make it no difference if they drink from the cup or not. All the VC knows is the Group will be much safer and easier to walk about if they drink from the cup.
|
Dragnmoon
I guess we might have a different style of GM and how to interpret Golarion.
What is the aim of the VC - to send a groop of PFS characters to Geb on a covert operation. To me a Damphir blends in nicely and especially if together in a group of Undead won't raise suspicions.I tried to find out if Damphirs are more common there - but couldn't find it mentioned anywhere despite having somewhere in my mind that they are most common in Geb - but I might just imagine this part.
As you might have seen from my alternate introduction I would go that far to say the VC would have preferably selected a Damphir for the party as he/her is less suscpicious while everyone else has to drink from the cup.
This is my own interpretation - and yes - as GM I have prior knowledge and therefore know I'm not screwing up the character by not drinking. So I just can't see a problem giving a Damphir a choice either way.
I respect if other players or GMs interpret the motives of VCs differently. But as they tend to send Pathfinders into dangerous or deadly situations again and again I fail to see that a VC would really be that concerned in this specific case.
But as I say - this is my personal interpretation. I see a Damphir as a great opportunity to roleplay and just can't see him as a problem for this scenario.
|
|
Venture Captain speaks up: "Welcome fellow Pathfinders. You are here on a special mission and we have selected (insert Damphir player name here) specially as he will blend in most naturally with the environment we will send you.
But he can't do it alone and so we need a sacrifice from you to accompany him. Etc.Players like to break from the boxed text and have a more personal introduction to a game.
Good advice. I love adding player names into the introduction scene explaining why each particular group of Pathfinders was choose for the mission.