And the writers have confirmed that NOT every priest of Pharasma would want to see dhampirs dead.
I said if they where full undead as would fit their fluff, then they would be kill on sight.
That officially they are not is something I know.And even if the dhampir isn't a product of hollywood, he still doesn't fit into my vision of a fantasy game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I doubt there is anything we'll be able to do to sway you're opinions at this point. We've explained that mechanically it's relatively simple to make it work. But if you simply don't like the flavor, and would rather leave the table than play with one(which is extreme), I doubt there's anything I can say on a forum to change your opinion.
But to the OP, as long as you aren't prejudice against Dhampirs, they can be fine in most games.
That officially they are not is something I know.
And even if the dhampir isn't a product of hollywood, he still doesn't fit into my vision of a fantasy game.
And on that hand, there are lots of things that don't fit certain peoples vision of fantasy. Gunslingers for one bug a lot of people; Summoners being another.
In my own experience, we have a Wizard Dhampir in my game who gets along with the party just fine. Flavor wise, he came to them as the court wizard who politically allied himself with them over a story arc and eventually left with them. They didn't know what he was for some time and when they found out, it was as they began battling the undead. The fact that he's a Dhampir is secondary and no one in my game has a problem with that.
|
Negative energy affinity is only a liability for the damphir, not the party. The big argument seems to be that it limits the cleric. However, lots of parties are clericless. Heck, I've been in plenty of parties that didn't even have a decent healer. Even if there is a cleric, he does not have to take selective channeling. If the damphir gets caught in a blast of positive energy to heal the rest of the party, that is on him and something for him to deal with. Unless the cleric has selective channeling he is probably not going to use it in the middle of combat where he is going to heal whoever the party is trying to kill. Channel energy sans selective channeling is better used after combat, in which case the damphir just goes to the other side of the room while the cleric heals everyone else.
I've seen people float the idea that the damphir would force the cleric (notice again all this focus on the cleric) to not use channeling to damage undead. Now, unless I missed an addendum somewhere that is not the case. Damphir are affected by positive/negative energy like undead, but they are not undead and are not targeted by effects that affect undead so they are safe when the cleric nova's the undead with positive energy.
As to flavor, that is subjective. I see it as less twilight BS and more like Blade or Vampire Hunter D.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why are bearded dwarf women or even monks and gunslingers so bad for some people?
I won't play in a game with bearded Dwarven women. I have no problem with other people having them in their games, just not one I am playing in.
I hate the flavor of it, especially when Golarion lore does not support it.
I also hate bearded dwarf women jokes.
Thankfully, all of my current gaming groups are accommodating.
I'm playing a Dhampir Cleric Sarenrae right now. I've taken Selective Channeling and always prepare just one Inflict, which I will sacrifice to heal my party without a second thought. Of course, he's a bit of a jerk, but that's his reaction to racist idiots in-game.
All I really see are a lot of concepts being stacked on top of one. I can see and agree with a few points. Yes, it would make things a bit more difficult, but my thing is it's a game where you fill out a character sheet and are supposed to make things work with one another. Like some of the people that have posted, it's all about teamwork and coordination.
Granted, I understand where it wouldn't fit and where it shouldn't, as with any other race within the game.
That said, I feel it would require good communication to make it work, mechanically. Flavor-wise? Dhampir are an old Balkan folktale. Twilight barely plays to it and Blade, Vampire Hunter D, BloodRayne, etc. do them justice.
The idea that they don't fit into a fantasy universe, when they're in Pathfinder and with a lore associated to them, is a bit odd to me, especially when it's filled with both guns and magic. That's just where I disagree. Half-orcs are cool, but we can still put up the same argument that people have put out for the dhampir - that "they don't fit." It's a role-playing game where you play a role you want, long as you aren't being an idiot or breaking the rules.
I think it would be selfish to play one without some cohesive strategy, but it's equally selfish to demand a player to play something they don't want because someone doesn't like them. I mean, if we look at it, either way - someone has to accommodate for someone, it's just a matter of who yells loudest.
It's probably a matter of perspective there, but I still see both sides as having the potential to be incredibly selfish.
I've played a Dhampir before with no issues - I'll admit I'm biased and really do enjoy the Kinslayer archetype (and Sword Saint for my human samurai.) That said, I've seen one where they can become a BIG problem. Still, that's a PLAYER issue, not a race one - like the Gloryhog Aasimar.
It's up to the player to follow certain courtesies and really work toward balancing things out in the campaign. I mean, it's role-play, we should all (in my opinion) work toward the story and pushing each other's characters.
....and of course, I ramble. Sorry!
Anyway, to sum up my point, yes, I do agree it can be a bit of a hassle, but everything is on each player. I agree with Darth, it's not that big of a deal and it can basically still work well, provided everyone at the table agrees to work with one another - which shouldn't even be a factor since that's one of the assumptions we should be able to make.
Better late than never?
On topic, the Spell Eater Bloodrager archetype can be a nice way to mitigate the healing problem for a Dhampir.
Also, if channel is a worry, that's a prefect excuse to be an archer who hangs back a ways to take shooting position.
Let the Dhampir/s play. It can change the infrastructure of the game a bit, but unless your party relies on channeling positive energy for heals in the heat of combat; it can be mitigated.
My experience adventuring alongside three Dhampir; I got roped in as a Cleric. The DM had to bend the game and grant me an artifact that'll reverse positive-negative energy so I could even heal them (I was CG alignment). It became cumbersome and I began to use that artifact offensively instead so we had to retcon myself as an Oracle.
When half the channel hurts the party, the humor factor wore off quickly.
They fit well in a gothic/horror scenario, but just like Drizzt and Drow, the Alucard stereotype can turn a lot of people off, even though that may be the Dhampir's desired persona.
Fundamentally, unless the PCs are directly interfering with one another, choices like Dhampir should not be an issue. It may not be optimal for party composition unless everyone has a synergistic theme, but that isn't a requirement to enjoy the game.
In terms of roleplaying, my companion Dhampir acted as if normal people just trying to enjoy "living." One liked food, the other their faith, and the other was a loveable jackass. Nothing Emo, they took the race for a driving point in the plot; it didn't dictate everything they had to do, but provided a nice backdrop and motivator in the Gothic-Horror campaign in which we were engaged. If anything, my happy-go-lucky Gnome was the one who stuck out like a sore thumb. Like a splash of Color in a Twilight poster. Gray-Gray-Gray, NEON!
The dhampir's flavor is straight out of centuries-old real world folklore. Not freakin' Twilight.*
Sorry, you know I hate disagreeing with you, Mikaze, but this isn't exactly true. The dhampir's name was, sure, as was very basic information (half-vampire). But the dhampir was a monster. Some versions of them were boneless, filthy, or basically vampires-sans-weaknesses. Monsters. Evil, bloodsucking monsters.
The idea of heroic or "brooding redemption-seeking" vampires and vampire-types is not a Twilight invention, but it would be foolish to ignore Twilight's role in popularizing it of late. And dhampirs as represented in Pathfinder are distinctively modern creatures.
|
To avoid problems with channeled positive healing a Dhampir can take the 'Life Dominant Soul' feat from 'Blood of the Night'. They then receive half healing from either positive OR negative channeled healing. Still need to make themselves scarce when someone channels positive energy to harm undead, but they can hang out and heal with the rest of the cool kids. There's also a spell and magic item in ARG that convert positive healing to temp hit points. Similarly there are traits, feats, and items in those two books for dealing with sunlight.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, you know I hate disagreeing with you, Mikaze, but this isn't exactly true. The dhampir's name was, sure, as was very basic information (half-vampire). But the dhampir was a monster. Some versions of them were boneless, filthy, or basically vampires-sans-weaknesses. Monsters. Evil, bloodsucking monsters.
Not so. Half vampires as vampire hunters goes back centuries. Indeed, in some traditions it was pretty much assumed that all vampire hunters were themselves descended from vampires... or born on Saturday.
It was also a well established modern trope (e.g. Vampire Hunter D, Blade, BloodRayne) long before Twilight or Pathfinder.
Really? I'll confess my information comes from Wikipedia. Where are the half-vampire hunter myths at?
EDIT: Also, I will re-emphasize that I am not saying Twilight invented the trope.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really? I'll confess my information comes from Wikipedia. Where are the half-vampire hunter myths at?
Bulgaria, Macedonia, the Balkans in general. In that area vampires were generally considered to be invisible and thus only dhampirs could see them (origin of the Pathfinder dhampir ability to detect undead). This became something of a racket as children of unwed mothers would sometimes claim that the father was a vampire and thus gain social standing they otherwise wouldn't have. The 'dhampir' could then proclaim a death from sickness or other unexplained cause the work of a vampire (which was frequently assumed to be the case anyway) and offer to risk their life fighting the fiend in return for payment. There are documented incidents of such vampire hunters staging epic brawls with unseen assailants as recently as the mid 1900s.
The ways they could see invisible vampires were often amusing, such as by looking through a sleeve.
That's pretty funny, CBDunkerson. I concede the point. Though I kind of wish Pathfinder'd dhampirs had been less based around modern "It sucks to be vampirish" dhampirs and more around "crazy ghost-detecting bastard hunter" dhampirs. ;P
By the way, my main problem with dhampirs isn't statistical, and it's not about hating Twilight. I've just never seen one played interestingly. They tend to gravitate towards very specific personalities centered around one emotion: Self-pity.
Hey, I just got an idea for a thread. Be right back.
|
|
Though I kind of wish Pathfinder'd dhampirs had been less based around modern "It sucks to be vampirish" dhampirs and more around "crazy ghost-detecting bastard hunter" dhampirs. ;P
Actually, I think they were. I put the problem more on too many players influenced by bad fiction. There's nothing in the game version preventing cool dhampirs. Heck, I'd love to play a historical dhampir con man type. 'It is as I feared, good villagers, this is the work of a... vampire! I would be willing to face the fiend for you, but alas... my silver weapons were destroyed in my last battle against the creatures of the night. Without more silver I can't hope to defeat this evil that stalks your village.'
Hey, I just got an idea for a thread. Be right back.
Is anyone else suddenly getting a sense of dire foreboding? :]
Yeah, but dhampirs still generally crave blood ("many suffer a reprehensible desire to indulge in sanguinary delights") hate the sun, and are almost always persecuted by Golarion lore. They clearly do not live in the same world as those Balkan dhampirs of history.
|
|
Yeah, but dhampirs still generally crave blood ("many suffer a reprehensible desire to indulge in sanguinary delights") hate the sun, and are almost always persecuted by Golarion lore. They clearly do not live in the same world as those Balkan dhampirs of history.
Yeah, those traits presumably owe more to the traditions where dhampirs were like another variety of vampire. In yet other stories they were completely normal humans... or always died at birth. Lots of different takes all rolled together into the modern conception. Again, this matches the earlier modern fiction examples I mentioned: Vampire Hunter D, Blade, and BloodRayne all share the sunlight aversion and blood craving. This seems to have become the 'standard' modern image of a dhampir. Some of the alternate racial abilities and feats can emulate more of the historic variation, but general theme is very consistent.
Vampire Hunter D, Blade, and BloodRayne are all pretty modern examples, so those don't really detract from my case. :P
Keep in mind that a modern interpretation that cobbles together aspects from numerous traditional mythologies is not a traditional interpretation. "Cobbling" is exactly how new concepts are formed. The modern dhampir is very different from mythological ideas, and more's the pity. Because its unique combination happens to be very compatible with whiny emo warriors with big egos and lots of disproportionate* guilt. :P
*Either too much, to make the character more likeable ("I once scratched my archenemy while consumed by the bloodlust, woe is me") or too little, because the player thinks they're likeable anyways ("I once slaughtered a whole village, but my mentor tells me that guilt will lead me to a path of self-destruction, woe is me"). Either way, not as good as Twilight.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
By the way, my main problem with dhampirs isn't statistical, and it's not about hating Twilight. I've just never seen one played interestingly. They tend to gravitate towards very specific personalities centered around one emotion: Self-pity.
My sheltered and innocent dhampir character was completely unlike that. She was like an albino Alice in Wonderland, with the mundane features of life beyond the manor home of her childhood seeming new and fascinating.
The only pity she had was for those who could not experience the wonderful joys life had to offer.
Why are we talking about Twilight?
Oh, different Twilight :P
|
|
Because its unique combination happens to be very compatible with whiny emo warriors with big egos and lots of disproportionate* guilt. :P
*Either too much, to make the character more likeable ("I once scratched my archenemy while consumed by the bloodlust, woe is me") or too little, because the player thinks they're likeable anyways ("I once slaughtered a whole village, but my mentor tells me that guilt will lead me to a path of self-destruction, woe is me"). Either way, not as good as Twilight.
Again, I think that's more an aspect of a certain population of players than the race as described. To understand the difference consider your kender example. The kender were/are hated because of actual 'features' of the race in the rules... if you weren't stealing from everyone and taking insane risks that could get the whole party wiped out then you weren't doing it right. That's how kender were supposed to act.
Dhampirs... absolutely nothing requiring that they be whiney emo types. Yes, it can be played as 'emo whiner', but also 'scary badass', 'fiery zealot', 'beautiful dreamer', 'enigmatic outsider', 'proud aristocrat', 'wise elder', 'haunted madman', and countless other approaches.
Most of my experience with dhampir (and vampire) characters in various RPGs pre-dates Twilight, or was with players who weren't significantly influenced by it. Thus, I haven't seen much of the type you describe.
Wait, why are clerics using channel in combat again?
Dhampir buys a wand of infernal healing/ILW. Problem solved.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm the DM for a game where one of the player characters is a Dhampir Inquisitor, and he plays nicely with the group.
He resists the urge to drink blood, and whatever anger he has he just channels into killing undead. He's a tad boring, but reliable.
And a lot of people misunderstand the rules. They are not healed by Positive Energy, but channeling to heal the living will NOT damage them.
Channel Positive to damage undead (not heal living) will hurt a Dhampir, just as using Channel Negative to heal undead (not harm the living) will heal a Dhampir.
Wait, why are clerics using channel in combat again?
Dhampir buys a wand of infernal healing/ILW. Problem solved.
Yeah, Clerics don't always specialize in Channeling. Also, an Inflict Wand would solve (almost) all the Dhampir's healing problems. Many of the complaints regarding Dhampir seem to come from misunderstandings.
I tried a melee Slayer Dhampir on a Reign of Winter campaign. After two sessions, I asked the DM to change the character to human and he agreed. At level 1 (which I hate with passion) and with a melee character, the problem of the negative affinity was too great.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That says more about the adventure than it does about the player choices...
Hi, my name's Morythine and I'm a dhampir. I've been playing in a Rise of the Runelords PbP and we've all had a lovely time.
I'm slightly underoptimised, but no-one's had to take a feat for me.
Also, the claim that all barbarians are Leroy Jenkins clones with no sense of discretion is false.
Dare to dream. I'd love to see that one!
Currently, our bloodrager murdered 5 innocents in his "rage" and is facing trial for murder.
Call me crazy, but I personally think it's important for every Player to work with each other to make sure that they will mesh well with each other regardless of class/race. It is not only those aspects but the personality that is also important. If there are problems, it's best to discover them out of game instead of in game. This way the players can come up with solutions so that everyone can cget their cake and eat it too.
This includes power gaming and non power gaming. Evil and non evil. Non healing Battle cleric and healing cleric. Point is don't only consider yourself, consider your team.
|
My group had a dhampir cleric with versatile channel - until he became an actual vampire (we play high-power games). He covers his own healing without compromising his ability to heal the group, and is pretty effective against undead.
I don't think it's any more of a liability than playing a martial character with a poor will save. Considerably less when you consider that TPKs happen when the melee meat grinder gets dominated and turns on the party.
I do see why having an anti-undead channeling specialist in the same party as a dhampir would be inconvenient but that's a problem with the specific context, not a problem with the race in general. It would be problematic to have a paladin and an assassin in the same party, or to bring a pitborn tiefling into the Mendevian crusades. Doesn't mean that those character options are bad.
Also, the claim that all barbarians are Leroy Jenkins clones with no sense of discretion is false.Dare to dream. I'd love to see that one!
Currently, our bloodrager murdered 5 innocents in his "rage" and is facing trial for murder.
Mine is trained in negotiation and prefers to incapacitate rather than kill opponents - we actually ended up recruiting a drow guard who we'd interrogated because my bloodrager didn't want to kill him.