Recommended PFS Change to Dhampir Vampire Feats.


Pathfinder Society

Grand Lodge

So there's a fair few Dhampir Pathfinders using the race boon from the Beginner Box event and Convention attendance. The release of Advanced Race guide brought out some great blood drinking options for Dhampir characters, except for one small detail.

They're all banned from PFS (Blood Drinker, Blood Feaster, Blood Salvage, Diverse Palate, read them here).

It doesn't matter if the victim is already dead, classic vampire blood drinking is not allowed. Pathfinder Dhampirs are all half-vampires that aren't allowed to drink blood. This removes some of their appeal.

The main reason is that "Feeding on unwilling intelligent creatures is an evil act." (text from Advanced Race Guide)
We can remove this problem by adding requirements to the Blood Drinker feat, which serves as a prerequisite feat for Blood Feaster, Blood Salvage and Diverse Palate.

Blood Drinker
Consuming blood reinvigorates you.
Prerequisite: Dhampir.
Benefit: Choose one humanoid subtype, such as “goblinoid” (this subtype cannot be “dhampir”). You have acquired a taste for the blood of creatures with this subtype. Whenever you drink fresh blood from such a creature, you gain 5 temporary hit points and a +1 bonus on checks and saves based on Constitution. The effects last 1 hour. If you feed multiple times, you continue to gain hit points to a maximum of 5 temporary hit points for every three Hit Dice you have, but the +1 bonus on Constitution based skill checks and saving throws does not stack.
Normally, you can only drink blood from an opponent who is helpless, grappled, paralyzed, pinned, unconscious, or similarly disabled. If you have a bite attack, you can drink blood automatically as part of your bite attack; otherwise, you must first cut your target by dealing 1 hit point of damage with a slashing or piercing weapon (though you may feed upon a creature with severe wounds or a bleed effect without cutting it first). Once you cut the target, you can drink from its wound as a standard action. Drinking blood deals 2 points of Constitution damage to the creature you feed upon.
The blood must come from a living creature of the specified humanoid subtype.
Change to:
The blood must come from a living, evil-aligned creature of the specified humanoid subtype. You may not attempt to drink the victim's blood unless you have confirmed the creature is evil, through use of the Detect Evil spell or through use of the Holy weapon enchantment.
It cannot come from a dead or summoned creature. Feeding on unwilling intelligent creatures is an evil act.
With the amendment, the final sentence is no longer required for PFS play and can be deleted.

---

This workaround allows Dhampir Pathfinders to use their signature ability without threatening the innocent, and instead use their dark powers against the baddies.
What do you think?

Dark Archive

While I know you're coming from a good place, PFS strives to avoid changing rules around as much as possible.

Besides which, why is it not evil to feed on an evil intelligent creature? Should it really matter what the victim's alignment is?

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

KesterGunner,

There are all manner of feats that could be altered or modified for Pathfinder Society Organized Play. It has been the policy of the campaign leadership to either allow PFRPG material or disallow it, but not allow modifications of it.

Typically, this is to avoid confusion.


All Pathfinders are required to be Vegans?

Grand Lodge

Without the alignment restriction, there's nothing stopping a Dhampir Pathfinder using Prestige to buy a porter, or grabbing a nearby commoner and draining them of their blood for temporary hit points before combat. That's the kind of evil behaviour and use of the feat I suspect lead to the feat to be outright banned in the first place.

Grappling the BBEG or his evil minions and sucking their blood doesn't strike me as something that needs to be banned - the same way spraying baddies with acid or setting them on fire doesn't need to be banned.

I agree that PFS shouldn't aim to rewrite core rules, but I don't think this is a rewrite - it's more an additional requirement.

Dark Archive

As a general rule, I try to avoid slippery slope arguments. However, you must see that changing this will cause a lot of people to show up with other very minor changes like this. A lot of them will be reasonable like yours, and some will be unreasonable.

First, someone will need to go through each of these requests and balance the pros and cons of implementing such changes. Second, all of these changes will need to be recorded in an area that everyone can see and is aware of.

It wouldn't be a big deal to implement one such change, but I don't want us to get into a situation where the Additional Resources page is a novel that players and GMs must read with extreme diligence to see what new change has cropped up that isn't published in any book. This is why PFS only changes things when it's major.


Don't worry, if these feats are ever allowed, the evil act of you drinking the blood will transfer to the assigning officer. :-)

Dark Archive

Only if it's a faction mission. Come to think of it, that sounds a lot like a few Cheliax faction missions I've done...


What if the dhampir doesn't drink blood? There's an option where they don't need to do that. Isn't that legal for PFS?

Liberty's Edge

I like this idea. I've never played a race that wasn't core, aasimer, or tiefling, but I think this is an awesome and logical suggestion.

Dark Archive 2/5

"Feeding on unwilling intelligent creatures is an evil act."copied from the original post.. With this logic swinging a weapon at an unwilling intelligent creature is evil. Throwing a spell at an unwilling intelligent creature is evil. It is amazing that characters in pfs are able to do anything at all. The end result of all three if these is a defeated out dead opponent. Does it really matter how I defeat them?

Grand Lodge 2/5

Emageht wrote:
"Feeding on unwilling intelligent creatures is an evil act."copied from the original post.. With this logic swinging a weapon at an unwilling intelligent creature is evil. Throwing a spell at an unwilling intelligent creature is evil. It is amazing that characters in pfs are able to do anything at all. The end result of all three if these is a defeated out dead opponent. Does it really matter how I defeat them?

Except you're inserting your own logic into a place where there wasn't previously. It merely says "Feeding on unwilling intelligent creatures is an evil act." That's just how it is in the pathfinder universe. Nowhere is there any implication by extension or any other means that indicates what else you're attempting to stretch it into.

Nowhere does it say that "attacking" is evil. It says "consuming an intelligent creature" is evil. They are in no way similar and any attempt to simply state that "they must be equivalent" is simply wrong.

Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Resurrecting an unwilling thread from four years ago is often seen as an evil act as well.

Scarab Sages

Nefreet wrote:
Resurrecting an unwilling thread from four years ago is often seen as an evil act as well.

Necro'd a 4 year old thread to start an alignment debate....lol.

Emageht wrote:
"Feeding on unwilling intelligent creatures is an evil act."copied from the original post.. With this logic swinging a weapon at an unwilling intelligent creature is evil. Throwing a spell at an unwilling intelligent creature is evil. It is amazing that characters in pfs are able to do anything at all. The end result of all three if these is a defeated out dead opponent. Does it really matter how I defeat them?

<barely passed will save>....I think I'm going to leave this one alone.


"Feeding on unwilling intelligent creatures is an evil act."
Fun fact: This presumably means that Int draining them first allows you to feed on them without alignment repercussions

But yeah, logic has nothing to do with it, the rules say X is evil, it's evil regardless of who you do it to. Houseruling or whatever is fine, but this is PFS

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Renata Maclean wrote:

"Feeding on unwilling intelligent creatures is an evil act."

Fun fact: This presumably means that Int draining them first allows you to feed on them without alignment repercussions

But yeah, logic has nothing to do with it, the rules say X is evil, it's evil regardless of who you do it to. Houseruling or whatever is fine, but this is PFS

Not reading the rules like a priest of asmodeous is not synonymous with house rules.

A sentient creature with a condition is still a sentient creature. Argue around that or worse, build your character around that at your own peril.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Renata Maclean wrote:

"Feeding on unwilling intelligent creatures is an evil act."

Fun fact: This presumably means that Int draining them first allows you to feed on them without alignment repercussions

But yeah, logic has nothing to do with it, the rules say X is evil, it's evil regardless of who you do it to. Houseruling or whatever is fine, but this is PFS

Not reading the rules like a priest of asmodeous is not synonymous with house rules.

A sentient creature with a condition is still a sentient creature. Argue around that or worse, build your character around that at your own peril.

The Int drain thing was kind of a joke

The point is that the rules make no exception for evil creatures, so trying to create an additional exception based on that exception for evil creatures is nonsensical.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

Renata Maclean wrote:


The Int drain thing was kind of a joke

Poes law of rules lawyering is a harsh mistress.


I mean, you could also make an argument that babies don't qualify as "intelligent" so eating babies is not an evil act

Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Recommended PFS Change to Dhampir Vampire Feats. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.