Playing Dhampyr

[exile]

The thing that keeps bloodline feats from falling in the power creep category, by my way of thinking anyway, is that you are still limited by your overall number of feats. My elven rogue, who I have played from level 1 to 4, has tons of feats that I should like to take for her, and just not enough room to pick them all up.

Chad

 

[FireLance]

I wonder if Eberron will implement Dragonmarks as Multiclassing or as Bloodline feats, or if this will be a third power-swap variant?

Good question! I'm guessing the implementation will be similar to bloodline feats as the dragonmarks have a rather specific range of effects, and it would be pain to come up with a slew of encounter, daily and utility powers for each dragonmark. As bloodline feats, you only need to come up with a few specific powers for each dragonmark that you could spend feats to get. There is also a bit more flexibility. Some dragonmarks could have only utility powers, while others have some encounter or daily attack powers as well.

 

[Runestar]

This makes me wonder if this is how they plan on implementing powerful races. Maybe a LA+0 base race with watered down stats, and feats granting you access to its various abilities.

 

[Squizzle]

Minor note, but the Heritage feat should probably require "Living non-construct humanoid" instead of "Living humanoid", unless WotC wants warforged vampires ("bloodforged"?) to be LFR-legal.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Minor note, but the Heritage feat should probably require "Living non-construct humanoid" instead of "Living humanoid", unless WotC wants warforged vampires ("bloodforged"?) to be LFR-legal.

Would it be unbalanced to have Warforged Dhampyr? if not, it might not be a big worry for LFR.

Of course, it might be something that you gotta have to explain to your DM why he should allow it. "I was built by Vampires" could cause "Nonsense" or "okay, that's fine" or "Okay, that's fine *devious smile*".

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

Minor note, but the Heritage feat should probably require "Living non-construct humanoid" instead of "Living humanoid", unless WotC wants warforged vampires ("bloodforged"?) to be LFR-legal.

I love the idea of warforged dhampyr! Particularly as a villain.

 

[proto128]

warforged vampires ("bloodforged"?)

This is my next character.

"The chemical energy keeps my fuel cells charged."

 

[Lizard]

See, now, THIS is cool, not just for the content (and who doesn't like mopey emo White Wolf wannabe PCs?), but for the way in which 3x style templating is cunningly snuck in the back door, mechanically. I had been thinking of undead as a theme for my next campaign, which might be 4e (might also be Pathfinder, Starblazer Adventures, or Spycraft), and this makes it easy to make a whole lot of undead-flavored critters.

Sadly, I'm already playing a Grimdark Brooder, so I won't be able to use these for my next character -- hate to do the same shtick twice in a row -- but I greatly enjoyed the article.

 

[Squizzle]

Would it be unbalanced to have Warforged Dhampyr? if not, it might not be a big worry for LFR.

Of course, it might be something that you gotta have to explain to your DM why he should allow it. "I was built by Vampires" could cause "Nonsense" or "okay, that's fine" or "Okay, that's fine *devious smile*".

I love the idea of warforged dhampyr! Particularly as a villain.

This is my next character.

"The chemical energy keeps my fuel cells charged."

Looks like I did some good today! Good gaming!

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

So, next bloodline: Illithid. Okay, it's still a kind of vampire, but psychic instead of blood-based...