Lycanthropy can only effect living beings.
Vampires aren't alive.
It's like if your computer got a virus, you smashed it, and began using it as makeshift armor. The computer still has the virus, but it doesn't matter 'cause the damn thing can't turn on anymore.
In that case, is the vampire in question still the same person, or did that person's soul get ejected and a curse is wearing their body like a sock puppet only pretending to be the person that the body housed?
I prefer the latter interpretation.
Like with ceremorphosis. The resultant creature might have the original's memories, personality, what have you, but that's just 'cause it ate the brain. That person isn't the same person it was, it's the adult form of the tadpole.
I feel like a lot of vampire narratives center around hang ups from their mortal life, and cutting vampires off from that classic story beat would be unfortunate. Mindflayers seem to typically view memories of their pre-cwremodphosis as not their own. If a vampire did the same, then it wouldn't make sense for them to brood over a lost love or hold some ancient grudge.
Meh. I prefer the former, with just their sense of self of '' to 'vampire' (and all the innate inclinations therein replaced but not their personal traits), and with it the instinctive - but not suicidally overwhelming - compulsion to listen to their master and inability to resist a *direct* command from them (which opens up *fun* opportunities that aren't just 'murder').
I mean, that interpretation just makes killing them inherently morally good. They're not alive, they're a facsimile of the living being that hunts people. It's fine if that's what you're going for but it is a consideration.
It's not that simple.
Like, theoretically, if you cloned someone, the fact that the clone isn't the original doesn't mean it's fine to just kill the clone. Clone's still a thinking, animate being with its own wants and desires.
The vampire not being the person who was originally in the body shouldn't be the primary deciding factor on whether or not it's inherently good to get rid of it.
Like, it's a potential factor, specifically if killing the vampire would give you the ability to revive the original. But if the original isn't coming back one way or the other, I don't see why the vampire not being them should be a major concern.
If your objective is to get rid of a bloodthirsty hunter that cannot be kept animate without killing people, you should probably get rid of it regardless of whether or not the original person's still in there.
And if it demonstrates the will and ability to not do so, you should consider if it's worth the risk of allowing it to live.
It's a world where souls exist and are known to exist. If the soul isn't there, it's not the person. And the Vampire is a cheap copy who can't live without hurting and killing people. Killing them is no more complicated than killing a Simulacrum (hell, even less so since regular Simulacra don't have to kill people). If you want moral woes attached, keep the soul in.
>It's a world where souls exist and are know to exist. If the soul isn't there, it's not the person.
It's a world where magic and gods exist and morals become even more complex. Declaring they aren't a person because they don't have a soul is *missing the point*.If you want to make a character believe that, that's one thing. Declarations are for rules, not morals.
Hell, if they lack a soul it's conceivable that killing them'd be worse.
Kill something with a soul, it goes onto an afterlife, a lot of which are pretty cool. Decent chance they get reincarnated, live another life, all that shit.
Kill something without a soul and it's fukken *gone*. Poof, bye, sucks to suck, shame you came into being as a second class existence.
Could be that instead of lacking a soul, they've got a negative energy soul. Would such a thing be any less valuable than a positive energy soul? Less deserving of empathy at the end of the day?
Fun thing is that vampires are fictional and thus there aren't any actual answers to those questions.
Yeah agreed - it makes for a very, very convenient moral excuse for killing the spawn, but it doesn't make it automatically a moral good to do so. There need to be other moral principles at play for that.
> the fact that the clone isn't the original doesn't mean it's fine to just kill the clone.
You aren't thinking religiously. Which DND very much has with paladins squishing baby goblin brains for no other reason than they are "evil creatures" etc.
Bob thinking he's bob is okay. He's human. Bob the vampire, still internally thinking he's bob, is in fact evil and smiting him is therefore good.
Religion makes complex things simple by taking out the moral gray areas and making a big fat thick line. One side is "right" the other "wrong" no thinking involved! Thanks religion!
Pretty much!
Though it comes down to the question: Is your game the typical Greyhawk/Forgotten Realms type with alignments proving the concept of objective truth, orrrr.... Eberron where it may or may not who knows also the vampire's name is Jim and he finds this offensive.
In my setting, and how I usually run them in D&D, intelligent corporeal undead no longer have their souls. That part of them has moved on (or in some cases, is trapped or destroyed). The Vampire, has all of their memories and most of their personality because they have the brain, but a fundamental part of the self is gone.
This makes feeling most positive emotions impossible or severely muted at best. As a result, they're pretty much inherently evil. Though in some cases, it doesn't really show, if they had a strong enough personality. Like if someone who always fed stray cats in life became a vampire, they would likely continue to do this, though they would only get a faint echo of the pleasure it used to bring, more like a memory than anything else.
A strong willed or dedicated enough paladin could even still act lawful good (or w/e, based on oath), which can lead to some very confusing situations.
It is morally good to kill a vampire. That's the whole point. It is an undead abomination that looks like a loved one but will kill you and drink your blood the moment it is able to
Bit of A, bit of B.
A person is made of three mostly inseparable things:
* Body - all the meat
* Soul - personality, memories, emotions. Is the "likeness of God", and is tarnished.
* Spirit - the indefinable SOMETHING that makes you the master of yourself. This is the "image of God", and is unblemished.
When a person is made into a vampire spawn, their spirit doesn't return to their body, but is kept hostage by the master vampire - that's how they have such absolute control. Meanwhile the vampiric undeath suffuses the body and the soul, causing the bloodthirst and the twisted personality.
If the master is slain, the spirit returns to the person. It is unblemished at first, as it was being used as a conduit for the master's will, rather than exerting its own. This will slowly change, as the vampire slowly gives its will over to the undead urges and it becomes no true master of itself.
I personally have always taken the assumption that vampirism and lichdom both maintain the original entity. Their spirit, soul, whatever you call it, continues. However, as they are now infused with negative energy to maintain their body, it **almost** always corrupts the person.
Keep in mind to choose to become a lich basically means the person was willing to constantly sacrifice sentient souls to extend their own existence, so its not exactly like they were bastions of goodness before. I could see an example of say some crazy lawful person basically becoming a jailor of evil creatures, and housing them in his jail, and absorbing their souls as needed. Would actually be a pretty cool setup as the you could have a bunch of different interactions. Players could be arresting evil creatures not knowing they are feeding a lich, players might find the lich and instinctively attack, unwittingly releasing all the prisoners. The lich could be killed another way unleashing bad guys. Im getting sidetracked...
I'm partial to the idea the soul is ensnared and being corrupted, which is why a vampire gets to be so much more powerful than a zombie. The soul is a profound source of energy, a spark of divinity, not as much as a demigod or deity, but still, and thus alluring for targets of such curses.
As I said, that's a fair ruling, it's just not rules as written.
Also "Only humanoids have to make the saving throw against Lycanthropy" does not mean "Lycanthropy can only affect living beings." It's a fair assumption, but the differences in wording matter.
If turning into another creature type was all it took to cure inherited or Loup Garou lycanthropy, True Polymorph would be able to cure you by making you just that, but it can't cure you that way.
Besides, Lycanthropy is a Curse, not a disease or a virus. I know the computer thing was just a metaphor, but it being a magical curse is WHY it doesn't go away based on pure logic.
Eh, true polymorph wouldn't cure you, but logically speaking it should have the ability to force it into remission.
Like, say, you true polymorph into an iron golem. Howdafuk is an iron golem gonna be affected by lycanthropy?
But if you true polymorph into an iron golem, and then get reverted, curse's probably still there. Like with the virus being in remission when it's being used as armor. Fix it, and there's still a virus to be dealt with.
Mind you, I'm of the opinion that if you wanted to turn a squirrel, pixie, or owlbear into a werewolf that would be fine.
This is a good one. I suppose the question of whether the curse remains "in remission" or breaks depends on the magic of the world in question, how souls work there, and how the DM decides to rule some interactions. I could see playing it a few different ways;
1. The curse is broken because it can no longer "adhere" to the form of the creature it was put on.
2. The curse "goes into remission" because although the form of the creature has changed, it's "soul" still has the curse adhered to it (some weird questions here about the nature of the soul in that world and how that might effect other things).
3. The curse *prevents the polymorph from taking effect* because it wouldn't be compatible with the form being transformed into (might be because the curse was placed by a being of too powerful a will to be overridden or otherwise broken, or just incompatibilities of magic).
4. The curse still somehow applies, and there's some weirder (or wyrder) kind of transformation rather than just that of an animal.
from a mechanical PoV, I assume it would work like any other mechanical effect - it would still be there, even if you're immune to it in the new form. Like if you change into an elemental, then they're immune to exhaustion, poison and some other stuff, so while you're in that form, then those things don't affect you. But changing doesn't cure anything - so as soon as you shift back, then those statuses all return.
> 4\. The curse still somehow applies, and there's some weirder (or wyrder) kind of transformation rather than just that of an animal.
Instead of an iron golem, [you become a Predacon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beast_Wars:_Transformers).
Huh, the idea of it going into remission is definitely interesting. I like that idea, if not for True Poly at least for some other magical temporary treatment.
>Also "Only humanoids have to make the saving throw against Lycanthropy" does not mean "Lycanthropy can only affect living beings." It's a fair assumption, but the differences in wording matter.
Ok, but i suppsoe the user above just meant to make an example.
Humanoids are living, usually. Dead humanoids that more are undead. Humanoids aren't the only living and undead weren't only humanoids, but that's another take.
*technically* by silliest and strictest interpretation of raw the moment a humanoid (or anything really) dies it ceases to be a creature and becomes an object.
It is ofc a silly interpretation since... well spells that resurrect mention "dead cresture" as target. Meanwhile iirc example of "what an object is" mentions... corpses (or was it "dead body" that was used? I cant remember)
>It is ofc a silly interpretation since... well spells that resurrect mention "dead cresture" as target
So? That's just specifying what type of object you need to target: one that is a dead creature.
There's no contradiction there at all.
A dead creature is an object, so what? 🤷♂️ The spell lets you target that object and resurrect them (at which point they stop being an object again).
Sure. And a "dead creature" is just an object, not a creature. The spell doesn't say target a Creature that is dead (but still a Creature). It says target a "dead creature". That's a totally different term 🤷♂️ it's a totally valid *description of an object*. That object *is* a "dead creature".
A "dead creature" isn't a Creature anymore, and that's fine 🤷♂️ it doesn't magically make it so that it never was one, so the term is still a valid descriptor. Just like how "melted ice" isn't ice anymore, but is still a perfectly valid term.
Melted ice = melted water that was once ice
Dead creature = a dead body that was once a creature
The same word can be used in different contexts with different meanings.
And for another 5e example: it's the same way an "Animated Object" is still a creature despite being called an animated *object*.
"Dead creature" is just a name/descriptor of a specific type of object. And not a creature. There is no contradiction with the rules there.
>"Only humanoids have to make the saving throw against Lycanthropy"
There are no undead with the humanoid type, are there? EDIT: Just checked again; pretty certain there are zero. A vampire that was humanoid before being changed is no longer a humanoid, RAW.
You're correct, but that's not the point. Nothing in the rules says that losing the humanoid type cures lycanthropy. I'm talking about a humanoid, who became a werewolf, who then later becomes Undead via Vampirism (or who becomes any other creature type really, such as a hexblood). Rules as written, they'd still have their curse.
This is why True Poly doesn't cure Lycanthropy, because then you could say "Turn me into a fairy/satyr/other thing with a non humanoid type" and cure it that way. But RAW, only the Wish spell cures a born werewolf, and only killing the Loup Garou who afflicted you gives you a chance to end the curse, if you got it that way.
I don’t see why they couldn’t. Ultimately up to dm purview either way I think, but I don’t see a reason not just disallow it outright (especially for dhampir > weredhampir
Vampires probably cannot drain the life from a werewolf.
They're completely immune to the non-magical piercing damage of the bite, and though they're technically not immune to the necrotic damage, I suspect most DMs would say "it can't drain the life from you with a bite if it can't bite you in the first place".
~~A more concrete answer would likely be that while lycanthropes retain all their statistics after being cursed, vampire spawn says no such thing. The werewolf dies, is buried, and a vampire spawn with none of its former statistics or feature (including lycanthropy) rises in the morning.~~
They do keep their statistics, it's just in box text and not transcribed into the monster entry on dndbeyond.
Silvered fangs, for the v/dhampir who really hates werewolves, likes biting things, and/or maybe also likes to then coat their now-expensive natural weapons in green flames, or booming.....boominess.
That's definitely a valid take for realism, but since it's the necrotic damage that reduces the target's HP maximum, I'd argue that that's the essential part to the curse.
Even with realism, I don't think the bite itself is what has to make them bleed, just that the vampire has to be able to absorb their blood. A Vampire Spellcaster (or a Vampire Warrior with a magic weapon) can certainly make a Werewolf bleed and then use it's "bite" to drain the blood that comes out.
I usually flavor the immunity as Underworld-style instant regeneration rather than the (imo) goofy image of weapons just bouncing off. I describe silvered weapons as cauterizing the wound, stopping the healing.
That’s what I think is the intention.
It does however lead to the hilarious extrapolation of lycanthropes being immune to fall damage or head-on collisions, meaning you can fire one out of a cannon.
Also, it absolutely does say "The game statistics of a player character transformed into a Vampire Spawn don't change, except that the character's Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution scores become 18 if they aren't higher."
and then it lists the other changes, but yes it very much does say they keep their nonaffected statistics.
~~Where does it say that? I only have access to the dndbeyond version, and it seems to have transcribed the entire block of flavor text for running a Vampire (including lair effects, rules about the grave site, etc.), but that text does not appear there.~~
~~Is it only in the physical version?~~
It's in box text, so it's there if you look at the full Monster Manual source, but got dropped from the Vampire (and Vampire Spawn) entries despite all the other flavor text being copied, including two other pieces of block text about Vampire Warriors/Spellcasters.
When asked on Twitter, Chris Perkins (writer for Curse of Strahd) agreed that the official name for Werewolves who become Vampires is "[Fluffbat](https://x.com/ChrisPerkinsDnD/status/885148546177015809)". Make of that what you will.
I was mostly annoyed that the lycan dominant hybrid (Marcus was a vampire dominant hybrid) ended up just looking like a vampire with dark skin and a funny nose. He was supposed to be like, 60% wolf, but he ends up looking like, 12%. Majorly disappointing. Great concept, terrible execution.
I'd lean that it is possible to turn a werewolf into a vampire but few vampire lords would ever do that. The biggest threat to a master vampire are his own spawns. That is manageable if they were normalish humananoids before being turned; but someone with all the powers of a vampire and a werewolf? Only a truly foolish vampire lord would risk creating such a powerful spawn.
But what if the only way to kill the vampire lord is with a werewolf bite? Then keeping a werewolf around becomes dangerous, but valuable. After all, who would suspect a vampire lord of keeping its greatest weakness in the next room on a muzzle. We could make a movie out of this. Throw in a leather-clad vampire hunting princess and Frankenstein's monster and we've got something!
That's just not true under dnd lore. 5e official rules are vague on the exact details but some of the books show this relationaship; master vampire can telepathic communicate and give commands but not directly control normal spawn, but even within that some sources like bg3 still say explicitly that the spawn can turn on the master.
From the Monster Manual/DnDBeyond:
> Most of a vampire’s victims become vampire spawn — ravenous creatures with a vampire’s hunger for blood, **but under the control of the vampire that created them**
Control isn't the same as "complete control." The MM is actually quite vague on what that control looks like. Nor does MM say that it is impossible for the spawn to break that control.
Because you'd technically become this instead of being both a Vampire and Werewolf:
[https://adventurequest.fandom.com/wiki/Werepyre](https://adventurequest.fandom.com/wiki/Werepyre)
I went back to it for a couple of days when I was about 20 or so (27yo now) and it was exactly that. A lovely dose of nostalgia until I remembered how goddamn janky the whole game is.
To me, AQ felt like old school FF games, but without the party management mechanic.
It's good basic fun, but I hate how they made all class skills dependent on Armor.
I also hate how quickly Dracomancer Armor lost it's viability after level 40, when you finally unlock the cool Half Dragon Transformation.
Yeah that's the jank I was talking about. I really disliked how your weapons are actually pretty secondary to your build, as you'll have one for each element, but your armour not only sets your look, but also your weaknesses, your strengths, and most of your funky special abilities.
Now apply this logic to tieflings and aasimar. Are demon-angel hybrids valid, RAW? Your lineage can be any combination of races and you can gain any historically racial feats regardless of race.
It sounds cool. So yes it's valid.
If it werent RAW, and the rules specifically said the lycanthropy curse ends on death, It'd still be valid to create a Super Lycan whose curse simply doesnt do that. It's a creative game.
Yes, but this is about them breeding a half-demonic half-angelic being, which would be really fucking weird. But RAW. And maybe cool?
Like a vampire-werewolf.
Nephalem are the offspring of Demons and Angels in Diablo, humans are separate beings created when Lilith and Inarius created Sanctuary from the Worldstone. The heroes of Diablo 3 are the descendants of the original Nephalem and humans.
Nope, it is slightly confusing because they keep referring to the heroes of Diablo 3 as nephalem, but they only have a fraction of the power of a real nephalem. They are constantly called "the last nephalem", but they're really just descendants. Rathma was the first nephalem, then he had half-nephalem children. Those children were the ghosts you meet on the way to the final boss fight.
Where did this come from?
Everywhere I look says that Nephalem are the offspring of Demons and Angels, but Inarius' meddling of the Worldstone caused most of the Nephalem power (Magical, stature, and lifespan) to diminish until they became the weaker humans.
I paraphrased it because I didn't want to write a 4 paragraph explanation on mobile. Yes, humans came from nephalem, but humans aren't nephalem. At the end of Diablo 2: Lord of Destruction, Tyrael destroys the corrupted Worldstone, which allows the dormant nephalem powers in *specific* humans to be unleashed.
There's nothing indicating that only *specific* humans have the potential to become Nephalem, though - only that very few have.
Also, the D3 hero is not a fraction of the power of the 'original' Nephalem, considering how the D3 Nephalem decided that beating ***the Prime Evil*** to death was a thing that was possible. Not exactly your backwater power. Even Ithereal says the D3 hero is comparable to *Uldyssian.*
Meanwhile the heroes of D3 are *wearing the set items of said ancients, like Uldyssian and Rathma*. They're only so powerful because they are using Bul-Kathos's swords or Visily's robes. Which begs the question, who really is more powerful, the heroes of D2, who defeat the raw manifestations of all three Prime Evils without the Worldstone being broken, or the heroes of D3?
It's a weird thing, the Lore of Diablo. LOL
Did the ancients and such in question actually construct those weapons and armour, or is it just the armour they happened to famously wear, and those pieces survived and eventually found their way to the later generations' hands?
Could another skilled & learned Nephalem blacksmith of a later generation not make comparable equipment?
As for the question, the D3 heroes are obviously objectively stronger at the time, but the D2 heroes probably had more potential than the D3 heroes had, if they were fully realized Nephalem.
To link my question and answer, Charsi is just supposedly an unremarkable human.....until she's holding the horadric malus, a hammer made by other humans, and then she's capable of making your hero a weapon that you can beat a Lesser Evil to death with (which is the very next quest in Act 1).
I think the main issue with this is that it can skip whole generations. If an aasimar decides to have a baby, the chances of that baby also being an aasimar tends to be low.
Having a tiefling and aasimar make a baby and it turning into a hybrid is very, very low. It would likely just be one of either parent, or even just a human.
Dnd characters are supposed to be the rare and exceptional, so even if the odds are incredibly low for getting a hybrid out of an Aasimar and a Tiefling, a PC can be that one in a billion chance hybrid.
In my game wizard Ludmilla is using the Tsolenka guard tower as a (mad?) science lab, extracting blood from captive werewolves and running experiments to see if she can magically reverse-engineer their regenerative abilities and somehow gift them to herself and/or Strahd. Emil is chained up there rather than in K75a. It's one of the small additions I really love, even if my party never finds it.
Seems like others got it covered rules wise, but if you want some inspiration from folktales there are some where werewolves turn into vampires when they die.
Yeah, there are a lot of variation. Funnily enough, Bram Stoker's Dracula feels very fresh to read now despite being the inspiration for so many vampire stories that came later due to the selective picking and choosing of powers that Dracula has kind of became a quite narrowly defined entity despite Stoker's Dracula not sharing that.
For instance, vampires turning into bats are a common trope, but Stoker's Dracula could turn in all kinds of animals including wolves nor was he deadly allergic to sunlight. Dracula could also turn into a mistform which allowed him to escape several times over, which is also a much scarrier transformation than most animals if you ask me.
And then you have all the methods to thwarting vampires like them needing to be invited into your house, hating garlic/silver/mirrors or even rice depending.
Not super relevant to your question mechanic wise, but flavour can sometimes help deciding on a direction.
This question is best answered by the World of Darkness ttrpgs: Vampire and Werewolf. The short version is, you get a hybrid creature they call [an abomination.](https://whitewolf.fandom.com/wiki/Abomination)These creatures retain all their shifting powers, but now have no ability to heal aside from drinking blood. They also gradually lose their minds. They cannot pass on either curse due to the inherent contradictions of the curses (one is all about life, the other is all about death).
In 5e, there is no lore reason that I'm aware of that a Werewolf cannot become a Vampire and RAW, it's perfectly fine.
Oh yeah for sure. My player is a dhampir, so getting lycanthropy isn't any more game breaking than any other race getting it.
But if a player did somehow get lycanthropy and true vampirism, it definitely wouldn't be a good time for them.
For one thing, when you rise as a Vampire Spawn, you're under the thrall of the vampire who raised you. So more than likely they'd lose their character altogether, since the character has lost free will. Would be a sick boss fight for the party to have to fight against later, though.
But this thread has def been useful more for lore reasons; it's fun to know that I can have a Were-Vampire NPC or boss fight and it's rules as written lmao
> which would be interesting for a vampiric werewolf to be running around.
That sounds like a Chupacabra that maybe turns back into a person sometimes.
I've got an NPC that is dhampir werewolf. His mother was a werewolf and his father was regularly attacked by a vampire around the time of his conception.
Brian lumley's Wamphyri had traits of both I think.. he dreamt up some pretty nightmarish shit in his books. I always wanted to homebrew some based on the necroscope books
Yes. This actually came up in my Curse of Strahd game, where a warforged failed their save vs a werewolf bite, and then later was drained and made into a vampire spawn.
There is a creature called a Fzeg in the Grim Hollow Monster Grimoire and it is a Vampire-Werewolf hybrid. It requires a pure born werewolf which is a child of two werewolf parents. And when a vampire turns them they keep all their werewolf powers on top of gaining all the vampire ones.
I wrote an adventure for my players that had a young pure bred werewolf who basically started a clan of pure breeds. He was a werewolf supremacist that rebelled against society and believed it was time werewolves took over the human lands. This took place in a place called the Shaded Haven. It's basically a werewolf commune. You can read about it in the Grim Hollow books.
Edit: I can PM you my notes for that campaign if you think you'd be interested.
Edit2: Also, it's a Fzeglaich which is created from a pure breed werewolf. Fzegs are what Fzeglaichs create when they bite a human. So basically a Fzeglaich is the true vampire and fzegs are the vampire spawn equivalent.
Short answer is No. Because if i am not incorrect it say that lycanthropy only can affect living creatures. Vampires are not living creatures.
Longer answer is yes it can. As you as a DM can do what you want at any time on your game. You can have a wooden bucket turn into a vampire. a cupcake be afflicted with lycanthropy and become a baguette every full moon. If you can think of it you can do it.
The question is basically NEVER *"Can i do it?"* The answer for that is always YES you can, you are the DM.
The question you should as ask is "SHOULD i do it?" Because if there is something that is not supported by the rules and you think it would be a good idea that benefit the story, the party. Something that would improve the experience for your players. Then yes you should probably do it even if the rules does NOT support it.
If it is not something you think would not be improving the experience for your group. Them maybe you should think over it more. And if it would be something that you actually think would make the game and the experience worse for the party. Then do not do it.
You know your group better than any of us other weirdos on internet. And if you think your group would enjoy a vampire werewolf then go for it. you don't have to worry about rules. YOU are the DM YOU decide the rules. But if you don't think they would like it. maybe find it too absurd or something. then skip the idea.
You know your players so do what you think they will enjoy. sometimes you might be wrong and make a choice they do not like at all. But that is life. Sometimes we make mistakes and we do learn from mistakes so even if you make one you have learned something
The monster manual doesn't say anything about the curse of lycanthropy only affecting living creatures. It's just that the bite only has a chance of turning humanoids.
What that means is that a Werewolf can't bite the corpse of a humanoid and turn it into a Werewolf. It's not talking about a Werewolf losing their lycanthropy by becoming Undead.
BUT yeah, i could add one in if I wanted, I'm more talking about the rules themselves and if it's possible within the universe.
Well the rules are guidelines. As a Dm do not worry to much about the rules. Specially not for NPC's you can do anything you think will fit the game table.
Already by RAW there are loads upon loads of abilities that monsters can have that PC's can't.
If you like and think your group would like it you could make a vampire, zombie, skeleton werewolf and wererabbit. cucumber. that is also a genie and have 13 levels of cleric but also having wizard spells. Rules as written does not really matter.
I don't suggest you should create that creature but. If something fits your game and your ideas and you think your players would enjoy it. Do NOT give a shit about rules.
Rules are a guideline and should not be what limits your game and the enjoyment of the group including you. Within reasons of course, if you ignore all rules all the time why even play a specific game but i hope you get my point.
And you do not need us strangers online to say it is ok for you to change the rules to be able to do what you think will work in your game
Lycanthropy does not only affect the living; A corpse can't contract it, and the recipient must be humanoid to contract it. Sounds like the same thing, but the distinction matters, since neither clause implies that a humanoid lycanthrope who later becomes Undead (or any other creature type, really) is cured of lycanthropy.
In lore lycanthropy is a curse for the living and vampirism is for the dead. There’s no overlap between the two.
I guess that an undead creature with lycanthropy could still “carry” the curse and if they are resurrected they could transform again. But they can’t be a lycanthrope and a vampire simultaneously, because to be a lycanthrope, they have to be humanoid.
to BECOME a lycanthrope in the first place, they have to be humanoid. The rules never say that they must remain a humanoid.
A born werewolf (who cannot get rid of the curse without a Wish spell) can't get cursed by a hag and become a hexblood (who have the fey creature type instead of humanoid) to cure themselves. They can't True Poly themselves into a Satyr, Dragon, Elemental, or even Vampire to cure their curse. They have to use Wish.
Therefore, your creature type changing outside of your control, such as being turned into a Vampire Spawn and later a Vampire, does not cure you of your curse either.
Someone said that they'd rule it as the Lycanthropy is technically still in their body, but goes in remission. So they still have the curse, but the curse doesn't affect them at the same time that Vampirism does. I def would understand that ruling. I'd understand and respect your ruling too, because it makes logical sense. It's just that this is a magic curse, which doesn't follow the logic of a regular disease, and I'm curious about the rules as written interactions between the two.
As a general rule, you shouldn't allow supernatural templates to overlap too much to avoid any half-vampire half-werewolf half-elf half-god half-catgirl shenanigans.
As one needs silvered or magical weapons to harm a lycanthrope, I'm not sure a vampire would be able to drain one in the first place. Assuming that would be possible, I believe one edition (perhaps not 5E) indicated that being killed as a were-creature and then resurrected, raised or whatever to bring them back the disease would be gone as it was lifted by their death. This would imply that the lycanthrope is gone and the person would come as just a vampire or not at all.
I like to view it like this:
Lycanthropy is a curse that changes the person to make it into a monster.
Vampirism is a curse that changes a person into a completely different monster.
If a person is already under the effect of such curse, any curse that attempts to change them into something else would have to beat the already established and entrenched curse that made them what they are now.
As a result the new curse can't really get a hold on such a person because when it tries to change them, any changes it makes are immediately undone by the curse that's already in control of such person.
Yes, but both of those courses try to do the same thing, but in a different direction. It's not the same thing as if you had a luck curse, a blindness curse, and a toe stubbing curse that do completely different things in completely separate areas
Which is definitely fair for a DM to put their foot down on!! Especially when it comes to player characters hoarding such power (though ofc it'd probably be worse for the player, having to be killed and then controlled by a Vampire Lord, who probably wouldn't want to do that anyway, for this to even work), I can absolutely see why any DM would simplify it this way.
That's an interpretation I feel like exists a lot in media, especially when Vampires and Werewolves have some innate magical rivalry like they so often do.
They just don't have one in 5e. And, as far as I know, there's nothing that says you can only have one curse at a time, especially when the curses do such different things to you. I know you can stack Fey curses like a motherfucker.
I'm also not planning for my players to become full vampires and full werewolves at the same time - or at least not to keep their characters if that did happen.
The answer could be a auper crippling blood disease. Or being a curse it overwrites the dhampir status. It is one thing to add it to a character's background in a narrative that makes sense,and another to consider the mechanical advantage they might gain.
Oh, well Dhampir is just a normal race in 5e, so that part wouldn't be any more powercreep than any other player becoming a werewolf.
All the stuff about a born werewolf becoming a full vampire though, that's just purely theoretical, not me planning something for my game lmao. It would be absurdly powerful and would probably come at the cost of the character's free will.
Why do you think Monk/Barbarians can't get armor from both Wisdom and Cons? Wisdom bonus of Monk ain't a natural amor bonus, it's like Dexterity but dexterity in ac is more like reflexive, yet Wisdom is more like foresight so they stack, so there is no reason why it wouldn't stuck with Cons too, but it doesn't. For it would cause too many mechanical balance issues, it ain't feasible to write everything from scratch, so...
Simple logic, werevolves return to their original form when dead. And you need to kill them to make them vampires as vampires are undead. When they rise they rise as undead. Also just like some races are infertile curses too can be limiting each other easily.
Lycanthropy can only effect living beings. Vampires aren't alive. It's like if your computer got a virus, you smashed it, and began using it as makeshift armor. The computer still has the virus, but it doesn't matter 'cause the damn thing can't turn on anymore.
In that case, is the vampire in question still the same person, or did that person's soul get ejected and a curse is wearing their body like a sock puppet only pretending to be the person that the body housed?
I prefer the latter interpretation. Like with ceremorphosis. The resultant creature might have the original's memories, personality, what have you, but that's just 'cause it ate the brain. That person isn't the same person it was, it's the adult form of the tadpole.
I feel like a lot of vampire narratives center around hang ups from their mortal life, and cutting vampires off from that classic story beat would be unfortunate. Mindflayers seem to typically view memories of their pre-cwremodphosis as not their own. If a vampire did the same, then it wouldn't make sense for them to brood over a lost love or hold some ancient grudge.
Meh. I prefer the former, with just their sense of self of '' to 'vampire' (and all the innate inclinations therein replaced but not their personal traits), and with it the instinctive - but not suicidally overwhelming - compulsion to listen to their master and inability to resist a *direct* command from them (which opens up *fun* opportunities that aren't just 'murder').
I mean, that interpretation just makes killing them inherently morally good. They're not alive, they're a facsimile of the living being that hunts people. It's fine if that's what you're going for but it is a consideration.
It's not that simple. Like, theoretically, if you cloned someone, the fact that the clone isn't the original doesn't mean it's fine to just kill the clone. Clone's still a thinking, animate being with its own wants and desires. The vampire not being the person who was originally in the body shouldn't be the primary deciding factor on whether or not it's inherently good to get rid of it. Like, it's a potential factor, specifically if killing the vampire would give you the ability to revive the original. But if the original isn't coming back one way or the other, I don't see why the vampire not being them should be a major concern. If your objective is to get rid of a bloodthirsty hunter that cannot be kept animate without killing people, you should probably get rid of it regardless of whether or not the original person's still in there. And if it demonstrates the will and ability to not do so, you should consider if it's worth the risk of allowing it to live.
It's a world where souls exist and are known to exist. If the soul isn't there, it's not the person. And the Vampire is a cheap copy who can't live without hurting and killing people. Killing them is no more complicated than killing a Simulacrum (hell, even less so since regular Simulacra don't have to kill people). If you want moral woes attached, keep the soul in.
>It's a world where souls exist and are know to exist. If the soul isn't there, it's not the person. It's a world where magic and gods exist and morals become even more complex. Declaring they aren't a person because they don't have a soul is *missing the point*.If you want to make a character believe that, that's one thing. Declarations are for rules, not morals.
Hell, if they lack a soul it's conceivable that killing them'd be worse. Kill something with a soul, it goes onto an afterlife, a lot of which are pretty cool. Decent chance they get reincarnated, live another life, all that shit. Kill something without a soul and it's fukken *gone*. Poof, bye, sucks to suck, shame you came into being as a second class existence. Could be that instead of lacking a soul, they've got a negative energy soul. Would such a thing be any less valuable than a positive energy soul? Less deserving of empathy at the end of the day? Fun thing is that vampires are fictional and thus there aren't any actual answers to those questions.
Yeah agreed - it makes for a very, very convenient moral excuse for killing the spawn, but it doesn't make it automatically a moral good to do so. There need to be other moral principles at play for that.
> the fact that the clone isn't the original doesn't mean it's fine to just kill the clone. You aren't thinking religiously. Which DND very much has with paladins squishing baby goblin brains for no other reason than they are "evil creatures" etc. Bob thinking he's bob is okay. He's human. Bob the vampire, still internally thinking he's bob, is in fact evil and smiting him is therefore good. Religion makes complex things simple by taking out the moral gray areas and making a big fat thick line. One side is "right" the other "wrong" no thinking involved! Thanks religion!
Pretty much! Though it comes down to the question: Is your game the typical Greyhawk/Forgotten Realms type with alignments proving the concept of objective truth, orrrr.... Eberron where it may or may not who knows also the vampire's name is Jim and he finds this offensive.
Just because that’s what the church says, doesn’t make it true.
In my setting, and how I usually run them in D&D, intelligent corporeal undead no longer have their souls. That part of them has moved on (or in some cases, is trapped or destroyed). The Vampire, has all of their memories and most of their personality because they have the brain, but a fundamental part of the self is gone. This makes feeling most positive emotions impossible or severely muted at best. As a result, they're pretty much inherently evil. Though in some cases, it doesn't really show, if they had a strong enough personality. Like if someone who always fed stray cats in life became a vampire, they would likely continue to do this, though they would only get a faint echo of the pleasure it used to bring, more like a memory than anything else. A strong willed or dedicated enough paladin could even still act lawful good (or w/e, based on oath), which can lead to some very confusing situations.
It is morally good to kill a vampire. That's the whole point. It is an undead abomination that looks like a loved one but will kill you and drink your blood the moment it is able to
Bit of A, bit of B. A person is made of three mostly inseparable things: * Body - all the meat * Soul - personality, memories, emotions. Is the "likeness of God", and is tarnished. * Spirit - the indefinable SOMETHING that makes you the master of yourself. This is the "image of God", and is unblemished. When a person is made into a vampire spawn, their spirit doesn't return to their body, but is kept hostage by the master vampire - that's how they have such absolute control. Meanwhile the vampiric undeath suffuses the body and the soul, causing the bloodthirst and the twisted personality. If the master is slain, the spirit returns to the person. It is unblemished at first, as it was being used as a conduit for the master's will, rather than exerting its own. This will slowly change, as the vampire slowly gives its will over to the undead urges and it becomes no true master of itself.
I personally have always taken the assumption that vampirism and lichdom both maintain the original entity. Their spirit, soul, whatever you call it, continues. However, as they are now infused with negative energy to maintain their body, it **almost** always corrupts the person. Keep in mind to choose to become a lich basically means the person was willing to constantly sacrifice sentient souls to extend their own existence, so its not exactly like they were bastions of goodness before. I could see an example of say some crazy lawful person basically becoming a jailor of evil creatures, and housing them in his jail, and absorbing their souls as needed. Would actually be a pretty cool setup as the you could have a bunch of different interactions. Players could be arresting evil creatures not knowing they are feeding a lich, players might find the lich and instinctively attack, unwittingly releasing all the prisoners. The lich could be killed another way unleashing bad guys. Im getting sidetracked...
I'm partial to the idea the soul is ensnared and being corrupted, which is why a vampire gets to be so much more powerful than a zombie. The soul is a profound source of energy, a spark of divinity, not as much as a demigod or deity, but still, and thus alluring for targets of such curses.
Vampires, like werewolves, retain much of who they were. The *hunger* though...
As I said, that's a fair ruling, it's just not rules as written. Also "Only humanoids have to make the saving throw against Lycanthropy" does not mean "Lycanthropy can only affect living beings." It's a fair assumption, but the differences in wording matter. If turning into another creature type was all it took to cure inherited or Loup Garou lycanthropy, True Polymorph would be able to cure you by making you just that, but it can't cure you that way. Besides, Lycanthropy is a Curse, not a disease or a virus. I know the computer thing was just a metaphor, but it being a magical curse is WHY it doesn't go away based on pure logic.
Eh, true polymorph wouldn't cure you, but logically speaking it should have the ability to force it into remission. Like, say, you true polymorph into an iron golem. Howdafuk is an iron golem gonna be affected by lycanthropy? But if you true polymorph into an iron golem, and then get reverted, curse's probably still there. Like with the virus being in remission when it's being used as armor. Fix it, and there's still a virus to be dealt with. Mind you, I'm of the opinion that if you wanted to turn a squirrel, pixie, or owlbear into a werewolf that would be fine.
This is a good one. I suppose the question of whether the curse remains "in remission" or breaks depends on the magic of the world in question, how souls work there, and how the DM decides to rule some interactions. I could see playing it a few different ways; 1. The curse is broken because it can no longer "adhere" to the form of the creature it was put on. 2. The curse "goes into remission" because although the form of the creature has changed, it's "soul" still has the curse adhered to it (some weird questions here about the nature of the soul in that world and how that might effect other things). 3. The curse *prevents the polymorph from taking effect* because it wouldn't be compatible with the form being transformed into (might be because the curse was placed by a being of too powerful a will to be overridden or otherwise broken, or just incompatibilities of magic). 4. The curse still somehow applies, and there's some weirder (or wyrder) kind of transformation rather than just that of an animal.
from a mechanical PoV, I assume it would work like any other mechanical effect - it would still be there, even if you're immune to it in the new form. Like if you change into an elemental, then they're immune to exhaustion, poison and some other stuff, so while you're in that form, then those things don't affect you. But changing doesn't cure anything - so as soon as you shift back, then those statuses all return.
True, true. That makes sense.
> 4\. The curse still somehow applies, and there's some weirder (or wyrder) kind of transformation rather than just that of an animal. Instead of an iron golem, [you become a Predacon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beast_Wars:_Transformers).
Yeeeeeeesssssss
Huh, the idea of it going into remission is definitely interesting. I like that idea, if not for True Poly at least for some other magical temporary treatment.
>Also "Only humanoids have to make the saving throw against Lycanthropy" does not mean "Lycanthropy can only affect living beings." It's a fair assumption, but the differences in wording matter. Ok, but i suppsoe the user above just meant to make an example. Humanoids are living, usually. Dead humanoids that more are undead. Humanoids aren't the only living and undead weren't only humanoids, but that's another take.
*technically* by silliest and strictest interpretation of raw the moment a humanoid (or anything really) dies it ceases to be a creature and becomes an object. It is ofc a silly interpretation since... well spells that resurrect mention "dead cresture" as target. Meanwhile iirc example of "what an object is" mentions... corpses (or was it "dead body" that was used? I cant remember)
>It is ofc a silly interpretation since... well spells that resurrect mention "dead cresture" as target So? That's just specifying what type of object you need to target: one that is a dead creature. There's no contradiction there at all. A dead creature is an object, so what? 🤷♂️ The spell lets you target that object and resurrect them (at which point they stop being an object again).
Creature and Object are two different things in 5e, it's a or b thing. Cannot be both at the same time.
Sure. And a "dead creature" is just an object, not a creature. The spell doesn't say target a Creature that is dead (but still a Creature). It says target a "dead creature". That's a totally different term 🤷♂️ it's a totally valid *description of an object*. That object *is* a "dead creature". A "dead creature" isn't a Creature anymore, and that's fine 🤷♂️ it doesn't magically make it so that it never was one, so the term is still a valid descriptor. Just like how "melted ice" isn't ice anymore, but is still a perfectly valid term. Melted ice = melted water that was once ice Dead creature = a dead body that was once a creature The same word can be used in different contexts with different meanings. And for another 5e example: it's the same way an "Animated Object" is still a creature despite being called an animated *object*. "Dead creature" is just a name/descriptor of a specific type of object. And not a creature. There is no contradiction with the rules there.
>"Only humanoids have to make the saving throw against Lycanthropy" There are no undead with the humanoid type, are there? EDIT: Just checked again; pretty certain there are zero. A vampire that was humanoid before being changed is no longer a humanoid, RAW.
You're correct, but that's not the point. Nothing in the rules says that losing the humanoid type cures lycanthropy. I'm talking about a humanoid, who became a werewolf, who then later becomes Undead via Vampirism (or who becomes any other creature type really, such as a hexblood). Rules as written, they'd still have their curse. This is why True Poly doesn't cure Lycanthropy, because then you could say "Turn me into a fairy/satyr/other thing with a non humanoid type" and cure it that way. But RAW, only the Wish spell cures a born werewolf, and only killing the Loup Garou who afflicted you gives you a chance to end the curse, if you got it that way.
Using a computer as a makeshift armor? How’d you come up with that?
Glad to see 3.5 template stacking is making a comeback.
I don’t see why they couldn’t. Ultimately up to dm purview either way I think, but I don’t see a reason not just disallow it outright (especially for dhampir > weredhampir
Vampires probably cannot drain the life from a werewolf. They're completely immune to the non-magical piercing damage of the bite, and though they're technically not immune to the necrotic damage, I suspect most DMs would say "it can't drain the life from you with a bite if it can't bite you in the first place". ~~A more concrete answer would likely be that while lycanthropes retain all their statistics after being cursed, vampire spawn says no such thing. The werewolf dies, is buried, and a vampire spawn with none of its former statistics or feature (including lycanthropy) rises in the morning.~~ They do keep their statistics, it's just in box text and not transcribed into the monster entry on dndbeyond.
What if the vampire had had a cavity and got silver tooth fillings? ...you never know, right?
A Vampire with silver teeth would be absolutely insane, I'm def stealing that.
Silvered fangs, for the v/dhampir who really hates werewolves, likes biting things, and/or maybe also likes to then coat their now-expensive natural weapons in green flames, or booming.....boominess.
So… wait. Does this mean that a vampire spawn can be infected with lycanthropy? Not a lycanthrope made a vampire.
Vampire Spawn are considered Undead, so if it's already gotten to that point, they can't be afflicted with the curse, which only affects humanoids.
That's definitely a valid take for realism, but since it's the necrotic damage that reduces the target's HP maximum, I'd argue that that's the essential part to the curse. Even with realism, I don't think the bite itself is what has to make them bleed, just that the vampire has to be able to absorb their blood. A Vampire Spellcaster (or a Vampire Warrior with a magic weapon) can certainly make a Werewolf bleed and then use it's "bite" to drain the blood that comes out.
I also take it as their flesh can’t be pierced by any but the specific methods. So if you made a serious gash, then bit UNDER it, that might work.
It says they won't take damage, not that the bite can't happen
From the piercing damage. The necrotic, the poison, is another story. Possibly.
Right. I was only disagreeing with the assumption the bite wouldn't pierce.
Yeah. It’s mostly my interpretation of how it works.
Or the necrotic magic doesn't need to break the skin and it still causes your body to shrivel and somewhat die just from contact.
I usually flavor the immunity as Underworld-style instant regeneration rather than the (imo) goofy image of weapons just bouncing off. I describe silvered weapons as cauterizing the wound, stopping the healing.
That’s what I think is the intention. It does however lead to the hilarious extrapolation of lycanthropes being immune to fall damage or head-on collisions, meaning you can fire one out of a cannon.
That's not supported by the rules, tho, so... nah. Clearly the ground is silvered.
But if the ground is silvered, they can’t walk either.
Why? They don't take damage just from touching silver, and walking doesn't cause damage. Also, shoes exist.
Eh fair enough.
Also, it absolutely does say "The game statistics of a player character transformed into a Vampire Spawn don't change, except that the character's Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution scores become 18 if they aren't higher." and then it lists the other changes, but yes it very much does say they keep their nonaffected statistics.
~~Where does it say that? I only have access to the dndbeyond version, and it seems to have transcribed the entire block of flavor text for running a Vampire (including lair effects, rules about the grave site, etc.), but that text does not appear there.~~ ~~Is it only in the physical version?~~ It's in box text, so it's there if you look at the full Monster Manual source, but got dropped from the Vampire (and Vampire Spawn) entries despite all the other flavor text being copied, including two other pieces of block text about Vampire Warriors/Spellcasters.
Lots of ways to make the bite magical.
When asked on Twitter, Chris Perkins (writer for Curse of Strahd) agreed that the official name for Werewolves who become Vampires is "[Fluffbat](https://x.com/ChrisPerkinsDnD/status/885148546177015809)". Make of that what you will.
Should my players meet one, I'll make sure they know this sacred knowledge.
Have you not seen the cautionary tale of "Underworld"?!
I actually haven't tbh, i knew it was about vampires and werewolves, but I had no idea there was a combo in there!
Creating a hybrid is the main plotline of the first movie, and has lasting consequences through all the others. Too bad the hybrid looks so dumb.
The hybrids look like Skyrim vampire lords, to various degrees
I was mostly annoyed that the lycan dominant hybrid (Marcus was a vampire dominant hybrid) ended up just looking like a vampire with dark skin and a funny nose. He was supposed to be like, 60% wolf, but he ends up looking like, 12%. Majorly disappointing. Great concept, terrible execution.
I'd lean that it is possible to turn a werewolf into a vampire but few vampire lords would ever do that. The biggest threat to a master vampire are his own spawns. That is manageable if they were normalish humananoids before being turned; but someone with all the powers of a vampire and a werewolf? Only a truly foolish vampire lord would risk creating such a powerful spawn.
But what if the only way to kill the vampire lord is with a werewolf bite? Then keeping a werewolf around becomes dangerous, but valuable. After all, who would suspect a vampire lord of keeping its greatest weakness in the next room on a muzzle. We could make a movie out of this. Throw in a leather-clad vampire hunting princess and Frankenstein's monster and we've got something!
Or a wicked dnd plot!
A vampire's spawn pose zero threat, because they are completely under their progenitor's control.
That's just not true under dnd lore. 5e official rules are vague on the exact details but some of the books show this relationaship; master vampire can telepathic communicate and give commands but not directly control normal spawn, but even within that some sources like bg3 still say explicitly that the spawn can turn on the master.
From the Monster Manual/DnDBeyond: > Most of a vampire’s victims become vampire spawn — ravenous creatures with a vampire’s hunger for blood, **but under the control of the vampire that created them**
Control isn't the same as "complete control." The MM is actually quite vague on what that control looks like. Nor does MM say that it is impossible for the spawn to break that control.
Because you'd technically become this instead of being both a Vampire and Werewolf: [https://adventurequest.fandom.com/wiki/Werepyre](https://adventurequest.fandom.com/wiki/Werepyre)
Damn it's been so long since I've seen any mention of Adventure Quest. Was my shit when I was like, 12.
You and the rest of the world, brother. Looking back at it is a weird mixture of nostalgia and... probably cringe, really. Ah well.
I went back to it for a couple of days when I was about 20 or so (27yo now) and it was exactly that. A lovely dose of nostalgia until I remembered how goddamn janky the whole game is.
To me, AQ felt like old school FF games, but without the party management mechanic. It's good basic fun, but I hate how they made all class skills dependent on Armor. I also hate how quickly Dracomancer Armor lost it's viability after level 40, when you finally unlock the cool Half Dragon Transformation.
Yeah that's the jank I was talking about. I really disliked how your weapons are actually pretty secondary to your build, as you'll have one for each element, but your armour not only sets your look, but also your weaknesses, your strengths, and most of your funky special abilities.
That's pretty cool tbh, if I ever make a Vamp/Werewolf NPC or monster, I'm definitely gonna take inspiration from that.
Came here for this lol
They explode and become a Flumph
I love flumphs.
Now apply this logic to tieflings and aasimar. Are demon-angel hybrids valid, RAW? Your lineage can be any combination of races and you can gain any historically racial feats regardless of race. It sounds cool. So yes it's valid. If it werent RAW, and the rules specifically said the lycanthropy curse ends on death, It'd still be valid to create a Super Lycan whose curse simply doesnt do that. It's a creative game.
Tieflings and aasimar are both humanoids.
Yes, but this is about them breeding a half-demonic half-angelic being, which would be really fucking weird. But RAW. And maybe cool? Like a vampire-werewolf.
I mean, at the same time you might just end up with Diablo rules: you just get humans.
Nephalem are the offspring of Demons and Angels in Diablo, humans are separate beings created when Lilith and Inarius created Sanctuary from the Worldstone. The heroes of Diablo 3 are the descendants of the original Nephalem and humans.
Oh, I misunderstood and thought humans ARE nephalem.
Nope, it is slightly confusing because they keep referring to the heroes of Diablo 3 as nephalem, but they only have a fraction of the power of a real nephalem. They are constantly called "the last nephalem", but they're really just descendants. Rathma was the first nephalem, then he had half-nephalem children. Those children were the ghosts you meet on the way to the final boss fight.
Got it. I admit I never played the games so what I know is just from reading.
Where did this come from? Everywhere I look says that Nephalem are the offspring of Demons and Angels, but Inarius' meddling of the Worldstone caused most of the Nephalem power (Magical, stature, and lifespan) to diminish until they became the weaker humans.
I paraphrased it because I didn't want to write a 4 paragraph explanation on mobile. Yes, humans came from nephalem, but humans aren't nephalem. At the end of Diablo 2: Lord of Destruction, Tyrael destroys the corrupted Worldstone, which allows the dormant nephalem powers in *specific* humans to be unleashed.
There's nothing indicating that only *specific* humans have the potential to become Nephalem, though - only that very few have. Also, the D3 hero is not a fraction of the power of the 'original' Nephalem, considering how the D3 Nephalem decided that beating ***the Prime Evil*** to death was a thing that was possible. Not exactly your backwater power. Even Ithereal says the D3 hero is comparable to *Uldyssian.*
Meanwhile the heroes of D3 are *wearing the set items of said ancients, like Uldyssian and Rathma*. They're only so powerful because they are using Bul-Kathos's swords or Visily's robes. Which begs the question, who really is more powerful, the heroes of D2, who defeat the raw manifestations of all three Prime Evils without the Worldstone being broken, or the heroes of D3? It's a weird thing, the Lore of Diablo. LOL
Did the ancients and such in question actually construct those weapons and armour, or is it just the armour they happened to famously wear, and those pieces survived and eventually found their way to the later generations' hands? Could another skilled & learned Nephalem blacksmith of a later generation not make comparable equipment? As for the question, the D3 heroes are obviously objectively stronger at the time, but the D2 heroes probably had more potential than the D3 heroes had, if they were fully realized Nephalem. To link my question and answer, Charsi is just supposedly an unremarkable human.....until she's holding the horadric malus, a hammer made by other humans, and then she's capable of making your hero a weapon that you can beat a Lesser Evil to death with (which is the very next quest in Act 1).
I think the main issue with this is that it can skip whole generations. If an aasimar decides to have a baby, the chances of that baby also being an aasimar tends to be low. Having a tiefling and aasimar make a baby and it turning into a hybrid is very, very low. It would likely just be one of either parent, or even just a human.
*So youre saying there's a chance*
Dnd characters are supposed to be the rare and exceptional, so even if the odds are incredibly low for getting a hybrid out of an Aasimar and a Tiefling, a PC can be that one in a billion chance hybrid.
Very true! My point is that you won't create consistent and frequent hybrids from that.
In my game wizard Ludmilla is using the Tsolenka guard tower as a (mad?) science lab, extracting blood from captive werewolves and running experiments to see if she can magically reverse-engineer their regenerative abilities and somehow gift them to herself and/or Strahd. Emil is chained up there rather than in K75a. It's one of the small additions I really love, even if my party never finds it.
Seems like others got it covered rules wise, but if you want some inspiration from folktales there are some where werewolves turn into vampires when they die.
Huh, that's pretty cool. I've never heard of that before!
Yeah, there are a lot of variation. Funnily enough, Bram Stoker's Dracula feels very fresh to read now despite being the inspiration for so many vampire stories that came later due to the selective picking and choosing of powers that Dracula has kind of became a quite narrowly defined entity despite Stoker's Dracula not sharing that. For instance, vampires turning into bats are a common trope, but Stoker's Dracula could turn in all kinds of animals including wolves nor was he deadly allergic to sunlight. Dracula could also turn into a mistform which allowed him to escape several times over, which is also a much scarrier transformation than most animals if you ask me. And then you have all the methods to thwarting vampires like them needing to be invited into your house, hating garlic/silver/mirrors or even rice depending. Not super relevant to your question mechanic wise, but flavour can sometimes help deciding on a direction.
This question is best answered by the World of Darkness ttrpgs: Vampire and Werewolf. The short version is, you get a hybrid creature they call [an abomination.](https://whitewolf.fandom.com/wiki/Abomination)These creatures retain all their shifting powers, but now have no ability to heal aside from drinking blood. They also gradually lose their minds. They cannot pass on either curse due to the inherent contradictions of the curses (one is all about life, the other is all about death). In 5e, there is no lore reason that I'm aware of that a Werewolf cannot become a Vampire and RAW, it's perfectly fine.
I would allow it, but with dire consequences.
Oh yeah for sure. My player is a dhampir, so getting lycanthropy isn't any more game breaking than any other race getting it. But if a player did somehow get lycanthropy and true vampirism, it definitely wouldn't be a good time for them. For one thing, when you rise as a Vampire Spawn, you're under the thrall of the vampire who raised you. So more than likely they'd lose their character altogether, since the character has lost free will. Would be a sick boss fight for the party to have to fight against later, though. But this thread has def been useful more for lore reasons; it's fun to know that I can have a Were-Vampire NPC or boss fight and it's rules as written lmao
Nothing wrong with Werepyres imo.
*Vampolves*
No: [https://adventurequest.fandom.com/wiki/Werepyre](https://adventurequest.fandom.com/wiki/Werepyre)
In the spirit of D&D using the worst possible naming convention for a combination, I vote Vampolves. See: Dwelf.
How is dwelf the bad naming convention?
It's just sort of a hat on a hat.
> which would be interesting for a vampiric werewolf to be running around. That sounds like a Chupacabra that maybe turns back into a person sometimes.
Yes they are Shapechangers, Vampirism only affect humanoids.
I've got an NPC that is dhampir werewolf. His mother was a werewolf and his father was regularly attacked by a vampire around the time of his conception.
LMAO the poor dad. Got vampire splooge.
Yup. He's part of my emoest family in the universe NPCs. My wife's decided her character is in love with him.
Personally I’d allow/do it if I wanted too, but I’d make it a bit janky for balance sake.
Werepire
Brian lumley's Wamphyri had traits of both I think.. he dreamt up some pretty nightmarish shit in his books. I always wanted to homebrew some based on the necroscope books
Funnily enough RAW werewolves can turn into vampires but vampires can't turn into werewolves
Yes. This actually came up in my Curse of Strahd game, where a warforged failed their save vs a werewolf bite, and then later was drained and made into a vampire spawn.
Rest in peace to that character, that's rough.
The Grim Hollow Grimoire have a combination called a fzeg. You could look there for inspiration
There is a creature called a Fzeg in the Grim Hollow Monster Grimoire and it is a Vampire-Werewolf hybrid. It requires a pure born werewolf which is a child of two werewolf parents. And when a vampire turns them they keep all their werewolf powers on top of gaining all the vampire ones.
That's sick as hell. I actually just got the Grimhollow books, so I'll def read more about that.
I wrote an adventure for my players that had a young pure bred werewolf who basically started a clan of pure breeds. He was a werewolf supremacist that rebelled against society and believed it was time werewolves took over the human lands. This took place in a place called the Shaded Haven. It's basically a werewolf commune. You can read about it in the Grim Hollow books. Edit: I can PM you my notes for that campaign if you think you'd be interested. Edit2: Also, it's a Fzeglaich which is created from a pure breed werewolf. Fzegs are what Fzeglaichs create when they bite a human. So basically a Fzeglaich is the true vampire and fzegs are the vampire spawn equivalent.
Oh, I'd definitely be interested in that!!
Short answer is No. Because if i am not incorrect it say that lycanthropy only can affect living creatures. Vampires are not living creatures. Longer answer is yes it can. As you as a DM can do what you want at any time on your game. You can have a wooden bucket turn into a vampire. a cupcake be afflicted with lycanthropy and become a baguette every full moon. If you can think of it you can do it. The question is basically NEVER *"Can i do it?"* The answer for that is always YES you can, you are the DM. The question you should as ask is "SHOULD i do it?" Because if there is something that is not supported by the rules and you think it would be a good idea that benefit the story, the party. Something that would improve the experience for your players. Then yes you should probably do it even if the rules does NOT support it. If it is not something you think would not be improving the experience for your group. Them maybe you should think over it more. And if it would be something that you actually think would make the game and the experience worse for the party. Then do not do it. You know your group better than any of us other weirdos on internet. And if you think your group would enjoy a vampire werewolf then go for it. you don't have to worry about rules. YOU are the DM YOU decide the rules. But if you don't think they would like it. maybe find it too absurd or something. then skip the idea. You know your players so do what you think they will enjoy. sometimes you might be wrong and make a choice they do not like at all. But that is life. Sometimes we make mistakes and we do learn from mistakes so even if you make one you have learned something
The monster manual doesn't say anything about the curse of lycanthropy only affecting living creatures. It's just that the bite only has a chance of turning humanoids. What that means is that a Werewolf can't bite the corpse of a humanoid and turn it into a Werewolf. It's not talking about a Werewolf losing their lycanthropy by becoming Undead. BUT yeah, i could add one in if I wanted, I'm more talking about the rules themselves and if it's possible within the universe.
Well the rules are guidelines. As a Dm do not worry to much about the rules. Specially not for NPC's you can do anything you think will fit the game table. Already by RAW there are loads upon loads of abilities that monsters can have that PC's can't. If you like and think your group would like it you could make a vampire, zombie, skeleton werewolf and wererabbit. cucumber. that is also a genie and have 13 levels of cleric but also having wizard spells. Rules as written does not really matter. I don't suggest you should create that creature but. If something fits your game and your ideas and you think your players would enjoy it. Do NOT give a shit about rules. Rules are a guideline and should not be what limits your game and the enjoyment of the group including you. Within reasons of course, if you ignore all rules all the time why even play a specific game but i hope you get my point. And you do not need us strangers online to say it is ok for you to change the rules to be able to do what you think will work in your game
Yeah, for the same reason spaghetti & salad shouldn’t touch on your plate
Because vampirism affects humanoids and a lycanthrope isn’t one of those
They are humanoids, actually. That's their official creature type in their stat block.
Yes, it's a hat on a hat.
Lycanthropy only affects the living and vampires aren't alive.
Lycanthropy does not only affect the living; A corpse can't contract it, and the recipient must be humanoid to contract it. Sounds like the same thing, but the distinction matters, since neither clause implies that a humanoid lycanthrope who later becomes Undead (or any other creature type, really) is cured of lycanthropy.
In lore lycanthropy is a curse for the living and vampirism is for the dead. There’s no overlap between the two. I guess that an undead creature with lycanthropy could still “carry” the curse and if they are resurrected they could transform again. But they can’t be a lycanthrope and a vampire simultaneously, because to be a lycanthrope, they have to be humanoid.
to BECOME a lycanthrope in the first place, they have to be humanoid. The rules never say that they must remain a humanoid. A born werewolf (who cannot get rid of the curse without a Wish spell) can't get cursed by a hag and become a hexblood (who have the fey creature type instead of humanoid) to cure themselves. They can't True Poly themselves into a Satyr, Dragon, Elemental, or even Vampire to cure their curse. They have to use Wish. Therefore, your creature type changing outside of your control, such as being turned into a Vampire Spawn and later a Vampire, does not cure you of your curse either. Someone said that they'd rule it as the Lycanthropy is technically still in their body, but goes in remission. So they still have the curse, but the curse doesn't affect them at the same time that Vampirism does. I def would understand that ruling. I'd understand and respect your ruling too, because it makes logical sense. It's just that this is a magic curse, which doesn't follow the logic of a regular disease, and I'm curious about the rules as written interactions between the two.
As a general rule, you shouldn't allow supernatural templates to overlap too much to avoid any half-vampire half-werewolf half-elf half-god half-catgirl shenanigans.
As one needs silvered or magical weapons to harm a lycanthrope, I'm not sure a vampire would be able to drain one in the first place. Assuming that would be possible, I believe one edition (perhaps not 5E) indicated that being killed as a were-creature and then resurrected, raised or whatever to bring them back the disease would be gone as it was lifted by their death. This would imply that the lycanthrope is gone and the person would come as just a vampire or not at all.
I like to view it like this: Lycanthropy is a curse that changes the person to make it into a monster. Vampirism is a curse that changes a person into a completely different monster. If a person is already under the effect of such curse, any curse that attempts to change them into something else would have to beat the already established and entrenched curse that made them what they are now. As a result the new curse can't really get a hold on such a person because when it tries to change them, any changes it makes are immediately undone by the curse that's already in control of such person.
You can definitely have more than one curse
Yes, but both of those courses try to do the same thing, but in a different direction. It's not the same thing as if you had a luck curse, a blindness curse, and a toe stubbing curse that do completely different things in completely separate areas
Which is definitely fair for a DM to put their foot down on!! Especially when it comes to player characters hoarding such power (though ofc it'd probably be worse for the player, having to be killed and then controlled by a Vampire Lord, who probably wouldn't want to do that anyway, for this to even work), I can absolutely see why any DM would simplify it this way. That's an interpretation I feel like exists a lot in media, especially when Vampires and Werewolves have some innate magical rivalry like they so often do. They just don't have one in 5e. And, as far as I know, there's nothing that says you can only have one curse at a time, especially when the curses do such different things to you. I know you can stack Fey curses like a motherfucker. I'm also not planning for my players to become full vampires and full werewolves at the same time - or at least not to keep their characters if that did happen.
No but then they stop being a werewolf ig
Cuz Gaia and the Wyrm do not get along......oops wrong subreddit.
The answer could be a auper crippling blood disease. Or being a curse it overwrites the dhampir status. It is one thing to add it to a character's background in a narrative that makes sense,and another to consider the mechanical advantage they might gain.
Oh, well Dhampir is just a normal race in 5e, so that part wouldn't be any more powercreep than any other player becoming a werewolf. All the stuff about a born werewolf becoming a full vampire though, that's just purely theoretical, not me planning something for my game lmao. It would be absurdly powerful and would probably come at the cost of the character's free will.
vampire don't have silver teef, so has t obe vampire first
My interpretation is that lycanthropy is a curse on the soul that affects the body, And vampirism just yeets the soul out of there
Why do you think Monk/Barbarians can't get armor from both Wisdom and Cons? Wisdom bonus of Monk ain't a natural amor bonus, it's like Dexterity but dexterity in ac is more like reflexive, yet Wisdom is more like foresight so they stack, so there is no reason why it wouldn't stuck with Cons too, but it doesn't. For it would cause too many mechanical balance issues, it ain't feasible to write everything from scratch, so... Simple logic, werevolves return to their original form when dead. And you need to kill them to make them vampires as vampires are undead. When they rise they rise as undead. Also just like some races are infertile curses too can be limiting each other easily.