Are Blood Hunters.. unpopular?

[Forechosen]

Hey everyone,

So, I'm not sure about this - but I browse D&D forums regularly and I try and keep up with the news - and (I think) I've noticed that Blood Hunters just don't seem to appear half as often as other classes.

People just don't seem to 'chat' about them in the same way that they do other classes, they don't seem to have as many optimisation guides, or people questioning their mechanics or complaining about balance - they just don't seem to be mentioned as much at all.

Perhaps this is just me being silly, but that's why I'm asking here, are they unpopular?

If so, why? Surely it's not just because they're not in the Player's Handbook? They're on D&DBeyond after all, which is a colossal resource. Is it because they're not ''official''? Do any DM's here have problems with players playing a Blood Hunter?

From what I understand, it's not a balance issue, as after last years update on the class, it's become as balanced as the rest of them?

As I said at the start, this might all be baloney and everybody plays one, it just doesn't seem that way. So it'd be great to hear you opinions!

Thanks for reading!

[OvisCaedo]

What's a Blood Hunter?

Generally speaking, yes, being unofficial homebrew leads to a class being much less known and less discussed than an official product, even if it's well made homebrew.

[Waazraath]

Hey everyone,

So, I'm not sure about this - but I browse D&D forums regularly and I try and keep up with the news - and (I think) I've noticed that Blood Hunters just don't seem to appear half as often as other classes.

People just don't seem to 'chat' about them in the same way that they do other classes, they don't seem to have as many optimisation guides, or people questioning their mechanics or complaining about balance - they just don't seem to be mentioned as much at all.

Perhaps this is just me being silly, but that's why I'm asking here, are they unpopular?

If so, why? Surely it's not just because they're not in the Player's Handbook? They're on D&DBeyond after all, which is a colossal resource. Is it because they're not ''official''? Do any DM's here have problems with players playing a Blood Hunter?

From what I understand, it's not a balance issue, as after last years update on the class, it's become as balanced as the rest of them?

As I said at the start, this might all be baloney and everybody plays one, it just doesn't seem that way. So it'd be great to hear you opinions!

Thanks for reading!

Speaking for myself, I get my information from official (old fashioned, paper, printed) books. So everything that is not in there: meh. I don't have it in sight, nor any opinions on it.

[Forechosen]

What's a Blood Hunter?

Generally speaking, yes, being unofficial homebrew leads to a class being much less known and less discussed than an official product, even if it's well made homebrew.

See, I sort of get that - but I was under the impression that Blood Hunters were a bit of a grey area.

I know, absolutely, that they're not completely official. But then, they are 'considered' (rightly or wrongly) more 'official' than every other homebrew I've ever seen. I mean, I've got friends who have just started playing D&D, who have no idea what homebrew even means, asking about the Blood Hunter when they ask about the classes in general. They do appear in class lists online, where no other homebrew class/subclass does.

[stoutstien]

They are in a strange place of official third party so they aren't considered when talking about core and are often overlooked when you talk about homebrewing. This obviously would effect how popular they are and the number of tables that would even consider them.

[Warder]

It's 100% because they're homebrew. In my experience, they're pretty popular where they're allowed, but since it's homebrew the chances of them being allowed are drastically lower, thus less discussion about them.

[Zhorn]

Considering they are a third party creation, I'd argue they'd be considered incredibly popular.
Sure they don't get used/referenced as much as the official classes, but you mention them in any 5e group and there's a good chance someone will know what you're referring to thanks to Critical Role's popularity, even outside of the Critter community.

Mention a pugilist, illrigger, or channeler on the other hand and people are less likely to know what they are by comparison.

[Unoriginal]

Hey everyone,

So, I'm not sure about this - but I browse D&D forums regularly and I try and keep up with the news - and (I think) I've noticed that Blood Hunters just don't seem to appear half as often as other classes.

People just don't seem to 'chat' about them in the same way that they do other classes, they don't seem to have as many optimisation guides, or people questioning their mechanics or complaining about balance - they just don't seem to be mentioned as much at all.

Perhaps this is just me being silly, but that's why I'm asking here, are they unpopular?

If so, why? Surely it's not just because they're not in the Player's Handbook? They're on D&DBeyond after all, which is a colossal resource. Is it because they're not ''official''? Do any DM's here have problems with players playing a Blood Hunter?

From what I understand, it's not a balance issue, as after last years update on the class, it's become as balanced as the rest of them?

As I said at the start, this might all be baloney and everybody plays one, it just doesn't seem that way. So it'd be great to hear you opinions!

Thanks for reading!

The only official Blood Hunter is a NPC statblock from the Wildemount campaign book. The PC class version isn't official, it's homebrew from a big name.

My personal opinion is that I've little interest in the class, especially when Mollymauk from Critical Role ended up knocking himself to 0 HPs in front of the boss using his class features. Maybe it's unfair and they fixed those problems, but it's not enough to make me interested in checking.

[Forechosen]

The only official Blood Hunter is a NPC statblock from the Wildemount campaign book. The PC class version isn't official, it's homebrew from a big name.

My personal opinion is that I've little interest in the class, especially when Mollymauk from Critical Role ended up knocking himself to 0 HPs in front of the boss using his class features. Maybe it's unfair and they fixed those problems, but it's not enough to make me interested in checking.

Honestly, I myself don't follow Critical Role, I just love the thematic of the class.

I believe they did fix those issues somewhat in last year's revision. I'm curious as to why you're so disinterested?

Because at the end of the day, it's homebrew?

I don't know, it just seems strange to me that when a homebrew starts appearing in class lists online, and everybody (even new players) know about it, it still retains its 'hombrew stigma'.

[Unoriginal]

Honestly, I myself don't follow Critical Role, I just love the thematic of the class.

I believe they did fix those issues somewhat in last year's revision. I'm curious as to why you're so disinterested?

Because my tastes. I simply don't like the concept enough to read more about it. If someone asked "do you know any 5e class from any source that let you use your blood to power yourself, because I like the idea", I would suggest Blood Hunter, but it isn't for me.



I don't know, it just seems strange to me that when a homebrew starts appearing in class lists online, and everybody (even new players) know about it, it still retains its 'hombrew stigma'.

What "homebrew stigma"? Homebrew is homebrew, it can be good, or bad, or anything in between, the point is that no matter how popular or well-known an homebrew is it is not official content, and such aren't relevant in a discussion about official content.

Same way that there can be fanfics straight up better than the work they're based on, but even the best fanfic is not relevant in a discussion about the actual content of the work.

Maybe a discussion about the impact of the work, sure, but not about what's in the work (unless if you go "X author interpreted Y part that way, even if it's not canon").

[Xervous]

Honestly, I myself don't follow Critical Role, I just love the thematic of the class.

I believe they did fix those issues somewhat in last year's revision. I'm curious as to why you're so disinterested?

Because at the end of the day, it's homebrew?

I don't know, it just seems strange to me that when a homebrew starts appearing in class lists online, and everybody (even new players) know about it, it still retains its 'hombrew stigma'.

Homebrew being a subset of “content I don’t have readily accessible or aren’t considering” in so many cases.

GM hasn’t read the fighter handbook? You can’t use any of the kits out of there. GM hasn’t set the campaign in Eberron? You can’t take dragonmark feats. GM doesn’t have the errata for 4e rogue? Yeah sneak attack is once per round rather than turn. That’s before you get to questions like “does this fit the theme of the setting” or “does it appear balanced to me?”

[MaxWilson]

Hey everyone,

So, I'm not sure about this - but I browse D&D forums regularly and I try and keep up with the news - and (I think) I've noticed that Blood Hunters just don't seem to appear half as often as other classes.

People just don't seem to 'chat' about them in the same way that they do other classes, they don't seem to have as many optimisation guides, or people questioning their mechanics or complaining about balance - they just don't seem to be mentioned as much at all.

Perhaps this is just me being silly, but that's why I'm asking here, are they unpopular?

If so, why? Surely it's not just because they're not in the Player's Handbook? They're on D&DBeyond after all, which is a colossal resource. Is it because they're not ''official''? Do any DM's here have problems with players playing a Blood Hunter?

From what I understand, it's not a balance issue, as after last years update on the class, it's become as balanced as the rest of them?

As I said at the start, this might all be baloney and everybody plays one, it just doesn't seem that way. So it'd be great to hear you opinions!

Thanks for reading!

Why I've never bothered to check out Bloodhunters:

(1) 5E is already bloated with classes, and I don't see what archetypal need the Blood Hunter is meant to fill. What's the problem they're trying to solve?

(2) I don't own any books that have the Blood Hunter in them, so unlike e.g. the Tasha's subclasses or the chronomancer I've had no need to read them just for completeness' sake.

(3) From forum discussions, they have a reputation as a poorly-designed class.

(4) D&D Beyond is not in any way official or owned by WotC, they're just another VTT company that happens to be have a license to put "D&D" in its name. (Although WotC's reputation has suffered in the wake of the Tasha's debacle anyway.)

If you want to persuade people to be excited about the Blood Hunter, here's your chance. RE #1, what's the problem it's trying to solve? Why should I care enough to even read about the Blood Hunter, let alone add it to my game as a character class option?

[jaappleton]

I like the BH conceptually.

And as far as Homebrew.... Yes, it’s homebrew. However, I put it a cut above standard homebrew. It’s been playtested by thousands and Mercer’s gotten feedback over the years and tweaked it accordingly. (I still don’t personally agree with changing it from WIS to INT, though.)

I also just don’t think it’s incredibly unique. I love the concept but I stare at it and think, “Why be this over a Paladin, Fighter, Monk, Ranger or Rogue?”

And I can’t come up with an answer.

I hate the Lycan, it’s a selfish play style IMO. You can kill an ally with that thing.

Profane Soul is an alternative to EK, so that’s a decent pick, I’ll give it that.

The Ghost Slayer IMO is the best but also doesn’t excite me to play. I’d love it in Ravenloft, but...

Mutant is likely overall the best, IMO, but is very much a double edged sword.

[nickl_2000]

Blood Hunters are insanely popular for what they are.... Homebrew.

How many other Homebrew classes or subclasses do you see discussed at all outside of the homebrew forums? How many homebrew classes/subclasses have guides written for them?

[Unoriginal]

However, I put it a cut above standard homebrew. It’s been playtested by thousands and Mercer’s gotten feedback over the years and tweaked it accordingly.

Mercer is skilled in many areas, but he's not a good class/subclass designer by any stretch.

How he handled tweaking the Cobalt Soul Monk alone show that. Though the latest version is... decent from a mechanical standpoint (but doesn't have much to do with the initial concept). The Chronurgist Wizard is an even more evident example.

[MoiMagnus]

If so, why? Surely it's not just because they're not in the Player's Handbook? They're on D&DBeyond after all, which is a colossal resource. Is it because they're not ''official''? Do any DM's here have problems with players playing a Blood Hunter?


First time I ever heard about this class. So I'd say that them not being in any printed official book is a significant factor.

[jaappleton]

Mercer is skilled in many areas, but he's not a good class/subclass designer by any stretch.

How he handled tweaking the Cobalt Soul Monk alone show that. Though the latest version is... decent from a mechanical standpoint (but doesn't have much to do with the initial concept). The Chronurgist Wizard is an even more evident example.

He didnt design the Chronurgist. From my understanding, it was either freelancer James Introcaso or James Haeck, I often confuse the two. But one of them was brought on to help with the heavy lifting, as it were. Crawford signed off on the final versions of everything in the book, but it was designed conceptually by Mercer and the freelancer crossed the Ts and dotted the Is.

The newest Cobalt Soul is far improved over its original, just as the BH is far improved from the original. That’s the advantage Mercer has; his fan base can playtest and provide feedback. It’s far easier for him to get large samples of feedback than any other home brewer, and that’s why I put it a cut above. Average home brewer probably gets maybe, at most, a few dozen people to playtest. He gets thousands.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

If you want to persuade people to be excited about the Blood Hunter, here's your chance. RE #1, what's the problem it's trying to solve? Why should I care enough to even read about the Blood Hunter, let alone add it to my game as a character class option?
My understanding is the problem BH is trying to solve is "There's no easy way in 5e to play a Witcher specifically without doing a lot of fancy and inefficient multiclassing." It's a way for players who wanna be Geralt of Rivia in D&D to do so right out of the gate, rather than waiting until 6th or 7th level for their concept to come "online."

[Anonymouswizard]

It's homebrew, and it's good homebrew. Not my favourite, and not something I'd ask the GM to play, but good and solid. But it's a relatively narrow concept even compared to the homebrew I'm interested in (Middle Finger of Vecna's Witch class for instance).

That's not too say official cleared don't suggest from the same issue (hello druid), but it's not an overly flexible class. It feels like it almosymt has too much flavour baked into it, conceptually it feels somewhat like a 3.X Prestige class.

Maybe revisions have diversified it, I'm not sure. But to me that's a standing issue with the class and a contributor to why it didn't get brought up as much as the Fighter out Artificer.

[Chaos Jackal]

It's a homebrew class. Just because it got a special showcase in D&DBeyond doesn't make it any less homebrew or put it in some sort of unique grey area, although there has been confusion about it over the years.

And being homebrew, it suffers from the same things most homebrew does. It's less known and it's less expected to be accepted in a game even if known. The mere fact that it's sometimes mentioned in forums like this already puts it leagues ahead of most other homebrew stuff, which never get a mention, let alone the grey area perception. But guides and discussions dedicated to them? Those are meant for things expected to appear at a majority of tables, and the Blood Hunter is nowhere near that popular.

Also, it doesn't help that it was poorly designed and clunky to play (at least in its first iterations; I haven't looked at the class for nearly two years now, so I don't know whether its revisions changed it for the better). For a good part of the game (which also happened to coincide with some of the most played levels) Blood Hunters were either featureless or suicidal, and I'm only slightly exaggerating. Following up on this, they also didn't have any niche of any kind; anything they could do, others could do better, they didn't have the jack-of-all-trades capability that a class like the Artificer has for compensation of their not excelling easily and they were unable to properly focus on a playstyle.

And even flavor-wise, they only covered something very specific that, in a broader sense, could easily be replicated. It's not hard to make a monster hunter character in D&D, so unless you really, really wanted to be as close to a witcher or something as possible, you could pull it off with an EK, or a paladin, or a warlock, or even a ranger.

But for the most part, the reason for not seeing it discussed is indeed that it's a homebrew class.

[chainer1216]

My understanding is the problem BH is trying to solve is "There's no easy way in 5e to play a Witcher specifically without doing a lot of fancy and inefficient multiclassing." It's a way for players who wanna be Geralt of Rivia in D&D to do so right out of the gate, rather than waiting until 6th or 7th level for their concept to come "online."


Not just Witcher though, the class is meant to cover a whole swath of "dark fantasy" archetypes that've heretofore not been catered to in main DnD.

Would it be better to have those things covered as subclasses for the main classes? Definitely, but WotC hasnt been looking into that thematic area until very recently, and even then its to more mixed results than even the classic "Mercer jank".

[KorvinStarmast]

(1) 5E is already bloated with classes
(3) From forum discussions, they have a reputation as a poorly-designed class.
(4) D&D Beyond is not in any way official or owned by WotC, they're just another VTT company that happens to be have a license to put "D&D" in its name. (Although WotC's reputation has suffered in the wake of the Tasha's debacle anyway.)
Amen to all that. The Bloodhunter NPC I have used as a DM to track down the party (with his henchmen) and try to get an artifact out of their possession. (They don't know it's an artifact, it doesn't unlock powers until the PC is a higher level ... ) As an SOB NPC, the Bloodhunter is pretty good.

[Corsair14]

They are a homebrew that doesn't necessarily fit into a DM's world. Not everyone is on DnD Beyond. I have no clue what a blood hunter is(aside from being a homebrew class) but since its not in the PHB I have no need to even look. I am probably not alone in this.

[Willie the Duck]

Considering they are a third party creation, I'd argue they'd be considered incredibly popular.
Sure they don't get used/referenced as much as the official classes, but you mention them in any 5e group and there's a good chance someone will know what you're referring to thanks to Critical Role's popularity, even outside of the Critter community.

Here's the thing with Critical Role -- It'd be hard to pretend it isn't a huge thing, has brought a huge number of people into D&D 5e, and is well-known. However, it isn't universal and ubiquitous (certainly not if the threshold is 'really know what it's about,' rather than 'have heard of it'). In some groups of gamers, everyone partakes and they may even set their game in the same setting. In others, they all know of it, some of the group are into it, and they aren't playing in the setting. And in some other groups maybe one or two are fans and most of the others don't really know about it (or it's 'that D&D-adjacent thing Bob is into. It's like a podcast or something.'). It's in that weird quasi-big status where it is leaps and bounds ahead of your, my, or the guy over there's favorite other D&D-related fanworks, but it's still something someone can not really know well/not want to deal with in their game.

[Unoriginal]

The Bloodhunter NPC I have used as a DM to track down the party (with his henchmen) and try to get an artifact out of their possession. (They don't know it's an artifact, it doesn't unlock powers until the PC is a higher level ... ) As an SOB NPC, the Bloodhunter is pretty good.

I agree, the NPC version is fun.

[Grod_The_Giant]

They are in a strange place of official third party
This. They're more legit than anything in my Guide to Greatness, because Matt Mercer is an "affiliated DM" and I'm just some schmuck on the internet, but they're not first party. They're not quite "real," and so they get less attention.

[Sception]

I quite like the current version of the Blood Hunter, it definitely strikes those Bloodborne chords with me, and I'd love to play one in dark victorian fantasy gothic type game some day. That said, I like some of the more official alternative dark magical sword wielder options - particularly the Hexblade Warlock and Conquest Paladin - even more, and so have played those instead in recent campaigns I've taken part in.

When I'm running a game, I always make a special note of allowing the Blood Hunter, but so far no player has taken me up on that. I have alterned some npcs in the Ravenloft game I'm currently running to be Blood Hunters, reworking their statlines to fit. Particularly Van Richten, who I'm basing much more on Bloodborne's Gehrman than Dracula's Van Helsing.

[Composer99]

Quite the contrary, I would say. If anything, Blood Hunters have a far bigger profile than any other third-party content I can think of for 5e. I think you have to look to Pathfinder to find more popular third-party D&D content for any edition of the game.

The point being, third-party content just hardly ever rates much mention compared to official stuff. By that standard, Blood Hunter does very well for itself.

[Contrast]

What "homebrew stigma"? Homebrew is homebrew, it can be good, or bad, or anything in between, the point is that no matter how popular or well-known an homebrew is it is not official content, and such aren't relevant in a discussion about official content.

Same way that there can be fanfics straight up better than the work they're based on, but even the best fanfic is not relevant in a discussion about the actual content of the work.

I think the issue is that for many DMs who don't want to spend time/trust themselves to pick up issues vetting homebrew, just saying 'no homebrew' is a pretty easy line to draw. Saying 'no bad homebrew' is a lot hard/more time intensive to manage. Many people ban homebrew not because its always bad but because it avoids getting into arguments about what is and isn't bad.


I think the main issues are the semi-official status reduces its prominence in online discussions and there not being an official book with it printed in means many casual people don't think of it when choosing classes (it being on D&D Beyond is enough that many people will assume its official content in fairness) but another is the design space for characters is already kinda covered by other classes somewhat. You can generally speaking fulfil the archetype the Blood Hunter fills by playing a ranger or fighter so there isn't perhaps a pressing need for people to seek it out.

[Aett_Thorn]

I've always viewed them as a bit underpowered and complicated, even when I have thought about making one. Just never seems like the right fit, though there are some good concepts that could make for fun characters, for sure. There are just usually other ways to make that same character already, especially with some of the newer releases.

[J-H]

I've tried looking through it a couple of times, and bounce off of how many fiddly bits there are. It seems a lot more complicated than any of the official base+subclasses except artificer.

[Telwar]

Since it's effectively homebrew, a lot of folks are wary of anything homebrew/third-party, especially after the glut of terrible third-party stuff for 3e.

To be fair, it's not like first-party material is necessarily better-written and balanced. But between having to vet things and previous third-party history, I would probably be inclined to not bother with blood hunter.

[Dork_Forge]

Unpopular in general? No I don't think so, I think there's a pretty substantial amount of people that enjoy the concept, the mechanics and that they can play something Critical Role-ish. Annecdoatally our Bloodhunter videos are some of the most popular and sustainable videos we've done.

I think they're not as widely discussed on forums because they're not official content, which means you can't play one in AL and a lot of DMs will say no on principle.

Also annecdotally I have found the Gunslinger is more popular in my experience with players, but that could just be the alure of guns in D&D as an outlier.

[MaxWilson]

My understanding is the problem BH is trying to solve is "There's no easy way in 5e to play a Witcher specifically without doing a lot of fancy and inefficient multiclassing." It's a way for players who wanna be Geralt of Rivia in D&D to do so right out of the gate, rather than waiting until 6th or 7th level for their concept to come "online."

Oh. So maybe the answer for the OP is that Blood Hunter isn't more popular because Geralt and Witcher aren't sufficiently popular. I'm not even sure if Witcher is a video game or a TV series.


He didnt design the Chronurgist. From my understanding, it was either freelancer James Introcaso or James Haeck, I often confuse the two. But one of them was brought on to help with the heavy lifting, as it were. Crawford signed off on the final versions of everything in the book, but it was designed conceptually by Mercer and the freelancer crossed the Ts and dotted the Is.

It's because of stuff like this and Healing Spirit that I am always nonplussed when people denigrate Mike Mearls' skills at game balance by comparing him to Crawford. Maybe Mearls would be awful too, but anyone who signed off on both the Chronurgist and Healing Spirit v1 in an actual published product (not just deliberately-provocative UA) doesn't have a leg to stand on w/rt game balance credentials.

[jaappleton]

It's because of stuff like this and Healing Spirit that I am always nonplussed when people denigrate Mike Mearls' skills at game balance by comparing him to Crawford. Maybe Mearls would be awful too, but anyone who signed off on both the Chronurgist and Healing Spirit v1 in an actual published product (not just deliberately-provocative UA) doesn't have a leg to stand on w/rt game balance credentials.

This is fair.

[Dork_Forge]

Oh. So maybe the answer for the OP is that Blood Hunter isn't more popular because Geralt and Witcher aren't sufficiently popular. I'm not even sure if Witcher is a video game or a TV series.

I believe the order is series of novels by a Polish author > hit video game trilogy > a Netflix show(?)



It's because of stuff like this and Healing Spirit that I am always nonplussed when people denigrate Mike Mearls' skills at game balance by comparing him to Crawford. Maybe Mearls would be awful too, but anyone who signed off on both the Chronurgist and Healing Spirit v1 in an actual published product (not just deliberately-provocative UA) doesn't have a leg to stand on w/rt game balance credentials.


Gotta agree here, those were some... glaring errors in balancing.

[Luccan]

Pretty much everything I had to say has been said (it's not official, just made by a popular DM affiliated with WotC and given prominence on a website he has a personal and business relationship with). Personally, while I might allow one, I don't have much interest in playing one outside maybe a game set in the setting it's from. It also has a few setting implications dealing with blood magic and presents a dark fantasy tone by default thanta group might not be interested in. Also, decently designed or not, some people really hate Matt Mercer and Critical Role, so I'm sure some people would rather avoid the 1000th discussion about whether or not they're ruining the game when all you wanted to discuss was character building.

I also personally believe you can pull off something like The Witcher just fine without it. It has enough differences it's really not anymore accurate than an EK or Ranger would be.


I'm not even sure if Witcher is a video game or a TV series.

Yes. Also a book series on which the two are based and I'd say The Witcher 3 is actually pretty damn popular (and the Netflix series is getting another season, I believe).

[Man_Over_Game]

Not just Witcher though, the class is meant to cover a whole swath of "dark fantasy" archetypes that've heretofore not been catered to in main DnD.

Would it be better to have those things covered as subclasses for the main classes? Definitely, but WotC hasnt been looking into that thematic area until very recently, and even then its to more mixed results than even the classic "Mercer jank".

I've always wondered why they just don't work it as a Ranger subclass or something.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Oh. So maybe the answer for the OP is that Blood Hunter isn't more popular because Geralt and Witcher aren't sufficiently popular. I'm not even sure if Witcher is a video game or a TV series.

Well this is a surprise!
I would have happily taken a wagger, betting on you having read the books.

Dork Forge has the order listed correctly. My spouse played the video game, and it was fun to watch her play. It is a good game, (except for the controls).

My spouse read all of the books. I've read three of the Witcher Books myself.
I liked elements of the books, and will probably read more down the line, pretty good overall...though not without frustrating parts.

Andrej Sapkowski is the author's name.

The Warlock class, even a Paladin can easily handle representing a Witcher like character in D&D. I also fail to see the need for a separate class.

[Waterdeep Merch]

It's kind of a product of it's time, and a relic now. As I understand it, they were originally created for D&Diesel, meant for Vin Diesel to play. It was specifically based on Diesel's upcoming film, The Last Witch Hunter, though Mercer wasn't given any special insight into what the film was about and based the whole class on the trailer. Back when this happened, arcane gishing in D&D was a lot more difficult, and a common irritation for people that liked the concept. You could have a martial character with access to magic or a mage with decent martial talent, but the two concepts rarely married well at the time. Enter the Blood Hunter, which allowed you to do esoteric gish-y things as a deliberately martial character, and did both things at the same time. Then it has something of a unique (for D&D) flavor on top of it and there you go; the Blood Hunter.

But these days, gishing is fairly easy. First came SCAG, then the Hexblade, and now even things like the Battle Smith just allow you to be whatever kind of gish you were thinking. Even the proliferation of the Sorcadin and Pallock changed things. And most of them are pretty powerful, too. They've left the Blood Hunter in the dust in a lot of ways, which probably accounts for it's reduced popularity from the early days of 5e. Why play a weaker, fiddlier class when there are better ways to get what you want?

It's not all bad. I've offered Blood Hunters to my players since forever. I just can't imagine anyone playing one anymore. Time moved on.

[micahaphone]

I don't know if it's been revised since then but I've played at a few tables with them, around the first half of Critical Role campaign 2 so lots of people seeing it in use and being interested. Always seemed to be a bit disappointed or frustrating for the player, seems like it'd be really hard to balance.

[Amdy_vill]

blood hunter and gunslinger are the most well-known 3rd party content. I my experience they are more popular then some base classes. Of the 30 fighters that have been at my table only 2 were not gunslinger. And I have seen more blood hunters than ranger druid and monk

[stoutstien]

blood hunter and gunslinger are the most well-known 3rd party content. I my experience they are more popular then some base classes. Of the 30 fighters that have been at my table only 2 were not gunslinger. And I have seen more blood hunters than ranger druid and monk

Wow. That is a surprisingly high count for any single subclass especially a somewhat weaker one.

[Zhorn]

Wow. That is a surprisingly high count for any single subclass especially a somewhat weaker one.
I've found it drops considerably once people are shown that they can do the same concept of a Gunslinger using a Battle Master, maneuvers offer all the fun of trick shots without the jank of grit/wisdom/misfires, especially now there's the feat support via Gunner.

As was mentioned above by Waterdeep Merch, the same could be said of Blood Hunters. At the time it was debuted, the concept seemed more unique and ill performed by the other classes/subclasses, but as the game has expanded the subclass and spell list selections, the concept is pretty easily met using official content.

[Mercurias]

Blood Hunters are okay. They're versatile and fluffy, but perhaps a bit too broad in what they try to encompass. I appreciate the overall framework of the class, but in practice I would just as soon play a Cleric, Artificer, Paladin, Hexblade Warlock, Eldritch Knight, or some combination thereof.

Multiclassing Blood Hunters with Clerics or Druids, on the other hand, might be kinda cool.

[Dork_Forge]

Wow. That is a surprisingly high count for any single subclass especially a somewhat weaker one.


I've found it drops considerably once people are shown that they can do the same concept of a Gunslinger using a Battle Master, maneuvers offer all the fun of trick shots without the jank of grit/wisdom/misfires, especially now there's the feat support via Gunner.


I think it really depends on what stats/rules for firearms the table uses, a DM may still want to use the weapon section from the Gunslinger anyway.

The ral downside to the Gunslinger is that it doesn't add damage to the trickshots, otherwise it's pretty nice and you can get a lot of mileage out of the Grit recharge system. The Tier 2 ability of adding your entire prof to initiative on a Dex based character is insanely good.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

I've always wondered why they just don't work it as a Ranger subclass or something.

Sadly it would work for a Ranger but instead we've gotten subclasses elsewhere.

Oath of the Watchers screams Grey Warden to me (Dragon Age if you aren't familiar) though with planar beings instead of abominations.

Phantom Rogue kind of brings the theme as well. Not to mention the College of Spirits Bard.

[stoutstien]

I think it really depends on what stats/rules for firearms the table uses, a DM may still want to use the weapon section from the Gunslinger anyway.

The ral downside to the Gunslinger is that it doesn't add damage to the trickshots, otherwise it's pretty nice and you can get a lot of mileage out of the Grit recharge system. The Tier 2 ability of adding your entire prof to initiative on a Dex based character is insanely good.

Oh don't get me wrong, it's definitely fine but being MaD,RNG dependant, and hyper focused on a single weapon type just leaves it in the okay category for me.

[Anonymouswizard]

Honestly, the reason I'd never use the Gunslinger is because it feels like it's supposed to make guns special, and if I include guns in a D&D game I'd like them to be the primary ranged weapons in the world, if not the primary weapons full stop.

I have started writing a Victorian Technology plus Biological Magic fantasy setting, but I'm still unsure if it should be for D&D or another system. But it really does assume that guns are so prevalent that pretty much every Fighter will be focusing on them.

[Warder]

Honestly, the reason I'd never use the Gunslinger is because it feels like it's supposed to make guns special, and if I include guns in a D&D game I'd like them to be the primary ranged weapons in the world, if not the primary weapons full stop.

I have started writing a Victorian Technology plus Biological Magic fantasy setting, but I'm still unsure if it should be for D&D or another system. But it really does assume that guns are so prevalent that pretty much every Fighter will be focusing on them.

If I ever included firearms in a game of D&D it'd be because I was running Spelljammer, and in that case I wouldn't treat them as normal weapons, more like expensive magic items. You fire one shot at the start of combat for high damage, then switch to another weapon because of reload times. Gunslinger wouldn't fit that idea very well.

[Dr. Cliché]

For reference, I've played a Blood Hunter, I've used an NPC Blood Hunter (kind of), and I've DMed two different Blood Hunter.

In my view, the Blood Hunter is a shallow class masquerading as a deep one.

It has a load of abilities and mechanics that look complicated on the surface but in reality have very little depth. About 90% of the time you're just playing a more emo ranger, with no spells.

See, I like a lot of the ideas behind the Blood Hunter but IMO the actual mechanics leave quite a bit to be desired.

Crimson Rite means they can do decent damage... but it's also a pretty dull ability to build a class around. This isn't necessarily bad in isolation but, when we already have Fighters and Barbarians, I can't help but feel we don't need yet another class along these lines.

Blood Maledicts are a bit more interesting. The problem is that you don't know many, you don't get many uses, there aren't many to choose from, and many of them are pretty niche.

As an example, Blood Curse of the Muddled Mind can give a creature disadvantage on one/all concentration checks until the end of your next turn. That could be useful.. except that you only get to know a single Blood Curse from levels 1-5, and only 2 from levels 6-9. Do you really want to be stuck with a curse that might not even come up, and which might do nothing even if it does?

Brand of Castigation is fictionally fine but rather weird from a flavour perspective.

Also, the class just seems to fall off a cliff at later levels.

The subclasses are mostly fine (except that Bloodlust is quite possibly the stupidest ability ever written), but for the most part they don't really fix the issues I have with the class.

Tl;DR I think the main issue I have with it is that I don't feel the mechanics do justice to the theme. Outside of maybe one or two Blood Curses, it just feels like someone took a Ranger and gave all the abilities edgier names. It gives the impression of being more interesting to play than other martial classes, but most of the time you'll have the exact same routine as a fighter.

No idea if anyone else has had similar experiences but this is why I have no great interest in the class.



Honestly, the reason I'd never use the Gunslinger is because it feels like it's supposed to make guns special, and if I include guns in a D&D game I'd like them to be the primary ranged weapons in the world, if not the primary weapons full stop.

That's an interesting point.

At the very least, it's a bit weird if only gunslingers are using guns.

[Morty]

Honestly, the reason I'd never use the Gunslinger is because it feels like it's supposed to make guns special, and if I include guns in a D&D game I'd like them to be the primary ranged weapons in the world, if not the primary weapons full stop.

I have started writing a Victorian Technology plus Biological Magic fantasy setting, but I'm still unsure if it should be for D&D or another system. But it really does assume that guns are so prevalent that pretty much every Fighter will be focusing on them.

That's kind of been the thing with guns in D&D for as long as I remember. They're introduced as this special, rare thing used by special classes, which is just about the opposite of how guns work.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

That's kind of been the thing with guns in D&D for as long as I remember. They're introduced as this special, rare thing used by special classes, which is just about the opposite of how guns work.

In fairness, the Gunslinger was invented around the character that invented firearms in that setting. They won't stay special and the Gunslinger will move from "What Percy was because he invented and perfected these things." to "What people who take it very seriously become."

[Anonymouswizard]

In fairness, the Gunslinger was invented around the character that invented firearms in that setting. They won't stay special and the Gunslinger will move from "What Percy was because he invented and perfected these things." to "What people who take it very seriously become."

Although they're far, far more advanced than what I'd have expected for literally invented this generation. Proper grips, advanced firing mechanisms, multiple basrrels. I kinow it'ds fantasy, but it kind of breaks my suspension of disbelief. I'd have expected more matchlock muskets or wheellock pistols, if not the 'miniature cannons on a pole' that were the very early firearms.

Like, not my game, and I've only watched a few episodes of Critical Role so maybe there's a really good explanation in Episode 137 or whatever, but it still rubs me the wrong way. At least in Titansgrave there was an established schizotech arrangement that made the group having both an archer and gunslinger easier to accept.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Although they're far, far more advanced than what I'd have expected for literally invented this generation. Proper grips, advanced firing mechanisms, multiple basrrels. I kinow it'ds fantasy, but it kind of breaks my suspension of disbelief. I'd have expected more matchlock muskets or wheellock pistols, if not the 'miniature cannons on a pole' that were the very early firearms.

Like, not my game, and I've only watched a few episodes of Critical Role so maybe there's a really good explanation in Episode 137 or whatever, but it still rubs me the wrong way. At least in Titansgrave there was an established schizotech arrangement that made the group having both an archer and gunslinger easier to accept.

Have you played Deadlands? It's that honestly. Percy's "first" gun was a Magical six barrel pepperbox called the list that was provided via insight and assistance from a shadow Demon Percy didn't even fully realize he was forming a pact with. Said demon could easily have snagged the design from another world where Firearms are further along.

You give someone who has figured out firearms in general a pepperbox that is way ahead of its time, he's going to be able to reverse engineer it, which he did into his other firearms. Which also explains why ALL his multi barreled guns are essentially that design without any real deviation into other options.

The arrangement that let there be a gunslinger and an archer is as said, Percy made the first. One other character stole his design and made her own. They took out that person, Percy refused to ever make more after the campaign, so that hampered their existence, though they start showing up here and there in the Wildemount campaign, showing you can't put the genie back in the bottle.

[Anonymouswizard]

Have you played Deadlands? It's that honestly. Percy's "first" gun was a Magical six barrel pepperbox called the list that was provided via insight and assistance from a shadow Demon Percy didn't even fully realize he was forming a pact with. Said demon could easily have snagged the design from another world where Firearms are further along.

You give someone who has figured out firearms in general a pepperbox that is way ahead of its time, he's going to be able to reverse engineer it, which he did into his other firearms. Which also explains why ALL his multi barreled guns are essentially that design without any real deviation into other options.

The arrangement that let there be a gunslinger and an archer is as said, Percy made the first. One other character stole his design and made her own. They took out that person, Percy refused to ever make more after the campaign, so that hampered their existence, though they start showing up here and there in the Wildemount campaign, showing you can't put the genie back in the bottle.

That makes more sense, but it doesn't stop it from feeling weird pre-reveal. I might steal it as an explanation if a PC wants a more advanced firearm in a fantasy game, but I don't tend to run much pre-wheellock* these days so my baseline is different to many's. I also do understand that the first CR campaign is in a weird place due to it's pre-stream days having wandered through Psthfinder and 4e (can't remember which order) before 5e, so there's probably a bit of weirdness related to that as well.

* Or much D&D,I mostly play the system and run other things.

[elyktsorb]

I feel like homebrew isn't that popular from a regular player perspective. I usually only involve myself in games that don't do homebrew because I've had bad experiences with it.


So I don't even consider homebrew classes, regardless of how reputable they are.

Hell, I often have to convince dm's to let me use official stuff sometimes, I'm not going to bother with homebrew.

[Fable Wright]

At the tabletop, I've seen people ask to play them. This makes them popular for a homebrew.

People don't discuss them too much on the forums because there's nothing to say. Their mechanics are shallow, they're even more long rest dependent than the Paladin or Sorcerer, the mechanics of the class are actively trying to kill you, and you're basically designed to suck up healing from the Cleric instead of, say, letting them use their slots to be awesome. There are no new archetypes for them ever coming out, and there's basically no point to ever multiclassing them.

After so many years of it being out, what is there left to say?

[neonchameleon]

Why would they be popular? They're effectively homebrew even if they've been given a go over. They don't really need a class so much as to be a subclass (probably ranger, possibly also fighter and rogue) - the archetype isn't big enough. And finally they are fiddly and aren't that well balanced (Mercer has many skills as a DM but homebrew rules aren't one of them) even if they've been given a rewrite by better designers.

[TrueAlphaGamer]

For reference, I've played a Blood Hunter, I've used an NPC Blood Hunter (kind of), and I've DMed two different Blood Hunter.

In my view, the Blood Hunter is a shallow class masquerading as a deep one.

It has a load of abilities and mechanics that look complicated on the surface but in reality have very little depth. About 90% of the time you're just playing a more emo ranger, with no spells.

I agree. I think it steps on both the Ranger's and Fighter's toes, both conceptually and mechanically. Of course, that isn't a problem for me, since I don't care about them enough to ever play them, but it might rub some people the wrong way.


See, I like a lot of the ideas behind the Blood Hunter but IMO the actual mechanics leave quite a bit to be desired.

. . .

The subclasses are mostly fine (except that Bloodlust is quite possibly the stupidest ability ever written), but for the most part they don't really fix the issues I have with the class.

Tl;DR I think the main issue I have with it is that I don't feel the mechanics do justice to the theme. Outside of maybe one or two Blood Curses, it just feels like someone took a Ranger and gave all the abilities edgier names. It gives the impression of being more interesting to play than other martial classes, but most of the time you'll have the exact same routine as a fighter.

No idea if anyone else has had similar experiences but this is why I have no great interest in the class.

I would actually say that the balance behind the Blood Hunter is straight wonky. Lycan is by far the best of its subclasses, followed by Mutant, while the other two are just resident sleeper imo, but even then, there's just dead levels all around, in both the class and subclasses. The Int keying is basically non-existent, the blood curses are too niche, and by level 5 you've seen basically all the class has to offer.

On the topic of levels, I think it's a menace when it comes to multiclassing, simply because of the hemocraft die and the boosts/shenanigans that can come from the subclasses.


And to answer OP's question, I believe that one of the reasons you might not see it discussed on the forums is because, well, there likely isn't that much intersection between the people who post on D&D forums and the people who might be excited to play the Blood Hunter because they're Critical Role fans. It's just different demographics. That isn't to say there aren't CR fans around here or ENWorld or wherever else, but it's likely a smaller percentage of the forum-going population when compared to, say, the D&D fanbase on an app like TikTok, where it's much more likely that the average member of that particular D&D community is a fan of CR and was energized or encouraged to get into the game because of CR (and, thus, is much more cognizant to stuff Matt Mercer might have released).

[Anonymouswizard]

I think that we should also note that the CR group doesn't seem to overly care about balance, which might contribute to the extra wonky balance of the Blood Hunter. Mercer's homebrew seems to be designed to what flavour it needs for the game first, actual balance a very distant second.

Which isn't a major problem as long as it's understood. When I finally get around to playtesting my game hitting the right flavour/balance mix is going to be very hard. So if Mercer knows what works for his group that's fine, but it's something to take into consideration if porting any of his stuff to your game.

[Dork_Forge]

On the Blood Hunter design, I will say I think it's miles better after the last rework to make it Int based.

I'm not seeing how it's stepping on the Fighter or Ranger's toes though? Can anyone elaborate on that?

The Ranger is geared with a nature/exploration element the BH just entirely lacks and half caster casting which the BH also lacks, they seem pretty distinct to me *shrug*

[TrueAlphaGamer]

I'm not seeing how it's stepping on the Fighter or Ranger's toes though? Can anyone elaborate on that?

The Ranger is geared with a nature/exploration element the BH just entirely lacks and half caster casting which the BH also lacks, they seem pretty distinct to me *shrug*

It has a similar combat loop to the fighter, with what is essentially a higher damage output (until maybe Fighter gets another extra attack?). Like, if you look at the Lycan, you basically transform, activate hemocraft, and you "hit things but better", especially with the bonus action attack. The other class features don't really provide enough juice to break that up, like they might with a half-caster (who has more spell options), and there isn't much resource management involved (the transform lasts an hour) to make it all that tactical.

I also think it definitely has parallels with the ranger, as they share many of the same weapon/armor proficiencies, the same hit die, are both (ostensibly) reliant on DEX but also use a mental stat, and they both have their own kind of strong theme, except instead of tracking whatever, you just track certain monsters. Perhaps some of this is by nature of them being martial, but with 5e's relative stinginess with new classes, the similarities are definitely something one hones in on.

I mean, look at Hunter's Bane, Blood Hunter's level 1 ability:

"Beginning at 1st level, you have survived the Hunter’s Bane, a dangerous, long-guarded ritual that alters your life’s blood, forever binding you to the darkness and honing your senses against it. You have advantage on Wisdom (Survival) checks to track fey, fiends, or undead, as well as on Intelligence ability checks to recall information about them."

compared to Favoured Enemy, Ranger's level 1 ability:

Choose a type of favored enemy: aberrations, beasts, celestials, constructs, dragons, elementals, fey, fiends, giants, monstrosities, oozes, plants, or undead. Alternatively, you can select two races of humanoid (such as gnolls and orcs) as favored enemies.

You have advantage on Wisdom (Survival) checks to track your favored enemies, as well as on Intelligence checks to recall information about them.

Of course, they don't have many more consistent parallels like that in class features, but you gotta admit there's a similar feel right off the bat.

[Dr. Cliché]

On the Blood Hunter design, I will say I think it's miles better after the last rework to make it Int based.

I'm not seeing how it's stepping on the Fighter or Ranger's toes though? Can anyone elaborate on that?

The Ranger is geared with a nature/exploration element the BH just entirely lacks and half caster casting which the BH also lacks, they seem pretty distinct to me *shrug*

I think TrueAlphaGamer covered it pretty well.

One thing I'll add is that the Blood Hunter might not be a spellcasting class per se but it still has pseudo-spells in the form of Blood curses and such.

For example, Blood Curse of the Marked and Brand of Castigation both have elements strongly reminiscent of Hunter's Mark (probably the closest thing the Ranger has to a signature spell).

[Wizard_Lizard]

I mean I don't play it but that's just because I can't be bothered reading it lol.
Also because I have about a hundred pc ideas and blood hunter is pretty far down the priority list for what I want to play if I ever get to do that.

[Kane0]

Compared to officially released classes, especially the Artificer, i'd say it's less popular. It's just really hard to compete.

Compared to semi-official classes like the Mystic i'd say it's more popular. There's only a handful of potential items in this category and i'd say this is by far the most well known and most used. That said, Mystic is definite competition.

Compared to homebrew it's extremely popular. It's unlikely that homebrew is seen outside of its circle, the Blood Hunter is pretty well recognised.

Now speaking to its quality is a different matter. I've never been especially drawn to its flavor or mechanics but can respect that is scratches a certain itch for others and certainly isn't broken or bad, just questionable in a few areas. Overall it's fine.