I unfortunately ran face-first into one of the issues that burned me out on 3.X with Wrath of the Righteous and it quickly soured my enthusiasm for the game... I expect to go back to it and have fun, but was irritating to run into again.
Basically, Pathfinder 1e sits on this weird boundary between "let's create mechanics to allow for players being able to create a wide range of character concepts" and "let's make sure that when we build a character option that it is fun in practice and not just cool on paper."
In this case, the dhampir restriction of being harmed by healing magic. I understand the logic behind this, but it makes playing the concept a headache that just totally undermines option's existence. "You can have this option, but it's really a horrible trap."
3.0 and 3.5 had a lot of options like that, some of which I suspect were deliberately designed that way. Pathfinder feels like it did a valiant effort to remove some of the deliberate traps (Fighter is very fun in PF1e, especially with the Combat Stamina optional rules at which point you feel a bit like a martial caster) but then stuff like this pops up.
I hear PF2e handles it better and I had been hoping WotR would be PF2e so I could try out those mechanics (what I've seen on Streams did not fill me with enthusiasm, it felt a bit like specialize in a task in order to achieve basic competence or just be useless at it, and a lot of treadmill DC increases where you have advanced on paper but haven't actually advanced in practice).
I know 5e handles broad concepts better than PF1e did... (the disappointment of the yuan-ti race not-withstanding) but we're unlikely to get options like the dhampir or reborn in BG3.
