In the campaign I am playing at the moment my character is a reborn Paladin. As an undead character most healing potions and spells have no effect so how does such a character regain HP. Obviously a long rest will regain HP but what happens with such a character if the reach 0 HP and would fall unconscious. If healing potions have no effect how do they avoid death?
Equally if they cannot be healed by potions and spells are there certain types of damage to which they are immune or at least resistant?
Unlike many video games, Undead in D&D are not resistant to being healed. Cure Wounds will revive an Undead character's health just as much as a regular, living person.
As well, being a Reborn does not, mechanically, make you Undead. You have many Undead-like features (not needing to breathe or sleep) but you are not Undead and subject to spells or abilities that affect Undead. You are not harmed by a Cleric's Turn Undead feature, spells to control undead don't work on you... you're still a standard humanoid.
It's an understandable mistake... in a lot of games and in a lot of fiction Undead creatures can't be cured through traditional means, and everything about the Reborn race is meant to make it seem like an Undead creature, even though it isn't.
It's also possible that your DM has plans and possibly some kind of homebrew healing rules in the works, but it's definitely something to talk to your DM about.
In the campaign I am playing at the moment my character is a reborn Paladin. As an undead character
Reborn aren't undead.
most healing potions and spells have no effect
If you were undead, which you aren't, a potion of healing of any type would work on you just fine. Some healing spells won't work on undead, but the majority of them - more than 50% - will.
so how does such a character regain HP.
In addition to long rest and short rest healing, both of which undead have full access to (and remember, Bards passively buff Short Rest healing), you can heal using non-spell healing just fine. For example, the Fighter feature Second Wind.
Obviously a long rest will regain HP but what happens with such a character if the reach 0 HP and would fall unconscious. If healing potions have no effect how do they avoid death?
The same way a non-undead does. You don't need to be healed up externally from stable. Also, stabilizing effects (such as Medicine checks and healing kits) will, in general, work on undead.
Equally if they cannot be healed by potions and spells are there certain types of damage to which they are immune or at least resistant?
TIA
No. Here are the healing and healing-like spells that won't work on undead; all of the others do (there are other spells that will bounce off you which I am not listing as they don't do anything remotely similar to healing):
Spare the Dying
Cure Wounds and Mass Cure Wounds
Healing Word and Mass Healing Word
Healing Spirit
Prayer of Healing
Raise Dead (all other spells that bring you back to life, including Revivify, the most common one, work on Undead)
***Special case: Reincarnate requires you to be a Humanoid. It will work on a creature which is both a Humanoid and an Undead at the same time, because it requires Humanoid, rather than banning Undead. As you aren't actually Undead, I don't know what your houserule making you Undead actually does - i.e. I don't know if you're a Humanoid as well.
Unlike many video games, Undead in D&D are not resistant to being healed. Cure Wounds will revive an Undead character's health just as much as a regular, living person.
This is false. Cure Wounds has specific text that means it won't heal Undead or Constructs.
Could be your DM is thinking of older editions. There used to be rules where cure wounds type spells would hurt undead, and cause wounds would heal them. Though as others noted, technically your character is not “undead.”
Not Undead. That is a discrete creature type, and you are not it. So healing spells, even those that don't work on Undead, will work on you, because you are in fact not Undead.
This is the race features for Reborn: (in case the DM didn't provide it to you, or you didn't know)
Creature Type
You are a Humanoid.
Size
You are Medium or Small. You choose the size when you gain this lineage.
Speed
Your walking speed is 30 feet.
Ancestral Legacy
If you replace a race with this lineage, you can keep the following elements of that race: any skill proficiencies you gained from it and any climbing, flying, or swimming speed you gained from it.
If you don’t keep any of those elements or you choose this lineage at character creation, you gain proficiency in two skills of your choice.
Deathless Nature
You have escaped death, a fact represented by the following benefits:
You have advantage on saving throws against disease and being poisoned, and you have resistance to poison damage.
You have advantage on death saving throws.
You don’t need to eat, drink, or breathe.
You don’t need to sleep, and magic can’t put you to sleep. You can finish a long rest in 4 hours if you spend those hours in an inactive, motionless state, during which you retain consciousness.
Knowledge from a Past Life
You temporarily remember glimpses of the past, perhaps faded memories from ages ago or a previous life. When you make an ability check that uses a skill, you can roll a d6 immediately after seeing the number on the d20 and add the number on the d6 to the check. You can use this feature a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus, and you regain all expended uses when you finish a long rest.
Could it be possible that the DM is looking at the Reborn UA? I think in that version you were both Humanoid and Undead (or construct?) and if a spell did or didn't work on one of those it was the same for you. I think in that UA version you could be turned by a cleric in your own party. Van Richtens changed that.
Edit: from the UA on having multiple creature types, which the Reborn did in the UA:
Having More Than One Type. Some creatures are of more than one creature type. If an effect works on at least one of a creature’s types, that effect can work on that creature. For example, if you are both a Humanoid and an Undead, cure wounds works on you, since the spell works on a Humanoid.
So even if the DM was looking at the UA, healing spells would still work on your Reborn character. Unless they are house ruling that, which they should have informed you ahead of time.
There was a long conversation about the character because the original idea had been a vampire paladin with all the moral complications that ensue from that. The DM suggested a reborn character but still with aspects of a vampiric nature. So my character does not need food but must instead feed from the blood of the living. They carry, instead of food rations, six units of blood and a transfusion kit. So my first port of call anywhere civilised is a surreptitious visit to the nearest livestock to replenish. So in terms of game mehanics the advantages are the usual reborn advantages but the disadvantages are the food / exhaustion mechanics. In terms of role play its the moral dilemma and also that at some point I may need to politely request that some of my adventurning companions might like to donate.
When I raised the topic in the last session it wasn't glossed over but rather the DM's approach was that if it would turn out to be a problem then he would need to bend the mechanics to balance the game. The current approach he is taking is that my blood supplies are both ration packs and healing potions for my character.
Did he take the rules from a previous edition or "UA"(?) no idea, before the last three sessions I have only played DnD once in a single session at university which was so long ago that the rules were still written in Latin.
This is kinda stupid borders. Who cares about the creature type? if u play as a necromancer or use spell that revive the corpse, there is no restriction about u cannot revive dead human because its creature type is humanoid not undead. Because if there was such restriction it will be most dumbest shit in the whole tabletop/video-games history ever. U can revive even a kobold or any corp if u have correspondence power to turn it to undead, so to clarify if u were alive and somebody or something(curse/blood/deal) turned u in kind of undead (skeleton/ghost/lich/vampire-dhampire/REborn etc.) doesn't matter what type of creature type u was before u turned, because after that process u count as undead creature, undead human/kobold/elf/giant/dragon etc. And yes u cannot heal urself in usual way, because of you and you are undead. In that case i dunno what u need to do, u can go backwards if "cure wounds" doesnt heal undead then it damages undead, u can ask why? because if "necrotic damage" damages alive creatures, "cure wounds" heal alive creature THEN necrotic damage heals undead, and "cure wounds" damages undead.
I may need to have words with the DM, in our last session there was a whole section where my character was not revived by either potion or spells.
That is definitely not a rule in 5e. I think it might have been somewhat true in 3e, but its been so long since i've played third I don't remember. But you should get healed.
This is kinda stupid borders. Who cares about the creature type? if u play as a necromancer or use spell that revive the corpse, there is no restriction about u cannot revive dead human because its creature type is humanoid not undead. Because if there was such restriction it will be most dumbest shit in the whole tabletop/video-games history ever. U can revive even a kobold or any corp if u have correspondence power to turn it to undead, so to clarify if u were alive and somebody or something(curse/blood/deal) turned u in kind of undead (skeleton/ghost/lich/vampire-dhampire/REborn etc.) doesn't matter what type of creature type u was before u turned, because after that process u count as undead creature, undead human/kobold/elf/giant/dragon etc. And yes u cannot heal urself in usual way, because of you and you are undead. In that case i dunno what u need to do, u can go backwards if "cure wounds" doesnt heal undead then it damages undead, u can ask why? because if "necrotic damage" damages alive creatures, "cure wounds" heal alive creature THEN necrotic damage heals undead, and "cure wounds" damages undead.
That isn't how 5e works, and reborn is a completely different thing than undead (though spells seem to want to identify them as undead due to their nature).
In the campaign I am playing at the moment my character is a reborn Paladin. As an undead character
Reborn aren't undead.
most healing potions and spells have no effect
If you were undead, which you aren't, a potion of healing of any type would work on you just fine. Some healing spells won't work on undead, but the majority of them - more than 50% - will.
so how does such a character regain HP.
In addition to long rest and short rest healing, both of which undead have full access to (and remember, Bards passively buff Short Rest healing), you can heal using non-spell healing just fine. For example, the Fighter feature Second Wind.
Obviously a long rest will regain HP but what happens with such a character if the reach 0 HP and would fall unconscious. If healing potions have no effect how do they avoid death?
The same way a non-undead does. You don't need to be healed up externally from stable. Also, stabilizing effects (such as Medicine checks and healing kits) will, in general, work on undead.
Equally if they cannot be healed by potions and spells are there certain types of damage to which they are immune or at least resistant?
TIA
No. Here are the healing and healing-like spells that won't work on undead; all of the others do (there are other spells that will bounce off you which I am not listing as they don't do anything remotely similar to healing):
Spare the Dying
Cure Wounds and Mass Cure Wounds
Healing Word and Mass Healing Word
Healing Spirit
Prayer of Healing
Raise Dead (all other spells that bring you back to life, including Revivify, the most common one, work on Undead)
***Special case: Reincarnate requires you to be a Humanoid. It will work on a creature which is both a Humanoid and an Undead at the same time, because it requires Humanoid, rather than banning Undead. As you aren't actually Undead, I don't know what your houserule making you Undead actually does - i.e. I don't know if you're a Humanoid as well.
Heal and Mass Heal
Power Word: Heal
I doubt it is a houserule, and more an misreading of Reborn. A lot of people see undead and instantly label Reborn as undead. Which they are not.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
< Possible newbie question alert />
In the campaign I am playing at the moment my character is a reborn Paladin. As an undead character most healing potions and spells have no effect so how does such a character regain HP. Obviously a long rest will regain HP but what happens with such a character if the reach 0 HP and would fall unconscious. If healing potions have no effect how do they avoid death?
Equally if they cannot be healed by potions and spells are there certain types of damage to which they are immune or at least resistant?
TIA
Unlike many video games, Undead in D&D are not resistant to being healed. Cure Wounds will revive an Undead character's health just as much as a regular, living person.
As well, being a Reborn does not, mechanically, make you Undead. You have many Undead-like features (not needing to breathe or sleep) but you are not Undead and subject to spells or abilities that affect Undead. You are not harmed by a Cleric's Turn Undead feature, spells to control undead don't work on you... you're still a standard humanoid.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
I may need to have words with the DM, in our last session there was a whole section where my character was not revived by either potion or spells.
It's an understandable mistake... in a lot of games and in a lot of fiction Undead creatures can't be cured through traditional means, and everything about the Reborn race is meant to make it seem like an Undead creature, even though it isn't.
It's also possible that your DM has plans and possibly some kind of homebrew healing rules in the works, but it's definitely something to talk to your DM about.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Reborn aren't undead.
If you were undead, which you aren't, a potion of healing of any type would work on you just fine. Some healing spells won't work on undead, but the majority of them - more than 50% - will.
In addition to long rest and short rest healing, both of which undead have full access to (and remember, Bards passively buff Short Rest healing), you can heal using non-spell healing just fine. For example, the Fighter feature Second Wind.
The same way a non-undead does. You don't need to be healed up externally from stable. Also, stabilizing effects (such as Medicine checks and healing kits) will, in general, work on undead.
No. Here are the healing and healing-like spells that won't work on undead; all of the others do (there are other spells that will bounce off you which I am not listing as they don't do anything remotely similar to healing):
This is false. Cure Wounds has specific text that means it won't heal Undead or Constructs.
Could be your DM is thinking of older editions. There used to be rules where cure wounds type spells would hurt undead, and cause wounds would heal them.
Though as others noted, technically your character is not “undead.”
In the race description of Reborn:
Not Undead. That is a discrete creature type, and you are not it. So healing spells, even those that don't work on Undead, will work on you, because you are in fact not Undead.
This is the race features for Reborn: (in case the DM didn't provide it to you, or you didn't know)
Could it be possible that the DM is looking at the Reborn UA? I think in that version you were both Humanoid and Undead (or construct?) and if a spell did or didn't work on one of those it was the same for you. I think in that UA version you could be turned by a cleric in your own party. Van Richtens changed that.
Edit: from the UA on having multiple creature types, which the Reborn did in the UA:
So even if the DM was looking at the UA, healing spells would still work on your Reborn character. Unless they are house ruling that, which they should have informed you ahead of time.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Thanks for the replies ...
There was a long conversation about the character because the original idea had been a vampire paladin with all the moral complications that ensue from that. The DM suggested a reborn character but still with aspects of a vampiric nature. So my character does not need food but must instead feed from the blood of the living. They carry, instead of food rations, six units of blood and a transfusion kit. So my first port of call anywhere civilised is a surreptitious visit to the nearest livestock to replenish. So in terms of game mehanics the advantages are the usual reborn advantages but the disadvantages are the food / exhaustion mechanics. In terms of role play its the moral dilemma and also that at some point I may need to politely request that some of my adventurning companions might like to donate.
When I raised the topic in the last session it wasn't glossed over but rather the DM's approach was that if it would turn out to be a problem then he would need to bend the mechanics to balance the game. The current approach he is taking is that my blood supplies are both ration packs and healing potions for my character.
Did he take the rules from a previous edition or "UA"(?) no idea, before the last three sessions I have only played DnD once in a single session at university which was so long ago that the rules were still written in Latin.
This is kinda stupid borders. Who cares about the creature type? if u play as a necromancer or use spell that revive the corpse, there is no restriction about u cannot revive dead human because its creature type is humanoid not undead. Because if there was such restriction it will be most dumbest shit in the whole tabletop/video-games history ever. U can revive even a kobold or any corp if u have correspondence power to turn it to undead, so to clarify if u were alive and somebody or something(curse/blood/deal) turned u in kind of undead (skeleton/ghost/lich/vampire-dhampire/REborn etc.) doesn't matter what type of creature type u was before u turned, because after that process u count as undead creature, undead human/kobold/elf/giant/dragon etc.
And yes u cannot heal urself in usual way, because of you and you are undead. In that case i dunno what u need to do, u can go backwards if "cure wounds" doesnt heal undead then it damages undead, u can ask why?
because if "necrotic damage" damages alive creatures, "cure wounds" heal alive creature THEN necrotic damage heals undead, and "cure wounds" damages undead.
This comes from 3rd edition. Cure wounds specifically did hurt undead and cause wounds healed them.
I have the same question (for baldurs gate 3 fanfiction reasons)
That is definitely not a rule in 5e. I think it might have been somewhat true in 3e, but its been so long since i've played third I don't remember. But you should get healed.
That isn't how 5e works, and reborn is a completely different thing than undead (though spells seem to want to identify them as undead due to their nature).
I doubt it is a houserule, and more an misreading of Reborn. A lot of people see undead and instantly label Reborn as undead. Which they are not.