On eating: Van Richten's Guide states: "You don’t need to eat, drink, or breathe.". This doesn't state that you cannot eat, drink, or breathe, just that you don't need to. My question is what happens if you choose to. Anything? If you choose to breathe in a poisonous gas, do you have to roll for poisoning? (Yes, I know they get advantage on poison saves). The question is mechanical, does their physiology let them interact with the environment in this way? I think I'm fine w/ their digestive track still doing the work of the living, meaning it pushes the food through ... just nothing was actually ingested. Although technically that would also mean healing potions, heroes feast, etc, have no effect. Curious what you all think.
On turning undead: They are undead... can they be turned? The manual is unclear on this. Again, curious what you all think.
Reborn don't need to eat, drink, sleep, or breathe, but if they choose to, there are consequences.
If you eat something that's poisonous, or breathe poison gas, then you're subjected to the poison effects (resistances and/or advantage applying normally). Similarly, ingesting healing potions would still have their normal effects.
Reborn are not undead. They're imperfectly resurrected, and as such not subject to any effects that target undead such as Clerics' Turn Undead.
Note that a lot of the more common poison gases in 5e are contact poisons, so breathing isn't really a factor. Cloudkill is the most obvious example, and a Green Dragon's poisonous breath only says that all creatures in the area take damage, and given that it's a one turn effect if holding breath was an option, then everyone would do it and render the move pointless.
I might argue that they are undead, though the description doesn't say either way. "Death isn’t always the end. The reborn exemplify this, being individuals who have died yet, somehow, still live. Some reborn exhibit the scars of fatal ends, their ashen flesh or bloodless veins making it clear that they’ve been touched by death. Other reborn are marvels of magic or science, being stitched together from disparate beings or bearing mysterious minds in manufactured bodies." Even possible origins like this one lean towards undead in my point of view. "You were a necromancer’s undead servant for years. One day, your consciousness returned." and "Your body hosts a possessing spirit that shares its memories and replaces your missing appendages with phantasmal limbs."
Rules lawyers are pointing at "Creature Type. You are a Humanoid." but I would like to hear the official WotC ruling on it.
In the end, I think it's up to the DM. Unless otherwise officially ruled and argued (and possibly regardless), I would rule as above on the breathing, food and drink and for some fun flavor, allow them to be affected by Turn Undead giving them a saving throw against the DC of the cleric's spell save DC or have the frightened condition.
Player characters in 5e have so much power why not allow for some fun potential weaknesses.
I might argue that they are undead, though the description doesn't say either way. "Death isn’t always the end. The reborn exemplify this, being individuals who have died yet, somehow, still live. Some reborn exhibit the scars of fatal ends, their ashen flesh or bloodless veins making it clear that they’ve been touched by death. Other reborn are marvels of magic or science, being stitched together from disparate beings or bearing mysterious minds in manufactured bodies." Even possible origins like this one lean towards undead in my point of view. "You were a necromancer’s undead servant for years. One day, your consciousness returned." and "Your body hosts a possessing spirit that shares its memories and replaces your missing appendages with phantasmal limbs."
Rules lawyers are pointing at "Creature Type. You are a Humanoid." but I would like to hear the official WotC ruling on it.
In the end, I think it's up to the DM. Unless otherwise officially ruled and argued (and possibly regardless), I would rule as above on the breathing, food and drink and for some fun flavor, allow them to be affected by Turn Undead giving them a saving throw against the DC of the cleric's spell save DC or have the frightened condition.
Player characters in 5e have so much power why not allow for some fun potential weaknesses.
I think having Creature Type: Humanoid IS the official WotC ruling. That doesn’t, of course, prevent a DM and their player agreeing that their Reborn (or Dhampir) will be Creature Type: Undead (or use some hybrid of the rules), as long as they are happy with some of the potential implications (such as several healing spells not working on them).
I might argue that they are undead, though the description doesn't say either way. "Death isn’t always the end. The reborn exemplify this, being individuals who have died yet, somehow, still live. Some reborn exhibit the scars of fatal ends, their ashen flesh or bloodless veins making it clear that they’ve been touched by death. Other reborn are marvels of magic or science, being stitched together from disparate beings or bearing mysterious minds in manufactured bodies." Even possible origins like this one lean towards undead in my point of view. "You were a necromancer’s undead servant for years. One day, your consciousness returned." and "Your body hosts a possessing spirit that shares its memories and replaces your missing appendages with phantasmal limbs."
Rules lawyers are pointing at "Creature Type. You are a Humanoid." but I would like to hear the official WotC ruling on it.
In the end, I think it's up to the DM. Unless otherwise officially ruled and argued (and possibly regardless), I would rule as above on the breathing, food and drink and for some fun flavor, allow them to be affected by Turn Undead giving them a saving throw against the DC of the cleric's spell save DC or have the frightened condition.
Player characters in 5e have so much power why not allow for some fun potential weaknesses.
I think having Creature Type: Humanoid IS the official WotC ruling. That doesn’t, of course, prevent a DM and their player agreeing that their Reborn (or Dhampir) will be Creature Type: Undead (or use some hybrid of the rules), as long as they are happy with some of the potential implications (such as several healing spells not working on them).
Indeed, although I find that the Humanoid classification sounds contradictory to the rest, unless you are just saying they have a humanoid form. (Yes I know that Undead is a separate classification in "Creature Type") I am curious; which healing spells would not work on them that the reasoning couldn't be changed by some other logic.
Cure Wounds, Healing Word, Heal, Mass Cure Wounds, Mass Healing Word, Mass Heal, Power Word Heal and Prayer of Healing all contain the statement: “This spell has no effect on undead or constructs”. If the DM feels that they would like to have Reborn who are Undead but also have a special exemption from the restrictions on these spells, that’s entirely within their privilege as the DM. (There is a precedent: the Autognome in Spelljammer is a Construct but has just such an exemption from those restrictions built into their rules.)
As to “why is the Reborn a Humanoid?”, I think there will be both a pragmatic rules-based reason (because having the Undead type adds the complications discussed above) and an in-universe reason. I don’t think the in-universe explanation is spelled out; I assume that it is that the Reborn is sufficiently, if incompletely, “alive” to no longer count as Undead.
(That does raise the question of why, say, a Fairy who later becomes a Reborn during the course of a campaign should change their creature type to Humanoid, rather than remaining Fey.)
Cure Wounds, Healing Word, Heal, Mass Cure Wounds, Mass Healing Word, Mass Heal, Power Word Heal and Prayer of Healing all contain the statement: “This spell has no effect on undead or constructs”. If the DM feels that they would like to have Reborn who are Undead but also have a special exemption from the restrictions on these spells, that’s entirely within their privilege as the DM. (There is a precedent: the Autognome in Spelljammer is a Construct but has just such an exemption from those restrictions built into their rules.)
As to “why is the Reborn a Humanoid?”, I think there will be both a pragmatic rules-based reason (because having the Undead type adds the complications discussed above) and an in-universe reason. I don’t think the in-universe explanation is spelled out; I assume that it is that the Reborn is sufficiently, if incompletely, “alive” to no longer count as Undead.
(That does raise the question of why, say, a Fairy who later becomes a Reborn during the course of a campaign should change their creature type to Humanoid, rather than remaining Fey.)
Ok, I agree with all of that. (including that last bit about fey). Do you know the reason why healing spells shouldn't work on the undead? Perhaps healing magic, like the above mentioned spells, simply rebuild damaged cells, thus reversing damage made to any organic entity, undead or not.
Cure Wounds, Healing Word, Heal, Mass Cure Wounds, Mass Healing Word, Mass Heal, Power Word Heal and Prayer of Healing all contain the statement: “This spell has no effect on undead or constructs”. If the DM feels that they would like to have Reborn who are Undead but also have a special exemption from the restrictions on these spells, that’s entirely within their privilege as the DM. (There is a precedent: the Autognome in Spelljammer is a Construct but has just such an exemption from those restrictions built into their rules.)
As to “why is the Reborn a Humanoid?”, I think there will be both a pragmatic rules-based reason (because having the Undead type adds the complications discussed above) and an in-universe reason. I don’t think the in-universe explanation is spelled out; I assume that it is that the Reborn is sufficiently, if incompletely, “alive” to no longer count as Undead.
(That does raise the question of why, say, a Fairy who later becomes a Reborn during the course of a campaign should change their creature type to Humanoid, rather than remaining Fey.)
Ok, I agree with all of that. (including that last bit about fey). Do you know the reason why healing spells shouldn't work on the undead? Perhaps healing magic, like the above mentioned spells, simply rebuild damaged cells, thus reversing damage made to any organic entity, undead or not.
In 5e it's more a holdover; in prior editions the "positive energy" of healing spells was destructive to undead, and similarly the "negative energy" of spells like Inflict Wounds would heal undead while being destructive to the living. 5e doesn't have the additional riders on most of these spells anymore, but it still holds to the point that healing is more about life-restoring "positive energy" rather than just mechanically fixing tissue. Obviously a DM is free to rule differently at their table, if they want.
Cure Wounds, Healing Word, Heal, Mass Cure Wounds, Mass Healing Word, Mass Heal, Power Word Heal and Prayer of Healing all contain the statement: “This spell has no effect on undead or constructs”. If the DM feels that they would like to have Reborn who are Undead but also have a special exemption from the restrictions on these spells, that’s entirely within their privilege as the DM. (There is a precedent: the Autognome in Spelljammer is a Construct but has just such an exemption from those restrictions built into their rules.)
As to “why is the Reborn a Humanoid?”, I think there will be both a pragmatic rules-based reason (because having the Undead type adds the complications discussed above) and an in-universe reason. I don’t think the in-universe explanation is spelled out; I assume that it is that the Reborn is sufficiently, if incompletely, “alive” to no longer count as Undead.
(That does raise the question of why, say, a Fairy who later becomes a Reborn during the course of a campaign should change their creature type to Humanoid, rather than remaining Fey.)
Ok, I agree with all of that. (including that last bit about fey). Do you know the reason why healing spells shouldn't work on the undead? Perhaps healing magic, like the above mentioned spells, simply rebuild damaged cells, thus reversing damage made to any organic entity, undead or not.
In 5e it's more a holdover; in prior editions the "positive energy" of healing spells was destructive to undead, and similarly the "negative energy" of spells like Inflict Wounds would heal undead while being destructive to the living. 5e doesn't have the additional riders on most of these spells anymore, but it still holds to the point that healing is more about life-restoring "positive energy" rather than just mechanically fixing tissue. Obviously a DM is free to rule differently at their table, if they want.
This is true. That could be an interesting twist to go with for Undead characters... requiring "negative energy" spells to magically heal. This could be a fun conversation between DM and player wishing to play the undead.
This is true. That could be an interesting twist to go with for Undead characters... requiring "negative energy" spells to magically heal. This could be a fun conversation between DM and player wishing to play the undead.
PF2 has kept a lot of those mechanics. It isn't without its issues but if that is something you like then have a look for ideas.
This is true. That could be an interesting twist to go with for Undead characters... requiring "negative energy" spells to magically heal. This could be a fun conversation between DM and player wishing to play the undead.
PF2 has kept a lot of those mechanics. It isn't without its issues but if that is something you like then have a look for ideas.
in earlier versions of DnD, each Cure spell also had an inverse Cause spell that would heal undead, so Cure Light Wounds because Cause Light Wounds and so on.....etc.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
On eating: Van Richten's Guide states: "You don’t need to eat, drink, or breathe.". This doesn't state that you cannot eat, drink, or breathe, just that you don't need to. My question is what happens if you choose to. Anything? If you choose to breathe in a poisonous gas, do you have to roll for poisoning? (Yes, I know they get advantage on poison saves). The question is mechanical, does their physiology let them interact with the environment in this way? I think I'm fine w/ their digestive track still doing the work of the living, meaning it pushes the food through ... just nothing was actually ingested. Although technically that would also mean healing potions, heroes feast, etc, have no effect. Curious what you all think.
On turning undead: They are undead... can they be turned? The manual is unclear on this. Again, curious what you all think.
What happen if you eat, drink or breath would be up to DM as it's not explained any further.
Reborn are not affected by effect targeting undead as their creature type is humanoid and not undead.
Reborn don't need to eat, drink, sleep, or breathe, but if they choose to, there are consequences.
If you eat something that's poisonous, or breathe poison gas, then you're subjected to the poison effects (resistances and/or advantage applying normally). Similarly, ingesting healing potions would still have their normal effects.
Reborn are not undead. They're imperfectly resurrected, and as such not subject to any effects that target undead such as Clerics' Turn Undead.
Note that a lot of the more common poison gases in 5e are contact poisons, so breathing isn't really a factor. Cloudkill is the most obvious example, and a Green Dragon's poisonous breath only says that all creatures in the area take damage, and given that it's a one turn effect if holding breath was an option, then everyone would do it and render the move pointless.
"On turning undead: They are undead... can they be turned? The manual is unclear on this."
They're not undead, so they can't be turned. They're humanoid.
Inhaled poison should affect creature even if they don't need to breath as you don't need to, holding your breath doesn't protect you against one.
Thank you all!
I might argue that they are undead, though the description doesn't say either way.
"Death isn’t always the end. The reborn exemplify this, being individuals who have died yet, somehow, still live. Some reborn exhibit the scars of fatal ends, their ashen flesh or bloodless veins making it clear that they’ve been touched by death. Other reborn are marvels of magic or science, being stitched together from disparate beings or bearing mysterious minds in manufactured bodies."
Even possible origins like this one lean towards undead in my point of view. "You were a necromancer’s undead servant for years. One day, your consciousness returned." and "Your body hosts a possessing spirit that shares its memories and replaces your missing appendages with phantasmal limbs."
Rules lawyers are pointing at "Creature Type. You are a Humanoid." but I would like to hear the official WotC ruling on it.
In the end, I think it's up to the DM.
Unless otherwise officially ruled and argued (and possibly regardless), I would rule as above on the breathing, food and drink and for some fun flavor, allow them to be affected by Turn Undead giving them a saving throw against the DC of the cleric's spell save DC or have the frightened condition.
Player characters in 5e have so much power why not allow for some fun potential weaknesses.
The Art Wizard of Oaktown
I think having Creature Type: Humanoid IS the official WotC ruling. That doesn’t, of course, prevent a DM and their player agreeing that their Reborn (or Dhampir) will be Creature Type: Undead (or use some hybrid of the rules), as long as they are happy with some of the potential implications (such as several healing spells not working on them).
Indeed, although I find that the Humanoid classification sounds contradictory to the rest, unless you are just saying they have a humanoid form. (Yes I know that Undead is a separate classification in "Creature Type")
I am curious; which healing spells would not work on them that the reasoning couldn't be changed by some other logic.
The Art Wizard of Oaktown
Cure Wounds, Healing Word, Heal, Mass Cure Wounds, Mass Healing Word, Mass Heal, Power Word Heal and Prayer of Healing all contain the statement: “This spell has no effect on undead or constructs”. If the DM feels that they would like to have Reborn who are Undead but also have a special exemption from the restrictions on these spells, that’s entirely within their privilege as the DM. (There is a precedent: the Autognome in Spelljammer is a Construct but has just such an exemption from those restrictions built into their rules.)
As to “why is the Reborn a Humanoid?”, I think there will be both a pragmatic rules-based reason (because having the Undead type adds the complications discussed above) and an in-universe reason. I don’t think the in-universe explanation is spelled out; I assume that it is that the Reborn is sufficiently, if incompletely, “alive” to no longer count as Undead.
(That does raise the question of why, say, a Fairy who later becomes a Reborn during the course of a campaign should change their creature type to Humanoid, rather than remaining Fey.)
Ok, I agree with all of that. (including that last bit about fey). Do you know the reason why healing spells shouldn't work on the undead? Perhaps healing magic, like the above mentioned spells, simply rebuild damaged cells, thus reversing damage made to any organic entity, undead or not.
The Art Wizard of Oaktown
In 5e it's more a holdover; in prior editions the "positive energy" of healing spells was destructive to undead, and similarly the "negative energy" of spells like Inflict Wounds would heal undead while being destructive to the living. 5e doesn't have the additional riders on most of these spells anymore, but it still holds to the point that healing is more about life-restoring "positive energy" rather than just mechanically fixing tissue. Obviously a DM is free to rule differently at their table, if they want.
This is true. That could be an interesting twist to go with for Undead characters... requiring "negative energy" spells to magically heal. This could be a fun conversation between DM and player wishing to play the undead.
The Art Wizard of Oaktown
PF2 has kept a lot of those mechanics. It isn't without its issues but if that is something you like then have a look for ideas.
there was a change in the Reborn status that they were originally classified as Constructs and humanoid and they were changed to just be humanoid
in earlier versions of DnD, each Cure spell also had an inverse Cause spell that would heal undead, so Cure Light Wounds because Cause Light Wounds and so on.....etc.