|
Post by reiphil on Dec 11, 2014 9:52:26 GMT -8
DungeonScape has returned on Kickstarter. April 2015 target date; uses Open Game License. This isn't dungeonscape specifically though as they got dropped from Wotc. They have no support for 5th. They will be using the pathfinder resources that are OGL. 5th is not under OGL.
|
|
|
Post by earthwizard on Dec 11, 2014 15:44:39 GMT -8
In the meantime Roll20 is moving into this space well ahead of Morningstar. Roll20 Update of Holding provides ipad app support, and will probably be very similar to what Morningstar will end up as.
|
|
|
Post by Brian Williamson on Dec 11, 2014 16:04:43 GMT -8
In the meantime Roll20 is moving into this space well ahead of Morningstar. Roll20 Update of Holding provides ipad app support, and will probably be very similar to what Morningstar will end up as. And cheaper!
|
|
|
Post by kore on Feb 3, 2015 9:51:15 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by reiphil on Feb 3, 2015 11:41:35 GMT -8
artificer is pretty bamf.
|
|
|
Post by kore on Feb 3, 2015 11:49:00 GMT -8
I've been discussing on the WotC 5e forum whether or not warforged get excluded from most of the healing spells because of the construct or undead exemption. The Living Construct trait doesn't state that they're a construct per se, but that they are a living creature that has been constructed; "construct" only appears in the name of the trait. Is that enough to show that they don't get lumped into the exemption?
How would you as a DM rule it?
|
|
|
Post by frobones on Feb 3, 2015 12:02:06 GMT -8
I've been discussing on the WotC 5e forum whether or not warforged get excluded from most of the healing spells because of the construct or undead exemption. The Living Construct trait doesn't state that they're a construct per se, but that they are a living creature that has been constructed; "construct" only appears in the name of the trait. Is that enough to show that they don't get lumped into the exemption? How would you as a DM rule it? For me, it straight up says "You are a living creature". No where does it say you are a construct.
|
|
|
Post by earthwizard on Feb 3, 2015 13:02:50 GMT -8
I don't know - I think in previous rules if two types described a creature then it was considered as a member of both of the creature types, so a 'living construct' would be considered both 'living' and 'construct'. An aquatic reptile is both aquatic and reptile. However, a magical beast was just called 'JP'.
|
|
|
Post by frobones on Feb 4, 2015 11:12:24 GMT -8
I don't know - I think in previous rules if two types described a creature then it was considered as a member of both of the creature types, so a 'living construct' would be considered both 'living' and 'construct'. An aquatic reptile is both aquatic and reptile. Yea, but "Living Construct" is just the name of the feature. Within the feature itself it does not say you are a construct.
|
|
|
Post by kore on Feb 4, 2015 13:35:05 GMT -8
I don't know - I think in previous rules if two types described a creature then it was considered as a member of both of the creature types, so a 'living construct' would be considered both 'living' and 'construct'. An aquatic reptile is both aquatic and reptile. Yea, but "Living Construct" is just the name of the feature. Within the feature itself it does not say you are a construct. That's been the consensus in various conversations.
|
|
|
D&D Next
Feb 4, 2015 21:42:40 GMT -8
via mobile
Post by The Keeper on Feb 4, 2015 21:42:40 GMT -8
I don't know - I think in previous rules if two types described a creature then it was considered as a member of both of the creature types, so a 'living construct' would be considered both 'living' and 'construct'. An aquatic reptile is both aquatic and reptile. However, a magical beast was just called 'JP'. Thanks... I think...
|
|
|
Post by frobones on Mar 9, 2015 16:33:29 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by frobones on May 19, 2015 17:25:54 GMT -8
|
|