Speaking personally, my biggest hangup on if it is eligible is that it can literally target the creature even without a body. So at that point there isn't even an object at all. Just the metaphysical concept if a creature that used to exist and that is named.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
@BrailSays important before next game! Gate spell,summon creature,but its dead.Can I summon its corpse?
@ChrisPerkinsDnD Good question for "Sage Advice"! @JeremyECrawford Is a corpse that's not undead considered a "creature"? I say no.
@JeremyECrawford A non-undead corpse isn't considered a creature. It's effectively an object.
I knew about this tweet, and I usually agree with JC, but in this specific case I agree only partially with him.
When I read a resurrection spell, for me it targets creatures (dead ones). And in my opinion, these are specific cases, whereas generally, you could consider a dead corpse or creature as an object. Of course, a DM can rule differently because there is no clear rule in the books. There are, at most, hints or texts where we can infer certain things as some people have posted in this thread.
If we replace "dead creatures" by the word "objects" (assuming they were really always the same) in those resurrection spells, then the spells would be targeting objects, and you could resurrect a broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, or a wagon wheel (disclaimer: this a joke! 😅)
Anyway... I agree with the following sentence from @Thezzaruz:
Of course then we've had designers come out and say that dead creatures are objects, but then again that's the same designers that put "dead" and "creature" in the targeting sentence for all five resurrection type spells. 10 year into 5E and a shiny new re-write coming out soon, is it too much to ask that they should have figured out how they want it to work by now and actually write a clear bit about it in the book?
Anyway, it really isn't worth arguing about since the only application where it seems to matter is whether you can twin the resurrection spells - for all other purposes, the rules appear to state or imply that corpses are objects - I don't really see why the wording of the resurrection spells requires a dead creature to be a creature rather than a type of object for these spells to work.
This discussion about creatures, dead creatures and objects could be included in the Specific Beats General bag when referring to resurrection spells.
Speaking personally, my biggest hangup on if it is eligible is that it can literally target the creature even without a body. So at that point there isn't even an object at all. Just the metaphysical concept if a creature that used to exist and that is named.
Yeah, I think the idea that "a creature" is neither the body nor the soul, yet is still a discrete, coherently targetable existence for the purpose of True Resurrection makes for a potentially fascinating ontological statement about the default fiction of D&D.
But unfortunately this is the rules forum, so I don't think it's really the venue to interrogate that further.
After looking at many spells, most wouldn't have an effect on dead creatures, nor would be healing since a creature that has died can't regain hit points until magic such as the revivify spell has restored it to life.
I can't also find any core rule that clearly establish that a corpse is no longer a creature. R&D might have intended that but never wrote it in any rules except the example provided in improvised weapons.
If corpse are still considered creature they would make permanent space denial since while Moving Around Other creatures, wether a friend or an enemy, you can't willingly end your move in its space. Mass combat battlefield would be unmanoeuverable.
Speaking personally, my biggest hangup on if it is eligible is that it can literally target the creature even without a body. So at that point there isn't even an object at all. Just the metaphysical concept if a creature that used to exist and that is named.
Yep :) ... you just have to read the spells and what they target. True Resurrection can even target the "concept" or "memory" of a specific creature. It doesn't target a creature, object or point in space in that case. It is a specific beats general case where the targeting of the spell is unique.
That aspect of true resurrection doesn't need dead creatures to be creatures OR objects since it doesn't actually target anything physical. The spell text has it targeting the metaphysical concept of the creature that it once was. Can that specific target of True Resurrection be twinned? Could you bring back two creatures with a single casting? Depends on whether the DM rules that a memory of a creature constitutes it being a creature :)
That shouldn't be the case because the spell itself targets a creature which implies that dead creatures are still creatures. This works.
That's not how English works.
Here's the sentence you're referring to:
You touch a creature that has been dead for no longer than 200 years and that died for any reason except old age.
A "creature that [...]" need not be a creature. I can make you a similar sentence to illustrate: "You touch a liquid that froze solid no more than 20 minutes ago." See how you are touching a solid, not a liquid, when the sentence occurs? Same thing. The spell could just be targeting an object that used to be a creature without violating any rules of grammar.
This analogy doesn't quite hold up.
You don't really need any sort of grammatical acrobatics for this. The simple SPECIFIC > GENERAL could apply.
I think dead creatures are considered objects generally. (Maybe. I'm actually not quite sure on that.) The spell itself specifies an exception, making it a specific special case.
That said, I would totally let them twin True Resurrection. Because . . . Why not? Sounds fun.
Speaking personally, my biggest hangup on if it is eligible is that it can literally target the creature even without a body. So at that point there isn't even an object at all. Just the metaphysical concept if a creature that used to exist and that is named.
Yeah, despite my YES to twinning this, I would not let them twin it without both bodies, I think. Well I say that now. If it's a cool fun situation that comes up . . . maybe?
Speaking personally, my biggest hangup on if it is eligible is that it can literally target the creature even without a body. So at that point there isn't even an object at all. Just the metaphysical concept if a creature that used to exist and that is named.
Yep :) ... you just have to read the spells and what they target. True Resurrection can even target the "concept" or "memory" of a specific creature. It doesn't target a creature, object or point in space in that case. It is a specific beats general case where the targeting of the spell is unique.
That aspect of true resurrection doesn't need dead creatures to be creatures OR objects since it doesn't actually target anything physical. The spell text has it targeting the metaphysical concept of the creature that it once was. Can that specific target of True Resurrection be twinned? Could you bring back two creatures with a single casting? Depends on whether the DM rules that a memory of a creature constitutes it being a creature :)
Well that's the interesting question really. Because, depending on the setting of course, the cosmology lore seems to suggest they still exist as a creature. Thier soul is very much a real thing. So the creature exists it is just a dead creature, and doesn't have a physical form on the material plane.
If you go back far enough the planes themself aren't even physical places. They're realms of concept and ideas. And that's why powerful magics are required to "go" there. You have to translate a physical creature into a conceptual creature to switch planes to a conceptual realm of idea, morality, spirituality. There are often a lot of simplified narrative devices used to explain this easier, to simplify it all down so it is easier for a purely physical mind (us in irl) can even wrap our heads around without a headache.
I'm rambling. Point being, a creature continues to exist beyond its death. Its body is an object now, but the creature still exists too. It just exist outside the material plane, and not in a living way.
I think that's the truest answer. But, I'm left speculating because 5e doesn't seem to nail down these things as well as prior editions did.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I'm rambling. Point being, a creature continues to exist beyond its death. Its body is an object now, but the creature still exists too. It just exist outside the material plane, and not in a living way.
I think that's the truest answer. But, I'm left speculating because 5e doesn't seem to nail down these things as well as prior editions did.
In my opinion, a creature is both the body and the soul (the whole mind-body-spirit thing). In this game, when the body and soul are separated, they are still linked somehow since it's pretty much always possible to reunite them.
The corpse of the creature is the creature's physical form, so targeting that corpse means targeting a creature. The corpse is both a creature and an object.
We know that the game considers an object to be "a discrete, inanimate item".
However, we also know that there is some precedent (the petrified Condition, for example) -- just because a creature becomes inanimate does not automatically make it not a creature.
The spells which refer to targeting a "dead creature" are targeting a creature. "Dead" is the adjective which describes which sort of creature is required for the targeting of the spell. For example, some spells might require targeting a "humanoid creature", which targets a creature, but it has to be a particular type of creature. In this case, the spell is restricted to targeting dead creatures.
In contrast, consider a spell such as Speak with Dead. In that case, the spell explicitly targets "a corpse". The word "corpse" is used throughout the spell description. In this case, the spell is targeting an object. But, it's important to note that there is one line within that spell description which reads: "This spell doesn’t return the creature’s soul to its body". So, there is an acknowledgement that you are interacting with the body of a creature. But in this context, the body is treated as an object (since it counts as both) for the purposes of the targeting of this spell.
I think you are all overthinking this and the devs answers above make no sense.
If the argument is that my dead adventurer is no longer a creature and is now just an object because a dead body (my poor adventurer who is now dead) is now just a corpse which is an object then the True Resurrection spell is worthless because twinned or not it can't resurrect my poor dead adventurer.
Why?
Because he's not a dead creature he's an object and the spell says touch a creature not an object or even corpse.
So a creature that is now dead is still a creature as far as the spell is concerned or True Resurrection can't do anything.
So yeah it can be twinned because there is nothing in the Rule that says it can't.
But you have to touch both at the moment you cast the spell.
My ruling is that corpses are objects, not creatures.
Spells like true resurrection actually target "an object that used to be a creature" or "the memory of a creture" or "the concept of a creature". That wording is awkward, so the authors used the phrase "creature that has been dead for no longer than…" instead.
As for twinning true resurrection, I'm a bit dubious about resurrecting two people for 25,000 GP instead of 50,000 GP.
Some interesting problems could crop up with trying to True Resurrection two creatures at once.
Do the souls automatically know which new body is theirs? Do the souls want to be in their correct bodies? One could have a reason to inhabit a different body. Like hide from the law.
So much fun for a DM who thinks he needs a good reason for a good plot hook.
I think you are all overthinking this and the devs answers above make no sense.
If the argument is that my dead adventurer is no longer a creature and is now just an object because a dead body (my poor adventurer who is now dead) is now just a corpse which is an object then the True Resurrection spell is worthless because twinned or not it can't resurrect my poor dead adventurer.
Why?
Because he's not a dead creature he's an object and the spell says touch a creature not an object or even corpse.
So a creature that is now dead is still a creature as far as the spell is concerned or True Resurrection can't do anything.
So yeah it can be twinned because there is nothing in the Rule that says it can't.
But you have to touch both at the moment you cast the spell.
Not quite.
Objects can be a valid target for spells.
The resurrection spells target a "dead creature". There is nothing in the rules that requires a "dead creature" to still be a creature for the spell to work. The spell could just as easily target a particular type of object called a "dead creature". A "dead creature" is something that used to be a creature but isn't a creature anymore (assuming a creature is something that is animated, perhaps body+soul, rather than inanimate).
Think about it ... is a "dead squirrel" still a squirrel? No, it used to be a squirrel, now it is the dead body of a squirrel. Is a dead moose still a moose? No, it is an inanimate object that is the body of a moose but it is no longer a moose. There is nothing in the rules that requires a "dead creature" to be a creature.
I would also note that the word "dead" when used as a descriptor generally results in the creature being referred to, no longer being considered an example of that creature/species. A fast squirrel, a happy squirrel, a tired squirrel are all squirrels ... a dead squirrel on the other hand is actually no longer a squirrel, it is a body that used to be a squirrel. So, I also think taking the word dead to describe a creature and then stating that it remains a creature kind of goes against the common usage and understanding of the word dead when applied as a descriptor ... though I am sure folks will disagree with that view :)
I’ve heard some say the revivify/resurrection spells can’t be twinned because the targets are no longer considered creatures if they are dead.
Newly-dead corpses are interesting because they contain descriptive elements of both objects and creatures. By the strictest reading, you could consider a corpse an object, but doing so would effectively invalidate all resurrection spells. For my part, I would say you could twin true resurrection...at least until the new PHB comes out.
But you have to touch both at the moment you cast the spell.
This is not actually a requirement for twinning a spell with Touch range, which is fortunate because most creatures would run out of free hands to do this. You must touch the creature, but you also must have a free hand to hold the expensive material component.
But the targeting of the twinned spell occurs consecutively, not simultaneously:
Twinned Spell
When you cast a spell that targets only one creature and doesn’t have a range of self, you can spend a number of sorcery points equal to the spell’s level to target a second creature in range with the same spell
So, when you cast a spell that targets one creature, you can do something specific to target a second creature. I think that if this feature had used "while" instead of "when" by saying something like "While you are casting a spell that targets only one creature . . ." then the targeting would clearly be occurring simultaneously. As written, I believe that the targeting is happening consecutively, but it's close enough where this is probably debatable.
This is not actually a requirement for twinning a spell with Touch range, which is fortunate because most creatures would run out of free hands to do this. You must touch the creature, but you also must have a free hand to hold the expensive material component.
But the targeting of the twinned spell occurs consecutively, not simultaneously:
Twinned Spell
When you cast a spell that targets only one creature and doesn’t have a range of self, you can spend a number of sorcery points equal to the spell’s level to target a second creature in range with the same spell
So, when you cast a spell that targets one creature, you can do something specific to target a second creature. I think that if this feature had used "while" instead of "when" by saying something like "While you are casting a spell that targets only one creature . . ." then the targeting would clearly be occurring simultaneously. As written, I believe that the targeting is happening consecutively, but it's close enough where this is probably debatable.
Spell component is separate from, and precedes spell’s effect. Therefore if there's any free hand requirement for somatic and or material component during spellcasting, it's before spell's effect occur.
When a spell's effect touch one or more creature as part of it's effect, they must be all be within range of touch especially during instantaneous duration.
Last but not least, range of touch doesn't necessarily have to be done with a hand free.
Ok, so suppose a cleric is holding a mace in one hand and has one free hand. You are saying that the cleric will hold the diamonds in that other hand when casting the spell. Then, after the spell has been cast and that hand becomes free again, the cleric can then use that hand to touch the dead creature? That's not how I would have pictured it, but that does seem like a reasonable ruling.
Given this ruling, if the cleric is holding that mace while casting and also twinning the spell, is this cleric able to use that free hand to touch one dead creature and then another dead creature when twinning the spell, or do you believe that the cleric must touch both dead creatures simultaneously when twinning the spell?
I believe if you cast true resurrection on more than one creature within range of touch it affect them at the same instant, wether simultaneously or consequtively is up to DM.
Ok, so suppose a cleric is holding a mace in one hand and has one free hand. You are saying that the cleric will hold the diamonds in that other hand when casting the spell. Then, after the spell has been cast and that hand becomes free again, the cleric can then use that hand to touch the dead creature? That's not how I would have pictured it, but that does seem like a reasonable ruling.
Given this ruling, if the cleric is holding that mace while casting and also twinning the spell, is this cleric able to use that free hand to touch one dead creature and then another dead creature when twinning the spell, or do you believe that the cleric must touch both dead creatures simultaneously when twinning the spell?
This is a spell that has a casting time of 1 hour. Why would they be holding a mace?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Speaking personally, my biggest hangup on if it is eligible is that it can literally target the creature even without a body. So at that point there isn't even an object at all. Just the metaphysical concept if a creature that used to exist and that is named.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I knew about this tweet, and I usually agree with JC, but in this specific case I agree only partially with him.
When I read a resurrection spell, for me it targets creatures (dead ones). And in my opinion, these are specific cases, whereas generally, you could consider a dead corpse or creature as an object. Of course, a DM can rule differently because there is no clear rule in the books. There are, at most, hints or texts where we can infer certain things as some people have posted in this thread.
If we replace "dead creatures" by the word "objects" (assuming they were really always the same) in those resurrection spells, then the spells would be targeting objects, and you could resurrect a broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, or a wagon wheel (disclaimer: this a joke! 😅)
Anyway... I agree with the following sentence from @Thezzaruz:
And partially with this one from @David42:
This discussion about creatures, dead creatures and objects could be included in the Specific Beats General bag when referring to resurrection spells.
Yeah, I think the idea that "a creature" is neither the body nor the soul, yet is still a discrete, coherently targetable existence for the purpose of True Resurrection makes for a potentially fascinating ontological statement about the default fiction of D&D.
But unfortunately this is the rules forum, so I don't think it's really the venue to interrogate that further.
Spells that affect deads but doesn't restore life such as Speak with Dead, Animate Dead, Create Undead or Gentle Repose typically refer to corpse.
Spells that affect deads and restore life such as Revivify , Raise Dead, Resurrection or True Resurrection typically refer to creature.
After looking at many spells, most wouldn't have an effect on dead creatures, nor would be healing since a creature that has died can't regain hit points until magic such as the revivify spell has restored it to life.
I can't also find any core rule that clearly establish that a corpse is no longer a creature. R&D might have intended that but never wrote it in any rules except the example provided in improvised weapons.
If corpse are still considered creature they would make permanent space denial since while Moving Around Other creatures, wether a friend or an enemy, you can't willingly end your move in its space. Mass combat battlefield would be unmanoeuverable.
I donèt know what else might be problematic.
Yep :) ... you just have to read the spells and what they target. True Resurrection can even target the "concept" or "memory" of a specific creature. It doesn't target a creature, object or point in space in that case. It is a specific beats general case where the targeting of the spell is unique.
That aspect of true resurrection doesn't need dead creatures to be creatures OR objects since it doesn't actually target anything physical. The spell text has it targeting the metaphysical concept of the creature that it once was. Can that specific target of True Resurrection be twinned? Could you bring back two creatures with a single casting? Depends on whether the DM rules that a memory of a creature constitutes it being a creature :)
This analogy doesn't quite hold up.
You don't really need any sort of grammatical acrobatics for this. The simple SPECIFIC > GENERAL could apply.
I think dead creatures are considered objects generally. (Maybe. I'm actually not quite sure on that.) The spell itself specifies an exception, making it a specific special case.
That said, I would totally let them twin True Resurrection. Because . . . Why not? Sounds fun.
Yeah, despite my YES to twinning this, I would not let them twin it without both bodies, I think. Well I say that now. If it's a cool fun situation that comes up . . . maybe?
Well that's the interesting question really. Because, depending on the setting of course, the cosmology lore seems to suggest they still exist as a creature. Thier soul is very much a real thing. So the creature exists it is just a dead creature, and doesn't have a physical form on the material plane.
If you go back far enough the planes themself aren't even physical places. They're realms of concept and ideas. And that's why powerful magics are required to "go" there. You have to translate a physical creature into a conceptual creature to switch planes to a conceptual realm of idea, morality, spirituality. There are often a lot of simplified narrative devices used to explain this easier, to simplify it all down so it is easier for a purely physical mind (us in irl) can even wrap our heads around without a headache.
I'm rambling. Point being, a creature continues to exist beyond its death. Its body is an object now, but the creature still exists too. It just exist outside the material plane, and not in a living way.
I think that's the truest answer. But, I'm left speculating because 5e doesn't seem to nail down these things as well as prior editions did.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
In my opinion, a creature is both the body and the soul (the whole mind-body-spirit thing). In this game, when the body and soul are separated, they are still linked somehow since it's pretty much always possible to reunite them.
The corpse of the creature is the creature's physical form, so targeting that corpse means targeting a creature. The corpse is both a creature and an object.
We know that the game considers an object to be "a discrete, inanimate item".
However, we also know that there is some precedent (the petrified Condition, for example) -- just because a creature becomes inanimate does not automatically make it not a creature.
The spells which refer to targeting a "dead creature" are targeting a creature. "Dead" is the adjective which describes which sort of creature is required for the targeting of the spell. For example, some spells might require targeting a "humanoid creature", which targets a creature, but it has to be a particular type of creature. In this case, the spell is restricted to targeting dead creatures.
In contrast, consider a spell such as Speak with Dead. In that case, the spell explicitly targets "a corpse". The word "corpse" is used throughout the spell description. In this case, the spell is targeting an object. But, it's important to note that there is one line within that spell description which reads: "This spell doesn’t return the creature’s soul to its body". So, there is an acknowledgement that you are interacting with the body of a creature. But in this context, the body is treated as an object (since it counts as both) for the purposes of the targeting of this spell.
I think you are all overthinking this and the devs answers above make no sense.
If the argument is that my dead adventurer is no longer a creature and is now just an object because a dead body (my poor adventurer who is now dead) is now just a corpse which is an object then the True Resurrection spell is worthless because twinned or not it can't resurrect my poor dead adventurer.
Why?
Because he's not a dead creature he's an object and the spell says touch a creature not an object or even corpse.
So a creature that is now dead is still a creature as far as the spell is concerned or True Resurrection can't do anything.
So yeah it can be twinned because there is nothing in the Rule that says it can't.
But you have to touch both at the moment you cast the spell.
My ruling is that corpses are objects, not creatures.
Spells like true resurrection actually target "an object that used to be a creature" or "the memory of a creture" or "the concept of a creature". That wording is awkward, so the authors used the phrase "creature that has been dead for no longer than…" instead.
As for twinning true resurrection, I'm a bit dubious about resurrecting two people for 25,000 GP instead of 50,000 GP.
Some interesting problems could crop up with trying to True Resurrection two creatures at once.
Do the souls automatically know which new body is theirs?
Do the souls want to be in their correct bodies? One could have a reason to inhabit a different body. Like hide from the law.
So much fun for a DM who thinks he needs a good reason for a good plot hook.
Not quite.
Objects can be a valid target for spells.
The resurrection spells target a "dead creature". There is nothing in the rules that requires a "dead creature" to still be a creature for the spell to work. The spell could just as easily target a particular type of object called a "dead creature". A "dead creature" is something that used to be a creature but isn't a creature anymore (assuming a creature is something that is animated, perhaps body+soul, rather than inanimate).
Think about it ... is a "dead squirrel" still a squirrel? No, it used to be a squirrel, now it is the dead body of a squirrel. Is a dead moose still a moose? No, it is an inanimate object that is the body of a moose but it is no longer a moose. There is nothing in the rules that requires a "dead creature" to be a creature.
I would also note that the word "dead" when used as a descriptor generally results in the creature being referred to, no longer being considered an example of that creature/species. A fast squirrel, a happy squirrel, a tired squirrel are all squirrels ... a dead squirrel on the other hand is actually no longer a squirrel, it is a body that used to be a squirrel. So, I also think taking the word dead to describe a creature and then stating that it remains a creature kind of goes against the common usage and understanding of the word dead when applied as a descriptor ... though I am sure folks will disagree with that view :)
Newly-dead corpses are interesting because they contain descriptive elements of both objects and creatures. By the strictest reading, you could consider a corpse an object, but doing so would effectively invalidate all resurrection spells. For my part, I would say you could twin true resurrection...at least until the new PHB comes out.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
This is not actually a requirement for twinning a spell with Touch range, which is fortunate because most creatures would run out of free hands to do this. You must touch the creature, but you also must have a free hand to hold the expensive material component.
But the targeting of the twinned spell occurs consecutively, not simultaneously:
So, when you cast a spell that targets one creature, you can do something specific to target a second creature. I think that if this feature had used "while" instead of "when" by saying something like "While you are casting a spell that targets only one creature . . ." then the targeting would clearly be occurring simultaneously. As written, I believe that the targeting is happening consecutively, but it's close enough where this is probably debatable.
to target a second creature in range with the same spell
The spell range is touch so the twinning has to be in the same range... touch
Spell component is separate from, and precedes spell’s effect. Therefore if there's any free hand requirement for somatic and or material component during spellcasting, it's before spell's effect occur.
When a spell's effect touch one or more creature as part of it's effect, they must be all be within range of touch especially during instantaneous duration.
Last but not least, range of touch doesn't necessarily have to be done with a hand free.
Ok, so suppose a cleric is holding a mace in one hand and has one free hand. You are saying that the cleric will hold the diamonds in that other hand when casting the spell. Then, after the spell has been cast and that hand becomes free again, the cleric can then use that hand to touch the dead creature? That's not how I would have pictured it, but that does seem like a reasonable ruling.
Given this ruling, if the cleric is holding that mace while casting and also twinning the spell, is this cleric able to use that free hand to touch one dead creature and then another dead creature when twinning the spell, or do you believe that the cleric must touch both dead creatures simultaneously when twinning the spell?
I believe if you cast true resurrection on more than one creature within range of touch it affect them at the same instant, wether simultaneously or consequtively is up to DM.
This is a spell that has a casting time of 1 hour. Why would they be holding a mace?