As for Touch range and the no body clause. I always figured you had to touch the new body the spell provided to have it all work right.
Like, you speak the name while casting. New body is made. You touch it like you would any other already-dead body you wanted to true resurrection.
I don't see it that way since the new body could appear 10 feet away which could be outside of the range for the spell. Instead, this seems to just happen simultaneously to the actual resurrection.
To me, a common scenario might be that the body was cremated, and the ashes exist in a decent-sized urn that is located in a square that's 5 feet away from you. The new body cannot really appear in that same square since that square is occupied. So, you have options for where the new body will appear after the creature's name is spoken -- who knows why 10 feet was chosen for this.
EDIT: I can sort of see where you're coming from though. Like, if you cannot begin the spellcasting by touching the creature because it has no body, then the spell can provide one as a preparatory step for the spellcasting. That's sort of interesting. And if you decide to choose a square that's 10 feet away but you do not actually have enough reach to be able to touch that body then the spell just fails -- so you might as well just choose a square for the new body that's 5 feet away instead, unless you actually do have enough reach to touch a body that's 10 feet away (and in this case, that body would be within the range of Touch). That's interesting, I could see it both ways now.
May be their RAW take is that fire bolt is not a spell that targets only one creature, but a creature or object.
Perhaps its due to the way Twinned Spell is worded, not refering to the spellcaster's choice of target during casting, but the spell target description.
I don't think it breaks anythink to allow it though.
May be their RAW take is that fire bolt is not a spell that targets only one creature, but a creature or object.
Perhaps its due to the way Twinned Spell is worded, not refering to the spellcaster's choice of target during casting, but the spell target description.
I don't think it breaks anythink to allow it though.
That comes down to how you interpret the wording.
Only one creature = When you cast the spell, the only possible target is a single creature.
Only one creature = When you cast the spell and target a creature, it cannot target other creatures.
I think the consensus has fallen upon interpretation #1, but improved wording would be nice in the upcoming material. Or maybe there's additional clarification on that somewhere?
IMHO, RAW, fire bolt can be Twinned. RAI (answer from the SAC) it cannot.
Choose your own adventure!
This tweet from the Dev is also interesting, because he didn't say "no" to the person who asked :-? (link to sageadvice.eu)
@Phoenix_Rion How/when would Elemenal Affinity bonus apply in these 3 cases: 1. Melfs Min Meteors 2.Scorching Ray 3.Twinned FireBolt? @JeremyECrawfordElemental Affinity benefits one damage roll of a spell. (1. One meteor. 2. One ray. 3. One fire bolt.)
Nothing about twinning states it will provide a second body. You could argue that both targeted creatures (dead or alive) would occupy the same if the spell worked.
Imo: A dead creature does not stop being a creature. This is why you can't resurrect spoons.
Also, you can use true resurrection on the target of a disintegrate spell where there is no body.
For fairness, I'd like to add that not everybody agrees a dead creature is no longer a creature, based on the rules.
Object
An object is a nonliving, distinct thing. Composite things, like buildings, comprise more than one object. See also “Breaking Objects.”
Creature
Any being in the game, including a player’s character, is a creature. See also “Creature Type.”
Dead
A dead creature has no Hit Points and can’t regain them unless it is first revived by magic such as the Raise Dead or Revivify spell. When such a spell is cast, the spirit knows who is casting it and can refuse. The spirit of a dead creature has left the body and departed for the Outer Planes, and reviving the creature requires calling the spirit back. [...]
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
The main flaw with your "argument" is that it's using non-diegetic rules language intermeshed with diegetic language.
The rules make distinctions between game entity types that have specific references; Creature, Object, Magical Effect, Surface etc. These are non-natural language terms that have specific relevance when talking about a game that has rules. This does lead to some quirkiness when viewed exclusively through the reductive lense of just natural language. But that's also the wrong lense through which to view the rules, so doing so is either a display of ignorance or bad faith. I'll assume the former.
But even in natural language terms, a "horse" and a "dead horse" aren't the same thing, so pointing to a dead horse and saying "that's a horse" would be wrong. In normal speech you would say "that was a horse, but now it's dead". So on it's face this argument is absurd and flawed.
The game does, due to being a game, distinguish between little-c creature as in the natural language usage, and big-C Creature as in something that the game rules see as a Creature, has hit points, has a Creature type ect. Same with little-o object and big-O Object. If a character says "I object!" that's the little-o usage of the word, but if a spell says "choose a creature or object within range", that's the big-O, comes with rules baggage and specific meaning usage of the word.
Just like playing the game, if we're gonna discuss the rules we need to have good faith discussions and not resort to fallacies and disingenuous absurdisms
So, by your own logic, Revivify does absolutely nothing. "You touch a creature..." (big-C), not a "dead creature" (big-O according to your logic). Same exact wording as Lesser Restoration.
Creature and Objects are implicitly mutually exclusive game entity types, nothing in the game is or can be both at the same time
The rules explicitly say non-living things are Objects
Ergo a [dead creature] is an Object, hence not a Creature.
I'm going to be going off of the 2014 rules, as that is what I have full access to.
To your first point, "We know that Creatures have hit points and [dead creatures] don't have hit points, and a non-living thing is an Object", this isn't entirely true. Dead creatures don't have hit points, but a lack of hit points wouldn't make it an Object explicitly, as Objects do have hit points. The DMG gives examples for Object AC's and HP. Interestingly, we can see in the table in the DMG where it gives examples for the AC of objects includes "bone" with an AC of 15. If bone has a listed suggested AC, it must also have Hit Points (as what would be the point of being able to hit the bone with an attack if you couldn't damage it?). So because a [dead creature] explicitly has no hit points, it can't purely be an object, because objects do have hit points.
To your second point, that "The rules explicitly say non-living things are Objects. Ergo a [dead creature] is an Object, hence not a Creature," this is also not entirely true. There are many examples of non-living things that fall under the Creature category, such as Constructs (Animated Armor for instance) and Undead (zombies, ghosts, etc). They are animated or puppeted by magic or the vengeful soul of a once-living creature, but they are assuredly not "living". And the definition for Creature being "Any being in the game, including a player’s character, is a creature." does not state that the "being" must be living. As far as I can see, there is no definition of "being" in D&D, and we can already see that non-living Creatures are "beings" (Animated Armor, Ghost, etc), so "being" cannot have the requirement of "living".
The main flaw with your "argument" is that it's using non-diegetic rules language intermeshed with diegetic language.
The rules make distinctions between game entity types that have specific references; Creature, Object, Magical Effect, Surface etc. These are non-natural language terms that have specific relevance when talking about a game that has rules. This does lead to some quirkiness when viewed exclusively through the reductive lense of just natural language. But that's also the wrong lense through which to view the rules, so doing so is either a display of ignorance or bad faith. I'll assume the former.
But even in natural language terms, a "horse" and a "dead horse" aren't the same thing, so pointing to a dead horse and saying "that's a horse" would be wrong. In normal speech you would say "that was a horse, but now it's dead". So on it's face this argument is absurd and flawed.
The game does, due to being a game, distinguish between little-c creature as in the natural language usage, and big-C Creature as in something that the game rules see as a Creature, has hit points, has a Creature type ect. Same with little-o object and big-O Object. If a character says "I object!" that's the little-o usage of the word, but if a spell says "choose a creature or object within range", that's the big-O, comes with rules baggage and specific meaning usage of the word.
Just like playing the game, if we're gonna discuss the rules we need to have good faith discussions and not resort to fallacies and disingenuous absurdisms
So, by your own logic, Revivify does absolutely nothing. "You touch a creature..." (big-C), not a "dead creature" (big-O according to your logic). Same exact wording as Lesser Restoration.
So Revivify only revives living creatures.
Except that Revivify does actually say "dead creature" by saying "a creature that has died within the last minute."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"grandpa" Salkur, Gnome Arti/Sorc: Forged in Chaos | Pepin, Human Arti/Cleric: Goblin horde | Mixtli, Volc Genasi Arti: Champions of the Citadel | Erix Vadalitis, Human Druid: Rising from the last war |Smithy, Human Arti: Night Ravens: Black orchids for Biscotti | Tamphalic Aliprax, Dragonborn Wizard: Chronicles of the Accursed | Doc, Dwarven Cleric (2024): Adventure at Hope's End | Abathax, Tiefling Illriger: Hunt for the Balowang | Gorin Mestel, Human Arti: Descend into Avernus
A [dead creature] does stop being a Creature (Big C) and becomes an Object (Big O)
You can't resurrect a spoon because a spoon isn't a [dead creature]
That's a flawed argument. A [dead creature] is not a defined game concept, [dead] and [creature] are and they each have their specified meaning. And yes, I realise that that is somewhat of a problem for for the "bring back from the dead" spells, they really should have specified a "corpse" as a target for those rather than some combination of "dead" and "creature" as they did.
Also, stop using capitalisation like it's a win for your argument. A "creature" is a "creature" and the rules use capital "Creature" at the start of a sentence, lower case "creature" in running text and big font "Creature"if it is a headline. Neither usage supports your argument, it's just standard grammatical usage.
Nothing in the rules suggests anything can be both (or can be multiple game entity types)
All rules language treats them as mutually exclusive. e.g spells say they can target a creature or object, not a creature and/or object
Given that implicitly allowing something in the game to be both Creature and Object causes more rules conflicts than implicitly disallowing (which causes none), an approximation of Occam's Razor would support disallowing as it relies on the fewest assumptions. To refute that, you'd need an explicit statement that something can be both Creature and Object or an example of it.
In the end I agree with you that creature and object are separate concepts and one shouldn't be allowed to both at the same time. I probably even agree that someone that has died should no longer be a creature even though I'm not sure the rules actually reflects that and that I think it creates some big issues with the rules as they are currently written (especially for "bring back to life" spells).
One thing I'm not sure has been mentioned is that in the 2024 rules the answer to the OP is a categorical "No" due to the changes in the "Twinned Spell" feature.
Creature and Objects are implicitly mutually exclusive game entity types, nothing in the game is or can be both at the same time
The rules explicitly say non-living things are Objects
Ergo a [dead creature] is an Object, hence not a Creature.
Where in the rules does it say that creatures and objects are mutually exclusive?
As I said
implicitly mutually exclusive game entity types
Nothing in the game is stated to be both
Nothing in the rules suggests anything can be both (or can be multiple game entity types)
All rules language treats them as mutually exclusive. e.g spells say they can target a creature or object, not a creature and/or object
That's a mutual exclusion of targeting. If you can target one thing, it can be a creature or an object. Inserting "and" in there would only create confusion.
Additionally, the English usage of "or" isn't cleanly exclusive. It's context-dependent. Saying, say "target four creatures or objects" allows for any combination of creatures and objects.
We know that Creatures have hit points and [dead creatures] don't have hit points, and a non-living thing is an Object
Given that implicitly allowing something in the game to be both Creature and Object causes more rules conflicts than implicitly disallowing (which causes none), an approximation of Occam's Razor would support disallowing as it relies on the fewest assumptions. To refute that, you'd need an explicit statement that something can be both Creature and Object or an example of it.
First of all, we're forced to use 2014 definitions for this question, since the 2024 answer to the question is an easy "no", because they fixed Twinned Spell. And the 2014 definitions are... not great. (Indeed, the "dead creature is an object" is only stated in an example of the improvised weapon rules.)
That said, what rules conflicts are created if something is both a creature and an object?
The real answer is that, in the context of raise dead spells, dead creatures are creatures. It calls them creatures, therefore they are creatures, therefore you can twin them under 2014 rules.
In the context of improvised weapons, in the 2014 rules, dead creatures are objects.
In most other contexts, it's ill-defined, and you should ask your DM if it actually matters.
So Davyd, your argument of "anything with 0 HP is an object" means that all healing magic (Cure Wounds, Healing Word, and even Lay on Hands) don't work on a creature, sorry object, making death saving throws. Once you drop to 0 HP you begin to make death saving throws and are unconscious; by your logic, you are now an object, and every bit of healing magic in the game only targets creatures.
-OR-
We can concede that creatures make this tricky and that maybe a dead creature is somewhere between a creature and an object or counts as both.
I don't know if not adding "dead creature" to the list is intended, but adding it would make this discussion dead.
What Is an Object?
For the purpose of the rules, an object is a discrete, inanimate item like a window, door, sword, book, table, chair, or stone. It isn’t a building or a vehicle, which are composed of many objects.
If an object is discrete, inanimate objects and NOT one made of many objects, and the DMG lists "bone" as an object (with an example AC), then wouldn't a dead creature be composed of many objects, thus not being an object?
If an object is discrete, inanimate objects and NOT one made of many objects, and the DMG lists "bone" as an object (with an example AC), then wouldn't a dead creature be composed of many objects, thus not being an object?
I guess so.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I could nitpick this, but it's enough of an edge case that what you say applies in basically every situation, so yeah.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I don't see it that way since the new body could appear 10 feet away which could be outside of the range for the spell. Instead, this seems to just happen simultaneously to the actual resurrection.
To me, a common scenario might be that the body was cremated, and the ashes exist in a decent-sized urn that is located in a square that's 5 feet away from you. The new body cannot really appear in that same square since that square is occupied. So, you have options for where the new body will appear after the creature's name is spoken -- who knows why 10 feet was chosen for this.
EDIT: I can sort of see where you're coming from though. Like, if you cannot begin the spellcasting by touching the creature because it has no body, then the spell can provide one as a preparatory step for the spellcasting. That's sort of interesting. And if you decide to choose a square that's 10 feet away but you do not actually have enough reach to be able to touch that body then the spell just fails -- so you might as well just choose a square for the new body that's 5 feet away instead, unless you actually do have enough reach to touch a body that's 10 feet away (and in this case, that body would be within the range of Touch). That's interesting, I could see it both ways now.
May be their RAW take is that fire bolt is not a spell that targets only one creature, but a creature or object.
Perhaps its due to the way Twinned Spell is worded, not refering to the spellcaster's choice of target during casting, but the spell target description.
I don't think it breaks anythink to allow it though.
That comes down to how you interpret the wording.
I think the consensus has fallen upon interpretation #1, but improved wording would be nice in the upcoming material. Or maybe there's additional clarification on that somewhere?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
IMHO, RAW, fire bolt can be Twinned. RAI (answer from the SAC) it cannot.
Choose your own adventure!
This tweet from the Dev is also interesting, because he didn't say "no" to the person who asked :-? (link to sageadvice.eu)
I just want to put it out there:
Nothing about twinning states it will provide a second body. You could argue that both targeted creatures (dead or alive) would occupy the same if the spell worked.
Imo: A dead creature does not stop being a creature. This is why you can't resurrect spoons.
Also, you can use true resurrection on the target of a disintegrate spell where there is no body.
For fairness, I'd like to add that not everybody agrees a dead creature is no longer a creature, based on the rules.
Related thread: Question about Scrying on a dead person
Where in the rules does it say that a dead creature stops being a Creature?
pronouns: he/she/they
Where in the rules does it say that creatures and objects are mutually exclusive?
pronouns: he/she/they
Some guy: Is that your horse?
Some other guy: That's not a horse.
Some guy: Excuse me? That's clearly a horse. Look, it has the hooves and the mane and the tail and everything. It's a horse.
Some other guy: Nah. Nopes. Not a horse.
Some guy: Ok. Explain to me, then, what this horse-shaped thing that we're looking at, is.
Some other guy: It's a dead horse.
Some guy: I beg your pardon?
Some other guy: It's a dead horse. Not a horse at all.
Some guy: You're mad!
Some other guy: I'm rational. When that object died, it stopped being what it had previously been, and instead became an object.
Some guy: Ok, by that logic, if your mother had died, she'd become an object. We don't bury objects. When they break, we throw them on the dump.
Some other guy: Don't you bring my mother into this.
Some guy: So your mother is not an object, I take it?
Some other guy: Well ..... she has sentimental value.
Some guy: You realise the spell is named wrong, right? Ressurrection. Right? You can only ressurrect creatures. Not objects.
Some other guy: Ressurrection turns objects back into creatures.
Some guy: No ... it doesn't. It can only target creatures. By your logic, it cannot be cast at all.
Some other guy: Hm. We should test. I'll cast ressurrect on my dead horse.
Some guy: Your dead object.
Some other guy: Yes, that.
*Spell casting*
*Whinney*
Both: Ah. I was right.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
So, by your own logic, Revivify does absolutely nothing. "You touch a creature..." (big-C), not a "dead creature" (big-O according to your logic). Same exact wording as Lesser Restoration.
So Revivify only revives living creatures.
I'm going to be going off of the 2014 rules, as that is what I have full access to.
To your first point, "We know that Creatures have hit points and [dead creatures] don't have hit points, and a non-living thing is an Object", this isn't entirely true. Dead creatures don't have hit points, but a lack of hit points wouldn't make it an Object explicitly, as Objects do have hit points. The DMG gives examples for Object AC's and HP. Interestingly, we can see in the table in the DMG where it gives examples for the AC of objects includes "bone" with an AC of 15. If bone has a listed suggested AC, it must also have Hit Points (as what would be the point of being able to hit the bone with an attack if you couldn't damage it?). So because a [dead creature] explicitly has no hit points, it can't purely be an object, because objects do have hit points.
To your second point, that "The rules explicitly say non-living things are Objects. Ergo a [dead creature] is an Object, hence not a Creature," this is also not entirely true. There are many examples of non-living things that fall under the Creature category, such as Constructs (Animated Armor for instance) and Undead (zombies, ghosts, etc). They are animated or puppeted by magic or the vengeful soul of a once-living creature, but they are assuredly not "living". And the definition for Creature being "Any being in the game, including a player’s character, is a creature." does not state that the "being" must be living. As far as I can see, there is no definition of "being" in D&D, and we can already see that non-living Creatures are "beings" (Animated Armor, Ghost, etc), so "being" cannot have the requirement of "living".
Except that Revivify does actually say "dead creature" by saying "a creature that has died within the last minute."
"grandpa" Salkur, Gnome Arti/Sorc: Forged in Chaos | Pepin, Human Arti/Cleric: Goblin horde | Mixtli, Volc Genasi Arti: Champions of the Citadel | Erix Vadalitis, Human Druid: Rising from the last war | Smithy, Human Arti: Night Ravens: Black orchids for Biscotti | Tamphalic Aliprax, Dragonborn Wizard: Chronicles of the Accursed | Doc, Dwarven Cleric (2024): Adventure at Hope's End | Abathax, Tiefling Illriger: Hunt for the Balowang | Gorin Mestel, Human Arti: Descend into Avernus
That's a flawed argument. A [dead creature] is not a defined game concept, [dead] and [creature] are and they each have their specified meaning.
And yes, I realise that that is somewhat of a problem for for the "bring back from the dead" spells, they really should have specified a "corpse" as a target for those rather than some combination of "dead" and "creature" as they did.
Also, stop using capitalisation like it's a win for your argument. A "creature" is a "creature" and the rules use capital "Creature" at the start of a sentence, lower case "creature" in running text and big font "Creature" if it is a headline. Neither usage supports your argument, it's just standard grammatical usage.
Creatures can have 0 hit points and still be living, are you saying that is conceptually different to not having hit points?
In the end I agree with you that creature and object are separate concepts and one shouldn't be allowed to both at the same time. I probably even agree that someone that has died should no longer be a creature even though I'm not sure the rules actually reflects that and that I think it creates some big issues with the rules as they are currently written (especially for "bring back to life" spells).
One thing I'm not sure has been mentioned is that in the 2024 rules the answer to the OP is a categorical "No" due to the changes in the "Twinned Spell" feature.
That's a mutual exclusion of targeting. If you can target one thing, it can be a creature or an object. Inserting "and" in there would only create confusion.
Additionally, the English usage of "or" isn't cleanly exclusive. It's context-dependent. Saying, say "target four creatures or objects" allows for any combination of creatures and objects.
First of all, we're forced to use 2014 definitions for this question, since the 2024 answer to the question is an easy "no", because they fixed Twinned Spell. And the 2014 definitions are... not great. (Indeed, the "dead creature is an object" is only stated in an example of the improvised weapon rules.)
That said, what rules conflicts are created if something is both a creature and an object?
The real answer is that, in the context of raise dead spells, dead creatures are creatures. It calls them creatures, therefore they are creatures, therefore you can twin them under 2014 rules.
In the context of improvised weapons, in the 2014 rules, dead creatures are objects.
In most other contexts, it's ill-defined, and you should ask your DM if it actually matters.
So Davyd, your argument of "anything with 0 HP is an object" means that all healing magic (Cure Wounds, Healing Word, and even Lay on Hands) don't work on a creature, sorry object, making death saving throws. Once you drop to 0 HP you begin to make death saving throws and are unconscious; by your logic, you are now an object, and every bit of healing magic in the game only targets creatures.
-OR-
We can concede that creatures make this tricky and that maybe a dead creature is somewhere between a creature and an object or counts as both.
I don't know if not adding "dead creature" to the list is intended, but adding it would make this discussion dead.
If an object is discrete, inanimate objects and NOT one made of many objects, and the DMG lists "bone" as an object (with an example AC), then wouldn't a dead creature be composed of many objects, thus not being an object?
I guess so.