If a creature get's body thieft by an intellect devourer, it does not outright die. The creature dies if the intellect devourer leaves the body.
If a character has death ward cast upon them while the intellect devourer is puppeting the character and is then forced out or leaves willingly, the body dies.
Does deathward then protect the creature form dying? and if so does the character then live on without a brain? does it's stat become 0? and if so can you restore them with a greater restoration spell?
We’ll see how the new intellect devourer’s text looks next year. Until then, based on how Death Ward is worded, I’d say when the intellect devourer tries to leave (or if something would force it to leave), that attempt is negated; the intellect devourer stays in the host and the spell ends.
The creature only dies a turn later, meaning that leaving doesn't kill the target instantly and therefor I would not be sure if death ward would activat
The creature only dies a turn later, meaning that leaving doesn't kill the target instantly and therefor I would not be sure if death ward would activat
If you rule that the effect doesn't kill the target instantly, then Death Ward doesn't do anything at all, since its protection only applies against instant effects.
I understand what you are saying, but the way I am reading it RAW makes it sound to me like the effect is instant even if it says it takes a turn. cause the creature is still alive while the intellect devourer leaves. Even if they have no brain.
I do understand why you would interpete it differently since the wording is already very ambiguous.
Wait. Are people actually making the argument that having your brain eaten doesn't kill you? The intellect devourer is a different creature. It takes over the body, so the body isn't dead, but that doesn't mean the creature isn't. That's such an obtuse ruling.
Death Ward should prevent the Devourer from jumping in.
Wait. Are people actually making the argument that having your brain eaten doesn't kill you? The intellect devourer is a different creature. It takes over the body, so the body isn't dead, but that doesn't mean the creature isn't. That's such an obtuse ruling.
This is incorrect, and obviously so from the text of the monster's Body Thief feature. The intellect devourer is indeed a different creature, and it remains so while in control of the host, which is why "[w]hile inside a creature, the intellect devourer has total cover against attacks and other effects originating outside its host." The host body not being dead absolutely means that the creature the body belongs to isn't dead.
You can ignore the text at your table if you want, but it's extremely silly to claim that simply following the rules is obtuse.
I think the real problem here that everyone - including the rules - try to pretend the victim of the Intellect Devourer is still alive. Obviously, it's not. The victim dies instantly from lack of a brain. That's not a survivable condition. Brain gone: Victim dead. The body may well lumber on, on life support as long as the Intellect Devourer finds it amusing.
But the victim is long dead. It doesn't happen when the Intellect Devourer leaves, but when the brain does.
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.
I think there is a mistake being made in here, the host body is not a separate creature from the intellect devourer but it remains as a separate stat block similar to wildshape or polymorph. Thus you can't directly target the HP/statblock of the Intellect Devourer just like in 2014, you don't directly target the HP of the druid but rather the HP for their assumed form. The host body is "alive" since the Intellect Devourer is fulfilling the function of keeping it "alive", in that it is still breathing, eating, drinking, etc, but the brain is physically replaced by the Intellect Devourer and the body becomes a puppet (an object). As such the Intellect Devourer is both the Intellect Devourer and the body is inhibits, this is why something on the level of a wish spell is required to recover from this situation.
Once the intellect devourer leaves, the body is no longer a creature, it's an object and death ward no longer is applicable since we are dealing with an object, it is only a creature while the Intellect Devourer remains inside of it, else wise it is a puppet with no puppet master and no longer functions as a creature. The only exception is if the brain is restored in any method, thus the body returns to being a creature and not merely a puppet that was still "alive" as an assumed form of the Intellect Devourer.
When it jumps into the body and replaces the brain, it is controlling the Host.
When it is forced out, the Body dies.
If the brain is restored, does the body become the original creature or is it comatose? Does it need additional spells to restore the original creature?
It seems that the Intellect Devourer scenario is trying to be a psychic zombie. You can't create the zombie until the creature is dead. You can't return to life until you deal with the zombie.
However, being a parasite, the Intellect Devourer needs a body with functional biological systems. I doubt WotC will, but the Intellect Devourer should be considered to have killed the victim (instantly) and created a living zombie, whether or not it is classified as undead or not - I think there is a plant zombie that is classified as a plant.
then is the creature infested with a iD really brain dead?
Yes. It is. If someone has their head removed - then another head quickly stuck on in stead - that original person remains entirely and completely dead. The same actually goes for the person whose head was stuck on instead, so the metaphor only goes so far.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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 host body not being dead absolutely means that the creature the body belongs to isn't dead.
Then why is a distinction made between the creature and its body at all?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The host body not being dead absolutely means that the creature the body belongs to isn't dead.
Then why is a distinction made between the creature and its body at all?
No such distinction is made. The text speaks of the target and the target's body interchangeably. It says "The intellect devourer is also forced out if the target regains its devoured brain" and then two sentences later says "The body then dies, unless its brain is restored within 1 round."
I think the game "implication" is that a creature whose brain has been consumed is not yet "dead" in game terms - though the decision could go either way.
The text of body thief mentions that the creature can be restored by means of a Wish spell which will force the ID out and restore the brain. The text does NOT mention spells like True Resurrection that also have the ability to replace any missing organs or create an entire body if none is available. If True Resurrection isn't also an option in addition to Wish then in game terms the creature isn't actually dead yet.
The Body Thief text also mentions that the ID has all the knowledge and capabilities of the creature whose brain they have replaced. The ID didn't just eat the brain - it functionally replaces it providing all of the same capabilities and knowledge that were available to the original brain. The only difference is that the ID is then in charge making the decisions rather than the original "occupant".
So, because Resurrection is not called out as a possible fix to the situation, and because the ID has all the knowledge and capability of the creature whose brain it replaced .. it could be interpreted as a form of domination of the original creature where their will is completely destroyed along with the brain and while not actually killing the original creature. Death of the original creature only happens AFTER the ID leaves, removing the substitute brain with it. One round after the ID leaves, the creature dies and presumably its soul is then available for resurrection. This would imply that the soul of the original creature remains with the body until all hope of being restored in its original form is gone.
5e defines death as:
"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."
From a physical perspective, a creature affected by an ID is not technically dead - it still has hit points - it is explicitly still a separate creature from the ID - the ID has just taken over providing some essential services and control of all decision making. Healing spells cast on the host do not affect the ID.
---
Anyway, although the creature affected by an ID might have little hope of restoration - it would appear that the D&D rules for Body Thief do not consider the host to have died when the ID takes over since it still has hit points, it can still be healed independent of the ID, although the ID is in charge - it retains all the knowledge and capabilities of its host, and Resurrection is not listed as a possible way to restore the creature indicating that the soul of the creature has not moved on since the body remains alive.
DMs can choose to play and run it however they like but it seems to me that a creature infested by an ID is not dead until the ID leaves and the brain is not restored - until that happens the ID has replaced the brain of the host but although it has no self will left, it is still nominally alive in D&D terms.
then is the creature infested with a iD really brain dead?
Yes. It is. If someone has their head removed - then another head quickly stuck on in stead - that original person remains entirely and completely dead. The same actually goes for the person whose head was stuck on instead, so the metaphor only goes so far.
If someone has their heart removed, and then over a period of hours another heart is installed and started up, is that person dead? Were they dead and now alive? (Keep in mind that heart transplants and bypass surgeries are extremely common and involve opening gaping holes in the chest and stopping the heart for extended periods of time. Are these folks dead?
D&D is magic. An ID instantly replaces the brain of another creature but retains everything that creature knew and could do. Is the creature whose brain was replaced dead or alive?
If a "brain transplant" was possible - do either or both of the creatures involved in swapping brains die in the process?
If it was possible to copy the mind of a person to hardware and then replace their brain with a cybernetic structure in order to "cure" dementia for that individual by providing a new "brain" not susceptible to biological decay - is that person "dead"? Or are they "dead" when the cybernetic brain is turned off?
There are lots of philosophical and ethical issues in those examples but even in our world the definition of what "dead" means can be difficult to decide. In a world of magic like D&D it is even more difficult :)
The host body not being dead absolutely means that the creature the body belongs to isn't dead.
Then why is a distinction made between the creature and its body at all?
No such distinction is made. The text speaks of the target and the target's body interchangeably. It says "The intellect devourer is also forced out if the target regains its devoured brain" and then two sentences later says "The body then dies, unless its brain is restored within 1 round."
Maybe don't skip over the sentence where the distinction is initially made... ?
If it wins the contest, the intellect devourer magically consumes the target’s brain, teleports into the target’s skull, and takes control of the target’s body.
Why not just "take control of the target"? Because at this point, "the target's body" is no longer "the target". They are viewed as different things mechanically
If the host body dies, the intellect devourer must leave it. A protection from evil and good spell cast on the body drives the intellect devourer out.
Distinct from "the target"
The intellect devourer is also forced out if the target regains its devoured brain by means of a wish.
Distinct from "the target's body"
By spending 5 feet of its movement, the intellect devourer can voluntarily leave the body, teleporting to the nearest unoccupied space within 5 feet of it. The body then dies, unless its brain is restored within 1 round.
Distinct from "the target"
Once the brain is gone, "the target" ceases to exist, short of a wish spell. The fact that a wish is required at all, and not simply a "lesser" healing spell like, I dunno, regenerate, is a pretty big clue the target is not just dead, but D-E-A-D
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The host body not being dead absolutely means that the creature the body belongs to isn't dead.
Then why is a distinction made between the creature and its body at all?
No such distinction is made. The text speaks of the target and the target's body interchangeably. It says "The intellect devourer is also forced out if the target regains its devoured brain" and then two sentences later says "The body then dies, unless its brain is restored within 1 round."
Maybe don't skip over the sentence where the distinction is initially made... ?
If it wins the contest, the intellect devourer magically consumes the target’s brain, teleports into the target’s skull, and takes control of the target’s body.
Why not just "take control of the target"? Because at this point, "the target's body" is no longer "the target". They are viewed as different things mechanically
If the host body dies, the intellect devourer must leave it. A protection from evil and good spell cast on the body drives the intellect devourer out.
Distinct from "the target"
The intellect devourer is also forced out if the target regains its devoured brain by means of a wish.
Distinct from "the target's body"
By spending 5 feet of its movement, the intellect devourer can voluntarily leave the body, teleporting to the nearest unoccupied space within 5 feet of it. The body then dies, unless its brain is restored within 1 round.
Distinct from "the target"
At no point does any text you've quoted establish that the target and the target's body are mechanically distinct. And again, the text itself uses them both interchangeably, as I've already demonstrated. You're making a lot of assertions, but you don't have any text to back those assertions up. I do.
Once the brain is gone, "the target" ceases to exist, short of a wish spell. The fact that a wish is required at all, and not simply a "lesser" healing spell like, I dunno, regenerate, is a pretty big clue the target is not just dead, but D-E-A-D
The text does NOT mention spells like True Resurrection that also have the ability to replace any missing organs or create an entire body if none is available. If True Resurrection isn't also an option in addition to Wish then in game terms the creature isn't actually dead yet.
The fact that the stat block for ID doesn't list resurrection spells doesn't actually say anything one way or the other about whether the target is dead or not. You only list things that are exceptions or special-case uses, i.e. disintegrate
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If a creature get's body thieft by an intellect devourer, it does not outright die. The creature dies if the intellect devourer leaves the body.
If a character has death ward cast upon them while the intellect devourer is puppeting the character and is then forced out or leaves willingly, the body dies.
Does deathward then protect the creature form dying? and if so does the character then live on without a brain? does it's stat become 0? and if so can you restore them with a greater restoration spell?
We’ll see how the new intellect devourer’s text looks next year. Until then, based on how Death Ward is worded, I’d say when the intellect devourer tries to leave (or if something would force it to leave), that attempt is negated; the intellect devourer stays in the host and the spell ends.
The creature only dies a turn later, meaning that leaving doesn't kill the target instantly and therefor I would not be sure if death ward would activat
If you rule that the effect doesn't kill the target instantly, then Death Ward doesn't do anything at all, since its protection only applies against instant effects.
I understand what you are saying, but the way I am reading it RAW makes it sound to me like the effect is instant even if it says it takes a turn. cause the creature is still alive while the intellect devourer leaves. Even if they have no brain.
I do understand why you would interpete it differently since the wording is already very ambiguous.
Wait. Are people actually making the argument that having your brain eaten doesn't kill you? The intellect devourer is a different creature. It takes over the body, so the body isn't dead, but that doesn't mean the creature isn't. That's such an obtuse ruling.
Death Ward should prevent the Devourer from jumping in.
This is incorrect, and obviously so from the text of the monster's Body Thief feature. The intellect devourer is indeed a different creature, and it remains so while in control of the host, which is why "[w]hile inside a creature, the intellect devourer has total cover against attacks and other effects originating outside its host." The host body not being dead absolutely means that the creature the body belongs to isn't dead.
You can ignore the text at your table if you want, but it's extremely silly to claim that simply following the rules is obtuse.
I think the real problem here that everyone - including the rules - try to pretend the victim of the Intellect Devourer is still alive. Obviously, it's not. The victim dies instantly from lack of a brain. That's not a survivable condition. Brain gone: Victim dead. The body may well lumber on, on life support as long as the Intellect Devourer finds it amusing.
But the victim is long dead. It doesn't happen when the Intellect Devourer leaves, but when the brain does.
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 Intellect Devourer’s features doesn’t say it drops the creature to zero hit points so I wouldn’t think Death Ward would activate.
Obviously a creature dies if it loses its brain but it’s HP doesn’t become zero, it’s just instant death.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
For clerification, this I indeed started this thread because of the aurgument that not having a brain kills you.
This was a rules as written/rules as intended scenario.
I am also of the opinion that when the intellect devourer enters the skull the creature dies. But because of the ambiguous text it sparked a debate.
I think there is a mistake being made in here, the host body is not a separate creature from the intellect devourer but it remains as a separate stat block similar to wildshape or polymorph. Thus you can't directly target the HP/statblock of the Intellect Devourer just like in 2014, you don't directly target the HP of the druid but rather the HP for their assumed form. The host body is "alive" since the Intellect Devourer is fulfilling the function of keeping it "alive", in that it is still breathing, eating, drinking, etc, but the brain is physically replaced by the Intellect Devourer and the body becomes a puppet (an object). As such the Intellect Devourer is both the Intellect Devourer and the body is inhibits, this is why something on the level of a wish spell is required to recover from this situation.
Once the intellect devourer leaves, the body is no longer a creature, it's an object and death ward no longer is applicable since we are dealing with an object, it is only a creature while the Intellect Devourer remains inside of it, else wise it is a puppet with no puppet master and no longer functions as a creature. The only exception is if the brain is restored in any method, thus the body returns to being a creature and not merely a puppet that was still "alive" as an assumed form of the Intellect Devourer.
The Intellect Devourer is a mess.
Nowhere does it say that the victim dies, per se.
When it jumps into the body and replaces the brain, it is controlling the Host.
When it is forced out, the Body dies.
If the brain is restored, does the body become the original creature or is it comatose? Does it need additional spells to restore the original creature?
It seems that the Intellect Devourer scenario is trying to be a psychic zombie. You can't create the zombie until the creature is dead. You can't return to life until you deal with the zombie.
However, being a parasite, the Intellect Devourer needs a body with functional biological systems. I doubt WotC will, but the Intellect Devourer should be considered to have killed the victim (instantly) and created a living zombie, whether or not it is classified as undead or not - I think there is a plant zombie that is classified as a plant.
How to add Tooltips.
Yes. It is. If someone has their head removed - then another head quickly stuck on in stead - that original person remains entirely and completely dead. The same actually goes for the person whose head was stuck on instead, so the metaphor only goes so far.
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.
Then why is a distinction made between the creature and its body at all?
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
No such distinction is made. The text speaks of the target and the target's body interchangeably. It says "The intellect devourer is also forced out if the target regains its devoured brain" and then two sentences later says "The body then dies, unless its brain is restored within 1 round."
I think the game "implication" is that a creature whose brain has been consumed is not yet "dead" in game terms - though the decision could go either way.
The text of body thief mentions that the creature can be restored by means of a Wish spell which will force the ID out and restore the brain. The text does NOT mention spells like True Resurrection that also have the ability to replace any missing organs or create an entire body if none is available. If True Resurrection isn't also an option in addition to Wish then in game terms the creature isn't actually dead yet.
The Body Thief text also mentions that the ID has all the knowledge and capabilities of the creature whose brain they have replaced. The ID didn't just eat the brain - it functionally replaces it providing all of the same capabilities and knowledge that were available to the original brain. The only difference is that the ID is then in charge making the decisions rather than the original "occupant".
So, because Resurrection is not called out as a possible fix to the situation, and because the ID has all the knowledge and capability of the creature whose brain it replaced .. it could be interpreted as a form of domination of the original creature where their will is completely destroyed along with the brain and while not actually killing the original creature. Death of the original creature only happens AFTER the ID leaves, removing the substitute brain with it. One round after the ID leaves, the creature dies and presumably its soul is then available for resurrection. This would imply that the soul of the original creature remains with the body until all hope of being restored in its original form is gone.
5e defines death as:
"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."
From a physical perspective, a creature affected by an ID is not technically dead - it still has hit points - it is explicitly still a separate creature from the ID - the ID has just taken over providing some essential services and control of all decision making. Healing spells cast on the host do not affect the ID.
---
Anyway, although the creature affected by an ID might have little hope of restoration - it would appear that the D&D rules for Body Thief do not consider the host to have died when the ID takes over since it still has hit points, it can still be healed independent of the ID, although the ID is in charge - it retains all the knowledge and capabilities of its host, and Resurrection is not listed as a possible way to restore the creature indicating that the soul of the creature has not moved on since the body remains alive.
DMs can choose to play and run it however they like but it seems to me that a creature infested by an ID is not dead until the ID leaves and the brain is not restored - until that happens the ID has replaced the brain of the host but although it has no self will left, it is still nominally alive in D&D terms.
If someone has their heart removed, and then over a period of hours another heart is installed and started up, is that person dead? Were they dead and now alive? (Keep in mind that heart transplants and bypass surgeries are extremely common and involve opening gaping holes in the chest and stopping the heart for extended periods of time. Are these folks dead?
D&D is magic. An ID instantly replaces the brain of another creature but retains everything that creature knew and could do. Is the creature whose brain was replaced dead or alive?
If a "brain transplant" was possible - do either or both of the creatures involved in swapping brains die in the process?
If it was possible to copy the mind of a person to hardware and then replace their brain with a cybernetic structure in order to "cure" dementia for that individual by providing a new "brain" not susceptible to biological decay - is that person "dead"? Or are they "dead" when the cybernetic brain is turned off?
There are lots of philosophical and ethical issues in those examples but even in our world the definition of what "dead" means can be difficult to decide. In a world of magic like D&D it is even more difficult :)
Maybe don't skip over the sentence where the distinction is initially made... ?
Why not just "take control of the target"? Because at this point, "the target's body" is no longer "the target". They are viewed as different things mechanically
Distinct from "the target"
Distinct from "the target's body"
Distinct from "the target"
Once the brain is gone, "the target" ceases to exist, short of a wish spell. The fact that a wish is required at all, and not simply a "lesser" healing spell like, I dunno, regenerate, is a pretty big clue the target is not just dead, but D-E-A-D
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
At no point does any text you've quoted establish that the target and the target's body are mechanically distinct. And again, the text itself uses them both interchangeably, as I've already demonstrated. You're making a lot of assertions, but you don't have any text to back those assertions up. I do.
Citation needed.
The fact that the stat block for ID doesn't list resurrection spells doesn't actually say anything one way or the other about whether the target is dead or not. You only list things that are exceptions or special-case uses, i.e. disintegrate
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)