Alright, here's what you do. You try a Locate Creature spell at which point your picky DM says that Magnus is not a creature, he's dead. Oh right, I use Locate Object to find his dead body!
It's less than clear cut whether a corpse is a creature or an object (or indeed, if it's even consistent which one it is) than you might think. Revivify targets "a creature that has died," while Animate Dead targets "a corpse of a creature." Speak with Dead targets a corpse and is quite clear that it is not interacting with the creature that the corpse used to be, while Gentle Repose conflates "the target" (the body) with the creature itself and its soul, since it extends the time that they can be raised from the dead. JC thinks you can't summon a corpse because it's not a creature, but would you allow Mending to put a dismembered corpse back together? Animate Objects to raise them as constructs instead of undead? True Polymorph to turn the corpse into a mind-wiped living version of itself?
Maybe, some of those sound fun. But I wouldn't say it's clear, and I'm not sure that JC put a lot of thought into that tweet other than the specific context he was presented with (summoning the corpse of a creature with Gate).
It's less than clear cut whether a corpse is a creature or an object (or indeed, if it's even consistent which one it is) than you might think. Revivify targets "a creature that has died," while Animate Dead targets "a corpse of a creature." Speak with Dead targets a corpse and is quite clear that it is not interacting with the creature that the corpse used to be, while Gentle Repose conflates "the target" (the body) with the creature itself and its soul, since it extends the time that they can be raised from the dead. JC thinks you can't summon a corpse because it's not a creature, but would you allow Mending to put a dismembered corpse back together? Animate Objects to raise them as constructs instead of undead? True Polymorph to turn the corpse into a mind-wiped living version of itself?
Maybe, some of those sound fun. But I wouldn't say it's clear, and I'm not sure that JC put a lot of thought into that tweet other than the specific context he was presented with (summoning the corpse of a creature with Gate).
I think all of those things are consistent with Jeremy Crawford's tweet.
A creature that has died is a dead creature, and the body is an object. It's another way of saying "an object which is the body of a creature that has died.
Corpse of a creature is that. The corpse (object) left behind by the creature. Imagine a spell that targeted the "excrement of a creature." It's thing left behind by the creature.
Gentle Repose refers to the corpse as a target, which it is. Objects can be targets. All it does is protect the object from decay.
The mending example is an odd one, yeah. RAW, yes, it should be able to affect a corpse. The Animate Objects and True Polymorph examples are both cool uses of those spells. Yeah, definitely allowed.
I don't see anything anywhere that contradicts the idea that a corpse is an object (though admittedly, the mending spell seems not to consider the ramifications of that).
You wanna get real whacky, check out Transmuter 14.
Major Transformation. You can transmute one nonmagical object—no larger than a 5-foot cube—into another nonmagical object of similar size and mass and of equal or lesser value. You must spend 10 minutes handling the object to transform it.
Okay, a body is an object... so I turn poor dead BioticHamster into a .... living sunflower? (are regular plants and trees "creatures" or not?) A commemorative urn? A glass of water?
And then (after an 8 hour rest):
Restore Life. You cast the raise dead spell on a creature you touch with the transmuter’s stone, without expending a spell slot or needing to have the spell in your spellbook.
Can I bring you back to life as a sunflower? An urn? A sentient glass of water? "No!" you cry, "those are objects, not the creature!" But, I respond, 'the creature' already wasn't a "creature," it was an "object" according to JC, so where's the bright line that has been crossed? That you look different (which I could accomplish by cutting you up manually)? That you're made of a different substance (which I could accomplish by petrifying or burning or dissolving your remains)? That... that it just doesn't make sense (to which I say, "magic")?
I'm not saying that dead creatures are definitely creatures and not objects. I'm just saying, there's any number of unintended consequences for allowing a creature to become and object through death (as opposed to True Polymorph), most likely none of which JC gave any real thought to when he said that off the cuff, or which were given thought during the design process for any and all abilities and spells which effect "objects."
I disagree that there wasn't much thought given to it. I think the intention is that a corpse is considered an object, and it's clear that this is the intent in nearly every example in the book (I think the "restore life" example from that Wizard subclass is an exception, which I suspect is something that's just an error and hasn't ever been caught for the purposes of an errata). In the example you gave, once you transmute the corpse then I would say it not longer exists to be resurrected, except by True Resurrection. But I suppose a DM could rule otherwise. That's how I would rule it, though.
Ultimately, though, it comes down to this, though: there is no official answer to whether a corpse is an object or a creature in the Sage Advice Compendium. While the book seems (in my reading) to suggest that a corpse is not a creature, it does contradict itself on that in one spot noted above. The guidance from Jeremy Crawford is that a corpse is considered an object, but if it doesn't go in to the Sage Advice compendium it's not actually official, it's just guidance from the guy who oversees development of the game. So at the end of the day, it's up to the DM to adjudicate.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There shouldn't be a need for the deception. A corpse is an object, not a creature, per the rules. https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/05/14/corpse-creature-or-object/
For OP, how did it end up going?
It's less than clear cut whether a corpse is a creature or an object (or indeed, if it's even consistent which one it is) than you might think. Revivify targets "a creature that has died," while Animate Dead targets "a corpse of a creature." Speak with Dead targets a corpse and is quite clear that it is not interacting with the creature that the corpse used to be, while Gentle Repose conflates "the target" (the body) with the creature itself and its soul, since it extends the time that they can be raised from the dead. JC thinks you can't summon a corpse because it's not a creature, but would you allow Mending to put a dismembered corpse back together? Animate Objects to raise them as constructs instead of undead? True Polymorph to turn the corpse into a mind-wiped living version of itself?
Maybe, some of those sound fun. But I wouldn't say it's clear, and I'm not sure that JC put a lot of thought into that tweet other than the specific context he was presented with (summoning the corpse of a creature with Gate).
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I think all of those things are consistent with Jeremy Crawford's tweet.
The mending example is an odd one, yeah. RAW, yes, it should be able to affect a corpse. The Animate Objects and True Polymorph examples are both cool uses of those spells. Yeah, definitely allowed.
I don't see anything anywhere that contradicts the idea that a corpse is an object (though admittedly, the mending spell seems not to consider the ramifications of that).
You wanna get real whacky, check out Transmuter 14.
Okay, a body is an object... so I turn poor dead BioticHamster into a .... living sunflower? (are regular plants and trees "creatures" or not?) A commemorative urn? A glass of water?
And then (after an 8 hour rest):
Can I bring you back to life as a sunflower? An urn? A sentient glass of water? "No!" you cry, "those are objects, not the creature!" But, I respond, 'the creature' already wasn't a "creature," it was an "object" according to JC, so where's the bright line that has been crossed? That you look different (which I could accomplish by cutting you up manually)? That you're made of a different substance (which I could accomplish by petrifying or burning or dissolving your remains)? That... that it just doesn't make sense (to which I say, "magic")?
I'm not saying that dead creatures are definitely creatures and not objects. I'm just saying, there's any number of unintended consequences for allowing a creature to become and object through death (as opposed to True Polymorph), most likely none of which JC gave any real thought to when he said that off the cuff, or which were given thought during the design process for any and all abilities and spells which effect "objects."
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I disagree that there wasn't much thought given to it. I think the intention is that a corpse is considered an object, and it's clear that this is the intent in nearly every example in the book (I think the "restore life" example from that Wizard subclass is an exception, which I suspect is something that's just an error and hasn't ever been caught for the purposes of an errata). In the example you gave, once you transmute the corpse then I would say it not longer exists to be resurrected, except by True Resurrection. But I suppose a DM could rule otherwise. That's how I would rule it, though.
Ultimately, though, it comes down to this, though: there is no official answer to whether a corpse is an object or a creature in the Sage Advice Compendium. While the book seems (in my reading) to suggest that a corpse is not a creature, it does contradict itself on that in one spot noted above. The guidance from Jeremy Crawford is that a corpse is considered an object, but if it doesn't go in to the Sage Advice compendium it's not actually official, it's just guidance from the guy who oversees development of the game. So at the end of the day, it's up to the DM to adjudicate.