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 (1 sorcery point if the spell is a cantrip).
To be eligible, a spell must be incapable of targeting more than one creature at the spell’s current level. For example, magic missile and scorching ray aren’t eligible, but ray of frost and chromatic orb are.
Thoughts? Rationale? Sources to it already having an official answer?
Thanks.
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.
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. I personally hope that is not the case for the Divine Soul Sorcerer part of me, but I fortunately haven’t ran into that at any table i have seen or been a part of (partially why I switched to Celestial Warlock, but that’s another story.)
AFAIK, True Resurrection is Twinnable: it can only target one creature, even when cast using higher level spell slots.
The condition or state of the creature does not affect its eligibility. A creature is a creature, dead or not, even if you consider a corpse to be also an object. That object, in any case, was once a creature. And it must be, or by RAW, the spell would not work otherwise.
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.
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.
I vehemently disagree with this. The sentence says that you touch a creature. That's a targeting requirement for casting the spell. Both of the statements "you touch a creature that is not a creature" and "you touch a liquid that is not a liquid" are nonsensical. It's not a question of grammar, it's the fact that the statement makes no sense.
True resurrection is definitely twinnable in the sense that the spell itself meets the requirements of targeting a single creature and not having a range of self.
The main challenge is that the spell does not appear on the Sorcerer's spell list and trying a straightforward multiclass solution such as Cleric 17 / Sorcerer 3 just doesn't provide enough Sorcery Points. There are probably several solutions to that though.
It is up to the DM for a counter arguement the rules on improvised weapons state:
"An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin."
This implies a corpse is an object. I have also heard an arguement that object and creature are not mutually exclusive and things like corpses (and constructs) can be both
I'd argue by the time you're able to cast "true ressurection" you are supposed to be able to do broken shit like this. I also don't think object and creature is mutually exclusive in this case. You could argue that the true ressurection spell speciffically just targets a creature, because you don't even need the body to ressurect them(but speaking two names at the same time might be difficult). I would allow it.
The spell True Resurrection doesn't appear to disqualify for Twinned Spell at first read but it's more than evident it is since a dead creature is an object and not a creature.
The interesting thing about True Resurrection is that it doesn't need a physical target.
"The spell can even provide a new body if the original no longer exists, in which case you must speak the creature's name. The creature then appears in an unoccupied space you choose within 10 feet of you."
What exactly is True Resurrection "targeting" in this case?
"A spell’s description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect" PHB
True Resurrection can target a creature that no longer exists. It can target the remains of a creature that has been dead no more than 200 years. Are the bones of a dead humanoid 200 years old a "creature". Can you target these bones with any spell that allows you to target a "creature"? Or are these bones "objects"? Can you cast Animate Objects on a bunch of bones lying on the ground that are also "a creature that has been dead for less than 200 years"?
There is the rules citation that a goblin corpse is an example of an object. A goblin is a creature. A goblin corpse WAS a creature. Is a goblin corpse STILL a creature? It is certainly a "dead creature" but does that make it a creature for the purposes of targeting spells?
RAW doesn't define whether dead creatures are a special form of a creature (a dead one) or an object or both. I think there are solid arguments for treating them as an object or a special subclass of creature depending on exactly what you want to do with the dead creature.
In terms of twinning True Resurrection, this would be up to the DM and personally I'd allow it because at that level it would be fun and not break anything.
RAW, twin requires a spell that targets only one creature. The DM needs to decide if a "dead creature" or a non-existent creature that was alive within the last 200 years for which you have no physical remains are also creatures - is the memory of a creature considered a creature? Can you cast ANY spell that has a target of "creature" on a "dead creature"? (I'd say no personally, since I don't think a dead creature is a creature for any spells except the resurrection ones - revivify, raise dead, resurrection, true resurrection, reincarnate - which all target "dead creatures" or "dead humanoids" or "creatures that have died").
Reading the rules from a natural English perspective. Many spells target "creatures" but a few specifically target "dead creatures". Is a "dead creature" still a "creature"? This is the fundamental question when wanting to twin True Resurrection and I would say no since a "dead creature" would not seem to be a valid target for any other spell that can target a creature.
For example, Dimension door allows you to transport any object you can carry or a willing creature. "You can bring along objects as long as their weight doesn't exceed what you can carry. You can also bring one willing creature of your size or smaller who is carrying gear up to its carrying capacity."
So can you Dimension Door a dead creature? The answer is YES if the dead creature is an object but NO if it is considered a creature because a "dead creature" can't be "willing" .. there is no consent from a dead creature. SO ... does a DM who rules a dead creature to be a creature ALSO state that they can't be moved by Dimension Door? Keep in mind that Teleport also uses the same wording regarding willing creatures. Since a corpse can't be willing ... if a corpse is considered a creature then the DM is also ruling that corpses are immune to teleportation effects.
Based on this sort of reasoning, I consider "dead creatures" to not be "creatures" for any other purpose than the targeting of resurrection spells. They are otherwise considered objects. I think that is consistent with RAW (though other DMs could reach other conclusions since the rules don't explicitly define "dead creature") and causes the least problems when looking at other spells that target creatures. It doesn't make sense to consider a corpse a creature in the context of teleportation spells because it can never be "willing" - it has no "will". But generally, a dead creature is NOT a creature - it is a special subclass of creatures.
So, RAI, I'd say that dead creatures are not generally considered creatures and are objects for any other purpose than targeting resurrection effects.
Can you twin True Resurrection? It is a DM ruling since "dead creature" isn't defined in the rules. There is no RAW indicating that it is strictly an object. Does True Resurrection target a specific category of objects called "dead creatures" or is it targeting a specific category of creatures called "dead creatures". One rules citation calls a "dead creature" an "object" in one example - so there is at least one citation that they are objects. There are no citations that a "dead creature" is also a "creature" .. and there are many spells where it would make no sense to target a "dead creature" as if it were a "creature" rather than an "object". Based on that, I'd conclude RAI that a "dead creature" is an object and that the resurrection spells target a specific type of object called "dead creature" ... but, as always, it is a DM call and the rules don't explicitly define "dead creature".
It is up to the DM for a counter arguement the rules on improvised weapons state:
"An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin."
This implies a corpse is an object. I have also heard an arguement that object and creature are not mutually exclusive and things like corpses (and constructs) can be both
I'd say that the only thing that sentence implies is that dead goblins are objects, it doesn't say anything about any other dead creatures/corpses.
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?
The spell True Resurrection doesn't appear to disqualify for Twinned Spell at first read but it's more than evident it is since a dead creature is an object and not a creature.
I disagree with this. A dead creature is still a creature. Perhaps it's also an object for the purposes of that rule for improvised weapons, but that doesn't mean that it's not a creature.
Here is what the rules have to say about death:
A creature's current hit points (usually just called hit points) can be any number from the creature's hit point maximum down to 0 . . .
Unless it results in death, damage isn't permanent. Even death is reversible through powerful magic . . .
A creature that has died can't regain hit points until magic such as the revivify spell has restored it to life . . .
The revivify spell:
You touch a creature that has died within the last minute. That creature returns to life with 1 hit point. This spell can't return to life a creature that has died of old age
So, a dead creature is really just a creature with 0 HP that cannot do anything and cannot be healed. Yes, it's true that spells such as Power Word Kill do not explicitly reduce HP to zero, but a lot of other rules don't make sense if dead creatures can have non-zero HP, so this reduction to 0 HP when killed is implied.
Besides what I've quoted above, death isn't really well defined by the game. It's not a Condition, and it's not clear how such creatures are affected in various ways. From the common definition of death, we can assume that such a creature has no physical or mental capabilities. But, it's clear that they can be affected in some ways since they can be brought back to life and various spells and Features can interact with the dead.
Even a spell like Speak with Dead is careful to use the word "corpse" as the target for the spell. But then, it says "This spell doesn't return the creature's soul to its body, only its animating spirit". So, the target of the spell must be a creature that is specifically a corpse.
It's clear from the rules that a dead creature is basically immune from taking damage since HP cannot be further reduced and there are no death saving throws to influence. It's probably also reasonable to assume that a dead creature is also immune from mental effects such as being Charmed. But can a dead creature be poisoned? Cursed? Petrified? These are less clearly defined.
The spell True Resurrection doesn't appear to disqualify for Twinned Spell at first read but it's more than evident it is since a dead creature is an object and not a creature.
I disagree with this. A dead creature is still a creature. Perhaps it's also an object for the purposes of that rule for improvised weapons, but that doesn't mean that it's not a creature.
Ah. So in your game it is impossible to transport a dead creature using either Dimension Door or Teleport?
These spells can only affect Objects or Willing creatures. A dead creature can't be willing since it doesn't have any will. So there is no way for a dead creature to consent to being moved by Dimension Door or Teleport. So if a dead creature is a creature then these spells can not be used to transport them in your game world. If your team mate is killed in a fight, you can't grab the body and Dimension Door away because a corpse isn't a willing creature?
Personally, to me, it appears to make more sense if a dead creature is considered an object in general. Otherwise you need to introduce other rulings that dead creatures have a will and can decide to be teleported.
If you rule that dead creatures are objects in some cases why would it also not be an object when used as a target of a resurrection spell?
"You target a creature which has died within 200 years"
If you just read the first 4 words it would appear to be a creature ... BUT ... if you read the entire sentence it is "a creature that has died within 200 years" which may or may not be considered a creature. Just because the word creature appears in the name doesn't make a dead creature the same type of thing as a creature. For example, is a "car" the same thing as "train car" because they both contain the word "car". It may imply similarities but it doesn't make them the same type of item. "Creature" and "dead creature" could be considered similarly.
P.S. On a side track :) ... the wording of Dimension Door and Teleport actually make it impossible to teleport an unconscious creature since they are neither an object nor a willing creature. Most DMs would likely house rule it I expect.
The "is a corpse an object or a creature" discourse is fascinating, but it's not really relevant to True Resurrection, since the spell doesn't actually require a corpse. I think it's impossible to say that the spell doesn't "target a creature" for the purposes of Twinned Spell, because all the language in True Resurrection describes "the creature" it is targeting. This has some very strange implications for other spells in the game, but the case of Twinned True Resurrection seems open and shut: it works.
P.S. On a side track :) ... the wording of Dimension Door and Teleport actually make it impossible to teleport an unconscious creature since they are neither an object nor a willing creature. Most DMs would likely house rule it I expect.
Yeah, previous editions explicitly had a rule that unconscious creatures were always considered "willing" for the purpose of spells, but uh. That's got some very uncomfortable implications, doesn't it? So that's not written anywhere in the 5e rules as far as I know.
Ah. So in your game it is impossible to transport a dead creature using either Dimension Door or Teleport?
These spells can only affect Objects or Willing creatures. A dead creature can't be willing since it doesn't have any will. So there is no way for a dead creature to consent to being moved by Dimension Door or Teleport. So if a dead creature is a creature then these spells can not be used to transport them in your game world. If your team mate is killed in a fight, you can't grab the body and Dimension Door away because a corpse isn't a willing creature?
I would allow this as I think that it makes sense for a corpse to be considered to be a creature and also an object for the purposes of the rules.
From the DMG we have this blurb about objects:
For the purpose of these rules, an object is a discrete, inanimate item like a window, door, sword, book, table, chair, or stone
A dead creature should qualify for this definition since it is inanimate. It has no agency or ability to resist or make decisions about whether or not an outside force can transport it. While this might make it an object, it doesn't necessarily make it not a creature. I couldn't find any rule which requires these two categories to be mutually exclusive.
But also, from the DMG, we have this description of creature death:
When a creature dies, its soul departs its body, leaves the Material Plane, travels through the Astral Plane, and goes to abide on the plane where the creature's deity resides. If the creature didn't worship a deity, its soul departs to the plane corresponding to its alignment. Bringing someone back from the dead means retrieving the soul from that plane and returning it to its body.
So, a dead creature is a creature which used to have a soul housed within its body but no longer does, at least for now.
The closest thing that we have for the definition of a creature within the game comes from the Monster Manual which basically says that a creature is an entity that has a creature type. This definition includes entities such as undead and constructs. I cannot find any rule whereby the process of dying strips a creature of its creature type.
It's definitely not perfectly cut-and-dry but this is how I see the rules as they are written right now.
Which spells that target creatures are you thinking of where it wouldn't make sense to be able to target a dead creature? A dead creature would simply be immune to many spell effects since it is already dead but I'm not sure why that means that it cannot be targeted.
On the contrary, most (if not all) spells which are clearly meant to target a dead creature, such as the resurrection spells, specifically say that they target a creature.
Although it's not exactly the same thing, consider the wording for the Petrified Condition. It has six bullet points and in all six of them the affected creature is referred to as a "creature". This is despite the clause which states that . . .
"A petrified creature is transformed, along with any nonmagical object it is wearing or carrying, into a solid inanimate substance (usually stone)."
So, there is some precedent -- just because a creature becomes inanimate does not automatically make it not a creature.
The spell True Resurrection doesn't appear to disqualify for Twinned Spell at first read but it's more than evident it is since a dead creature is an object and not a creature.
I disagree with this. A dead creature is still a creature. Perhaps it's also an object for the purposes of that rule for improvised weapons, but that doesn't mean that it's not a creature.
Here is what the rules have to say about death:
A creature's current hit points (usually just called hit points) can be any number from the creature's hit point maximum down to 0 . . .
Unless it results in death, damage isn't permanent. Even death is reversible through powerful magic . . .
A creature that has died can't regain hit points until magic such as the revivify spell has restored it to life . . .
The revivify spell:
You touch a creature that has died within the last minute. That creature returns to life with 1 hit point. This spell can't return to life a creature that has died of old age
So, a dead creature is really just a creature with 0 HP that cannot do anything and cannot be healed. Yes, it's true that spells such as Power Word Kill do not explicitly reduce HP to zero, but a lot of other rules don't make sense if dead creatures can have non-zero HP, so this reduction to 0 HP when killed is implied.
Besides what I've quoted above, death isn't really well defined by the game. It's not a Condition, and it's not clear how such creatures are affected in various ways. From the common definition of death, we can assume that such a creature has no physical or mental capabilities. But, it's clear that they can be affected in some ways since they can be brought back to life and various spells and Features can interact with the dead.
Even a spell like Speak with Dead is careful to use the word "corpse" as the target for the spell. But then, it says "This spell doesn't return the creature's soul to its body, only its animating spirit". So, the target of the spell must be a creature that is specifically a corpse.
It's clear from the rules that a dead creature is basically immune from taking damage since HP cannot be further reduced and there are no death saving throws to influence. It's probably also reasonable to assume that a dead creature is also immune from mental effects such as being Charmed. But can a dead creature be poisoned? Cursed? Petrified? These are less clearly defined.
I agree with all this. Is a corpse a creature or an object. If it's an object and not a creature, then revivify can't be used, since it specifies you cast it on a creature.
And, due to the improvised weapon rule, we know that a corpse can be an object.
This leaves two options:
Whether a corpse is a creature or an object is context-dependent.
A corpse is both a creature and an object.
I don't think it makes a difference which one of these is true. I certainly can't think of a situation where #2 is true and it creates an actual problem.
@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 have to conclude that this ruling is wrong. They shoot from the hip too much. If the real answer is "it's context-dependent", then I guess the ruling could be true, but I don't see a need to make it more complicated.
Which spells that target creatures are you thinking of where it wouldn't make sense to be able to target a dead creature? A dead creature would simply be immune to many spell effects since it is already dead but I'm not sure why that means that it cannot be targeted.
On the contrary, most (if not all) spells which are clearly meant to target a dead creature, such as the resurrection spells, specifically say that they target a creature.
Although it's not exactly the same thing, consider the wording for the Petrified Condition. It has six bullet points and in all six of them the affected creature is referred to as a "creature". This is despite the clause which states that . . .
"A petrified creature is transformed, along with any nonmagical object it is wearing or carrying, into a solid inanimate substance (usually stone)."
So, there is some precedent -- just because a creature becomes inanimate does not automatically make it not a creature.
The petrified condition is an interesting one.
Consider the Flesh to Stone spell:
"You attempt to turn one creature that you can see within range into stone. If the target's body is made of flesh, the creature must make a Constitution saving throw. On a failed save, it is restrained as its flesh begins to harden. On a successful save, the creature isn't affected."
This specifies the target is a creature. If a dead creature is also a creature then the spell could be used to turn the corpse into stone making it impossible to revivify or raise dead on unless the petrified condition is first removed (?) or would the revivify spell remove the petrified condition (?) or change the petrified dead creature into a petrified living creature (?). The spell also requires the corpse to make a constitution saving throw. How does a dead creature do this when it no longer has a constitution?
I agree with all this. Is a corpse a creature or an object. If it's an object and not a creature, then revivify can't be used, since it specifies you cast it on a creature.
I think there is a nuance that is being missed here.
Consider the targeting text of ALL of the resurrection spells:
Revivify: "You touch a creature that has died within the last minute."
Raise Dead: "You return a dead creature you touch to life, provided that it has been dead no longer than 10 days."
Resurrection: "You touch a dead creature that has been dead for no more than a century"
True Resurrection: "You touch a creature that has been dead for no longer than 200 years and that died for any reason except old age."
Reincarnate: "You touch a dead humanoid or a piece of a dead humanoid. Provided that the creature has been dead no longer than 10 days, the spell forms a new adult body for it and then calls the soul to enter that body."
From the explicit wording of each of these spells, none of these spells actually target creatures.
ALL of these spells target either "dead creatures" or "creatures that have died" or even "dead humanoid". Why can someone immediately conclude that just because the word "creature" is in the description that the rest of the targeting specification can be ignored? If you read the first 4 words of revivify it says "You touch a creature" but stopping at that point ignores the entire target of the spell which is "a creature that has died within the last minute" (which honestly may or may not be a creature anymore - I don't see any reason to assume that a dead creature is still a creature and the rules certainly don't say that. The only available rules reference refers to a dead creature as an object.
In addition, none of them say "you target a creature and if it is dead, you return it to life" which would clearly imply that a dead creature was still considered a creature. The spells say you target a "dead creature" and "dead creature" as a game term is not clearly defined but at the very least it is NOT the same as the definition of "creature" because "dead creatures" have different characteristics and you can't cast ANY of these spells on a living creature or any creature except a dead creature.
Since spells can target creatures, objects or a point in space ... it would seem that a "dead creature" is more likely a specific type of object rather than a specific type of creature but I could see a DM ruling it either way.
However, the rest of the rules, teleportation spells, targeting flesh to stone, or the citation in which a dead goblin (which is definitely a dead creature) is referred to as an object - would all seem to imply that dead creatures should be considered objects. I'd also add that if a "dead creature" is an object then a spell that targets a "dead creature or creature that has died" both still have valid target since they are targeting a specific type of object (a "dead creature") rather than a creature. So, I really don't see the need for "dead creatures" to be considered "creatures" for the wording of any of the spells that revive dead creatures to work given their wording.
"An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin."
P.S. There are many spells that target specific types of objects
Shillelagh: "The wood of a club or quarterstaff you are holding is imbued with nature’s power." - targets wooden club or quarterstaff
Purify Food and Drink: "All nonmagical food and drink within a 5-foot-radius sphere centered on a point of your choice within range is purified and rendered free of poison and disease." - non-magical food
Resurrection: "You touch a dead creature" - an specific object that used to be a living creature (why does this have to be a specific creature that used to be a living creature?)
Revivify:"a creature that has died" - targets an object that used to be a living creature - WHY does this target need to be a creature for the spell to work? Revivify does NOT say it targets a creature - it specifically says it targets "a creature that has died" which may not be a creature at all anymore since creatures have souls or something animating them (DMG cited above) and a dead creature doesn't have one.
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.
As title. Is true resurrection twinnable?
Twin says:
Thoughts? Rationale? Sources to it already having an official answer?
Thanks.
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’ve heard some say the revivify/resurrection spells can’t be twinned because the targets are no longer considered creatures if they are dead. I personally hope that is not the case for the Divine Soul Sorcerer part of me, but I fortunately haven’t ran into that at any table i have seen or been a part of (partially why I switched to Celestial Warlock, but that’s another story.)
AFAIK, True Resurrection is Twinnable: it can only target one creature, even when cast using higher level spell slots.
The condition or state of the creature does not affect its eligibility. A creature is a creature, dead or not, even if you consider a corpse to be also an object. That object, in any case, was once a creature. And it must be, or by RAW, the spell would not work otherwise.
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:
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.
I vehemently disagree with this. The sentence says that you touch a creature. That's a targeting requirement for casting the spell. Both of the statements "you touch a creature that is not a creature" and "you touch a liquid that is not a liquid" are nonsensical. It's not a question of grammar, it's the fact that the statement makes no sense.
True resurrection is definitely twinnable in the sense that the spell itself meets the requirements of targeting a single creature and not having a range of self.
The main challenge is that the spell does not appear on the Sorcerer's spell list and trying a straightforward multiclass solution such as Cleric 17 / Sorcerer 3 just doesn't provide enough Sorcery Points. There are probably several solutions to that though.
It is up to the DM for a counter arguement the rules on improvised weapons state:
"An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin."
This implies a corpse is an object. I have also heard an arguement that object and creature are not mutually exclusive and things like corpses (and constructs) can be both
I'd argue by the time you're able to cast "true ressurection" you are supposed to be able to do broken shit like this. I also don't think object and creature is mutually exclusive in this case. You could argue that the true ressurection spell speciffically just targets a creature, because you don't even need the body to ressurect them(but speaking two names at the same time might be difficult). I would allow it.
The spell True Resurrection doesn't appear to disqualify for Twinned Spell at first read but it's more than evident it is since a dead creature is an object and not a creature.
The interesting thing about True Resurrection is that it doesn't need a physical target.
"The spell can even provide a new body if the original no longer exists, in which case you must speak the creature's name. The creature then appears in an unoccupied space you choose within 10 feet of you."
What exactly is True Resurrection "targeting" in this case?
"A spell’s description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect" PHB
True Resurrection can target a creature that no longer exists. It can target the remains of a creature that has been dead no more than 200 years. Are the bones of a dead humanoid 200 years old a "creature". Can you target these bones with any spell that allows you to target a "creature"? Or are these bones "objects"? Can you cast Animate Objects on a bunch of bones lying on the ground that are also "a creature that has been dead for less than 200 years"?
There is the rules citation that a goblin corpse is an example of an object. A goblin is a creature. A goblin corpse WAS a creature. Is a goblin corpse STILL a creature? It is certainly a "dead creature" but does that make it a creature for the purposes of targeting spells?
RAW doesn't define whether dead creatures are a special form of a creature (a dead one) or an object or both. I think there are solid arguments for treating them as an object or a special subclass of creature depending on exactly what you want to do with the dead creature.
In terms of twinning True Resurrection, this would be up to the DM and personally I'd allow it because at that level it would be fun and not break anything.
RAW, twin requires a spell that targets only one creature. The DM needs to decide if a "dead creature" or a non-existent creature that was alive within the last 200 years for which you have no physical remains are also creatures - is the memory of a creature considered a creature? Can you cast ANY spell that has a target of "creature" on a "dead creature"? (I'd say no personally, since I don't think a dead creature is a creature for any spells except the resurrection ones - revivify, raise dead, resurrection, true resurrection, reincarnate - which all target "dead creatures" or "dead humanoids" or "creatures that have died").
Reading the rules from a natural English perspective. Many spells target "creatures" but a few specifically target "dead creatures". Is a "dead creature" still a "creature"? This is the fundamental question when wanting to twin True Resurrection and I would say no since a "dead creature" would not seem to be a valid target for any other spell that can target a creature.
For example, Dimension door allows you to transport any object you can carry or a willing creature. "You can bring along objects as long as their weight doesn't exceed what you can carry. You can also bring one willing creature of your size or smaller who is carrying gear up to its carrying capacity."
So can you Dimension Door a dead creature? The answer is YES if the dead creature is an object but NO if it is considered a creature because a "dead creature" can't be "willing" .. there is no consent from a dead creature. SO ... does a DM who rules a dead creature to be a creature ALSO state that they can't be moved by Dimension Door? Keep in mind that Teleport also uses the same wording regarding willing creatures. Since a corpse can't be willing ... if a corpse is considered a creature then the DM is also ruling that corpses are immune to teleportation effects.
Based on this sort of reasoning, I consider "dead creatures" to not be "creatures" for any other purpose than the targeting of resurrection spells. They are otherwise considered objects. I think that is consistent with RAW (though other DMs could reach other conclusions since the rules don't explicitly define "dead creature") and causes the least problems when looking at other spells that target creatures. It doesn't make sense to consider a corpse a creature in the context of teleportation spells because it can never be "willing" - it has no "will". But generally, a dead creature is NOT a creature - it is a special subclass of creatures.
So, RAI, I'd say that dead creatures are not generally considered creatures and are objects for any other purpose than targeting resurrection effects.
Can you twin True Resurrection? It is a DM ruling since "dead creature" isn't defined in the rules. There is no RAW indicating that it is strictly an object. Does True Resurrection target a specific category of objects called "dead creatures" or is it targeting a specific category of creatures called "dead creatures". One rules citation calls a "dead creature" an "object" in one example - so there is at least one citation that they are objects. There are no citations that a "dead creature" is also a "creature" .. and there are many spells where it would make no sense to target a "dead creature" as if it were a "creature" rather than an "object". Based on that, I'd conclude RAI that a "dead creature" is an object and that the resurrection spells target a specific type of object called "dead creature" ... but, as always, it is a DM call and the rules don't explicitly define "dead creature".
I'd say that the only thing that sentence implies is that dead goblins are objects, it doesn't say anything about any other dead creatures/corpses.
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?
I disagree with this. A dead creature is still a creature. Perhaps it's also an object for the purposes of that rule for improvised weapons, but that doesn't mean that it's not a creature.
Here is what the rules have to say about death:
The revivify spell:
So, a dead creature is really just a creature with 0 HP that cannot do anything and cannot be healed. Yes, it's true that spells such as Power Word Kill do not explicitly reduce HP to zero, but a lot of other rules don't make sense if dead creatures can have non-zero HP, so this reduction to 0 HP when killed is implied.
Besides what I've quoted above, death isn't really well defined by the game. It's not a Condition, and it's not clear how such creatures are affected in various ways. From the common definition of death, we can assume that such a creature has no physical or mental capabilities. But, it's clear that they can be affected in some ways since they can be brought back to life and various spells and Features can interact with the dead.
Even a spell like Speak with Dead is careful to use the word "corpse" as the target for the spell. But then, it says "This spell doesn't return the creature's soul to its body, only its animating spirit". So, the target of the spell must be a creature that is specifically a corpse.
It's clear from the rules that a dead creature is basically immune from taking damage since HP cannot be further reduced and there are no death saving throws to influence. It's probably also reasonable to assume that a dead creature is also immune from mental effects such as being Charmed. But can a dead creature be poisoned? Cursed? Petrified? These are less clearly defined.
Ah. So in your game it is impossible to transport a dead creature using either Dimension Door or Teleport?
These spells can only affect Objects or Willing creatures. A dead creature can't be willing since it doesn't have any will. So there is no way for a dead creature to consent to being moved by Dimension Door or Teleport. So if a dead creature is a creature then these spells can not be used to transport them in your game world. If your team mate is killed in a fight, you can't grab the body and Dimension Door away because a corpse isn't a willing creature?
Personally, to me, it appears to make more sense if a dead creature is considered an object in general. Otherwise you need to introduce other rulings that dead creatures have a will and can decide to be teleported.
If you rule that dead creatures are objects in some cases why would it also not be an object when used as a target of a resurrection spell?
"You target a creature which has died within 200 years"
If you just read the first 4 words it would appear to be a creature ... BUT ... if you read the entire sentence it is "a creature that has died within 200 years" which may or may not be considered a creature. Just because the word creature appears in the name doesn't make a dead creature the same type of thing as a creature. For example, is a "car" the same thing as "train car" because they both contain the word "car". It may imply similarities but it doesn't make them the same type of item. "Creature" and "dead creature" could be considered similarly.
P.S. On a side track :) ... the wording of Dimension Door and Teleport actually make it impossible to teleport an unconscious creature since they are neither an object nor a willing creature. Most DMs would likely house rule it I expect.
The "is a corpse an object or a creature" discourse is fascinating, but it's not really relevant to True Resurrection, since the spell doesn't actually require a corpse. I think it's impossible to say that the spell doesn't "target a creature" for the purposes of Twinned Spell, because all the language in True Resurrection describes "the creature" it is targeting. This has some very strange implications for other spells in the game, but the case of Twinned True Resurrection seems open and shut: it works.
Yeah, previous editions explicitly had a rule that unconscious creatures were always considered "willing" for the purpose of spells, but uh. That's got some very uncomfortable implications, doesn't it? So that's not written anywhere in the 5e rules as far as I know.
I would allow this as I think that it makes sense for a corpse to be considered to be a creature and also an object for the purposes of the rules.
From the DMG we have this blurb about objects:
A dead creature should qualify for this definition since it is inanimate. It has no agency or ability to resist or make decisions about whether or not an outside force can transport it. While this might make it an object, it doesn't necessarily make it not a creature. I couldn't find any rule which requires these two categories to be mutually exclusive.
But also, from the DMG, we have this description of creature death:
So, a dead creature is a creature which used to have a soul housed within its body but no longer does, at least for now.
The closest thing that we have for the definition of a creature within the game comes from the Monster Manual which basically says that a creature is an entity that has a creature type. This definition includes entities such as undead and constructs. I cannot find any rule whereby the process of dying strips a creature of its creature type.
It's definitely not perfectly cut-and-dry but this is how I see the rules as they are written right now.
If dead people where still considered creatures, it would allow spells that target creatures to work on them and we knowit shouldn't.
While not official ruling per se, if it's of interest to anyone the Dev answered before that a corpse was an object Corpse: creature or object? (sageadvice.eu)
Which spells that target creatures are you thinking of where it wouldn't make sense to be able to target a dead creature? A dead creature would simply be immune to many spell effects since it is already dead but I'm not sure why that means that it cannot be targeted.
On the contrary, most (if not all) spells which are clearly meant to target a dead creature, such as the resurrection spells, specifically say that they target a creature.
Although it's not exactly the same thing, consider the wording for the Petrified Condition. It has six bullet points and in all six of them the affected creature is referred to as a "creature". This is despite the clause which states that . . .
"A petrified creature is transformed, along with any nonmagical object it is wearing or carrying, into a solid inanimate substance (usually stone)."
So, there is some precedent -- just because a creature becomes inanimate does not automatically make it not a creature.
I agree with all this. Is a corpse a creature or an object. If it's an object and not a creature, then revivify can't be used, since it specifies you cast it on a creature.
And, due to the improvised weapon rule, we know that a corpse can be an object.
This leaves two options:
I don't think it makes a difference which one of these is true. I certainly can't think of a situation where #2 is true and it creates an actual problem.
I have to conclude that this ruling is wrong. They shoot from the hip too much. If the real answer is "it's context-dependent", then I guess the ruling could be true, but I don't see a need to make it more complicated.
The petrified condition is an interesting one.
Consider the Flesh to Stone spell:
"You attempt to turn one creature that you can see within range into stone. If the target's body is made of flesh, the creature must make a Constitution saving throw. On a failed save, it is restrained as its flesh begins to harden. On a successful save, the creature isn't affected."
This specifies the target is a creature. If a dead creature is also a creature then the spell could be used to turn the corpse into stone making it impossible to revivify or raise dead on unless the petrified condition is first removed (?) or would the revivify spell remove the petrified condition (?) or change the petrified dead creature into a petrified living creature (?). The spell also requires the corpse to make a constitution saving throw. How does a dead creature do this when it no longer has a constitution?
I think there is a nuance that is being missed here.
Consider the targeting text of ALL of the resurrection spells:
Revivify: "You touch a creature that has died within the last minute."
Raise Dead: "You return a dead creature you touch to life, provided that it has been dead no longer than 10 days."
Resurrection: "You touch a dead creature that has been dead for no more than a century"
True Resurrection: "You touch a creature that has been dead for no longer than 200 years and that died for any reason except old age."
Reincarnate: "You touch a dead humanoid or a piece of a dead humanoid. Provided that the creature has been dead no longer than 10 days, the spell forms a new adult body for it and then calls the soul to enter that body."
From the explicit wording of each of these spells, none of these spells actually target creatures.
ALL of these spells target either "dead creatures" or "creatures that have died" or even "dead humanoid". Why can someone immediately conclude that just because the word "creature" is in the description that the rest of the targeting specification can be ignored? If you read the first 4 words of revivify it says "You touch a creature" but stopping at that point ignores the entire target of the spell which is "a creature that has died within the last minute" (which honestly may or may not be a creature anymore - I don't see any reason to assume that a dead creature is still a creature and the rules certainly don't say that. The only available rules reference refers to a dead creature as an object.
In addition, none of them say "you target a creature and if it is dead, you return it to life" which would clearly imply that a dead creature was still considered a creature. The spells say you target a "dead creature" and "dead creature" as a game term is not clearly defined but at the very least it is NOT the same as the definition of "creature" because "dead creatures" have different characteristics and you can't cast ANY of these spells on a living creature or any creature except a dead creature.
Since spells can target creatures, objects or a point in space ... it would seem that a "dead creature" is more likely a specific type of object rather than a specific type of creature but I could see a DM ruling it either way.
However, the rest of the rules, teleportation spells, targeting flesh to stone, or the citation in which a dead goblin (which is definitely a dead creature) is referred to as an object - would all seem to imply that dead creatures should be considered objects. I'd also add that if a "dead creature" is an object then a spell that targets a "dead creature or creature that has died" both still have valid target since they are targeting a specific type of object (a "dead creature") rather than a creature. So, I really don't see the need for "dead creatures" to be considered "creatures" for the wording of any of the spells that revive dead creatures to work given their wording.
"An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin."
P.S. There are many spells that target specific types of objects
Magic Weapon: "You touch a nonmagical weapon." - targets non-magical weapon
Shillelagh: "The wood of a club or quarterstaff you are holding is imbued with nature’s power." - targets wooden club or quarterstaff
Purify Food and Drink: "All nonmagical food and drink within a 5-foot-radius sphere centered on a point of your choice within range is purified and rendered free of poison and disease." - non-magical food
Resurrection: "You touch a dead creature" - an specific object that used to be a living creature (why does this have to be a specific creature that used to be a living creature?)
Revivify:"a creature that has died" - targets an object that used to be a living creature - WHY does this target need to be a creature for the spell to work? Revivify does NOT say it targets a creature - it specifically says it targets "a creature that has died" which may not be a creature at all anymore since creatures have souls or something animating them (DMG cited above) and a dead creature doesn't have one.
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.