3mo ago

Because of some comments I got under my last post…

56 comments

If you look up the definition for an Object, it specifies that it is "a nonliving, distinct thing" — such as a corpse.
However, the definition of Creature does not say it must be living. So, a corpse is both a creature and an object.
There are even creatures that have never been living — such as constructs — and thus are also objects.
- There's no rule that says dead creatures can't take action. You'll usually become Unconscious first, but instant death effects including massive damage bypass that. So you can just keep playing.
  This was clearer in 3.5, where it actually had an entry for the Dead condition which did not say you couldn't take actions.
  
  There's no rule saying a dog can't play!
  
  That’s on the same level as disintegrate making you able to play a sentient pile of dust.
- I think nonliving creatures may be more specific versions of objects then, since I couldn’t find any reference of creatures not being considered objects (because who would even say that, it should be obvious if you use your brain), but it also means that if a spell or ability only allows you to target or create objects and has no specification in regards to creatures, undead and constructs are valid targets by RAW.
  
  undead and constructs are valid targets by RAW.
  I mean, if you follow the logic, undead are "animated corpses" and constructs are "animated objects", sooo.... Sure, the "Rule of Cool" wins my vote on this.

There is some gray area as to when a corpse is a corpse or just mostly dead. They aren't an object until they are all dead.
- I know it’s a joke, but I'd say "mostly dead" is just when you roll death saves.
  
  Nah it's an arbitrary window determined by your DM's level of patience
  
  That's dying. Bleeding out. It's not even necessarily truly unconscious (even if it is Unconscious).

Ah, the fallacy of overly literal reading of rules.
Which is why I hate the "spells only do what they say they do" argument. There's a lot of things that should logically happen when you cast certain spells that aren't specifically written in the rules.
- I think limiting spells to mostly do what they say they do (while ignoring obviously stupid interactions like the one above) is actually somewhat balancing, because it otherwise increases the power and utility of casters over martials even further.
  
  I think that the best thing about tabletop games is that you are not bound by someone else's rules and can decide on the spot what works and what doesn't. It makes for more interesting plays that just adhere to the words written on the page.
  A few years ago, me and my party were stuck in the sewers with giant invisible spiders stalking us. When they attacked us, the Paladin threw some water around so that the water hitting the invisible bodies would make them visible. There's no specific rule for that, but it made for a cool moment.
  At the same time, even if Firebolt explicitly states that it sets objects on fire and Investiture of Flame doesn't, if the Sorcerer wants to burn stuff with it, I'll allow it.
  From experience, the only way to somewhat balance martials and casters is to either give the martials broken stuff, or play homebrew classes that actually care about giving them interesting features to play with.
  Allowing the players to interact with the environment using their tools (as long as they don't specifically infringe on established rules) doesn't change the power dynamics between casters and non-casters. Sure, it technically increases the utility of casters a bit more, but chances are that they have countless tools for the job anyway. The martials are still eating dirt miles behind them.
  
  So just buff the martials! Easy peasy
  
  worrying about balance is another literalism imo. You can make anything fun and enjoyable with the right story, items, and creativity
  
  What I want to know is, if the gap between casters and non-casters is truly that big, why are players still picking non-caster classes? Might as well use one of the half-/third-caster classes and reflavor the magic to make them superpowered martials if you just really want to play a character that only makes narrative sense as a non-caster.
- nah, dnd insists on being specific but isn't particularly well written
  they can either not write their rules to be so specific or proof read them better
- Taking thing literally (especially in an RP game) just shows a lake of creativity. Table top books like DND have always been a framework to give you ideas. everything else is between you and the players
  
  Well that’s a very general accusation for a stance that could have a multitude of reasons.

Bro, first wall of force and now this? I need to sub to this community lol

I touch myself
- Whatever floats your boat man.
  
  That's going to require a LOT of touching.
- oh so that's what elves do in the other 4 hours of the long rest

Is a ghost a creature? Can you put a ghost in a body and touch it to count?
- I mean… since the spell does not say that undead are excluded from revivification, you could very well just do that if you get your hands on the ghost in time.
  
  As per the 2024 rules update (which I have beef with but am using here to make my point) :
  Resurrection
  Level 7 Necromancy (Bard, Cleric)
  Casting Time: 1 hour Range: Touch Components: V, S, M (a diamond worth 1,000+ GP, which the spell consumes) Duration: Instantaneous
  With a touch, you revive a dead creature that has been dead for no more than a century, didn’t die of old age, and wasn’t Undead when it died.
  The creature returns to life with all its Hit Points. This spell also neutralizes any poisons that affected the creature at the time of death. This spell closes all mortal wounds and restores any missing body parts.
  Coming back from the dead is an ordeal. The target takes a −4 penalty to D20 Tests. Every time the target finishes a Long Rest, the penalty is reduced by 1 until it becomes 0.
  Casting this spell to revive a creature that has been dead for 365 days or longer taxes you. Until you finish a Long Rest, you can’t cast spells again, and you have Disadvantage on D20 Tests.
  I cast Resurrection on the lich BBEG. In 5e Resurrection no longer states that the soul must be willing to return in order for it to work, and there's no save, so it should just work if I'm able to touch him. Takes an hour to cast but we're not worried about that right now.
  Does it resurrect him properly? New mortal flesh, soul stuffed into it, meaning he is now no longer immortal and loses most of his legendary actions, and the phylactery becomes inert because it's no longer containing a soul? Extending from this, is a proper resurrection just a "get out of undeath free" card and if so why don't we see it used on every undead? It specifies and wasn’t Undead when it died but I think most Undead go from Living to Dead to Undead in that order, liches included.
  Does it just instantly dust him, like throwing a Phoenix Down at an undead does in Final Fantasy?
  This used to be a solved problem, but between 2014 and 2024 they changed the wording on Resurrection from
  You touch a dead creature that has been dead for no more than a century, that didn't die of old age, and that isn't undead. If its soul is free and willing, the target returns to life with all its hit points.
  to, now:
  With a touch, you revive a dead creature that has been dead for no more than a century, didn’t die of old age, and wasn’t Undead when it died.
  There must be a reason why this was changed. I need answers.

This reminds me of the necromancers are slavers discourse.
- Howso?
  
  The argument was that its done without the consent of the deceased.

56 comments