Animated Objects

[Yogibear41]

Animated Objects keep their hardness when they become animated, which is basically DR that works against everything, but are they still considered objects when it comes to how damage types affect them? Such as fire and electricity dealing half damage before hardness is applied, and cold dealing 1/4th the damage before hardness is applied? As page 165 of the PHB says.

[Adalwolf]

Yes, although they are constructs, the same DR that affects regular items also affects Animated Objects.

[TuggyNE]

Animated Objects keep their hardness when they become animated, which is basically DR that works against everything, but are they still considered objects when it comes to how damage types affect them? Such as fire and electricity dealing half damage before hardness is applied, and cold dealing 1/4th the damage before hardness is applied? As page 165 of the PHB says.

I don't think they do. They're not objects anymore, after all, they're creatures. That said, it would probably not be terribly unreasonable to houserule that they still act like objects for the purposes of reducing energy damage.

[Fouredged Sword]

What if you used riverine? Would one make an unkillable creature?

[Uncle Pine]

What if you used riverine? Would one make an unkillable creature?

It'd still be istantly destroyed by disintegrate, Mordenkainen's disjunction, a rod of cancellation or a sphere of annihilation.

[Fouredged Sword]

Well give it a spellblade and hope it doesn't run into a 17th level wizard.

[Uncle Pine]

Well give it a spellblade and hope it doesn't run into a 17th level wizard.

Easier said than done since animated objects normally can't wield weapons. Although there are ways around that.

[Psyren]

They're not objects anymore, after all, they're creatures.

This is not a binary state - it is possible to be both, as we see plainly with golems.

[Chronos]

Golems are items, but they are not objects. In D&D rules, an object is defined as something that's not a creature.

And if you want an animated object to wield weapons, just make the original object a statue.

[Psyren]

Golems are items, but they are not objects. In D&D rules, an object is defined as something that's not a creature.

What is the source for these two claims?

[TuggyNE]

What is the source for these two claims?

That golems are items? The fact that they are crafted with an [item creation] feat and have the usual prerequisite/CL/price/etc listing for magic items. (Similarly, intelligent magic items are explicitly Constructs.)

That creatures and objects are mutually exclusive?
Any creature that can perceive its environment in any fashion has at least 1 point of Wisdom. Anything with no Wisdom score is an object, not a creature.

[Phelix-Mu]

My understanding is that animate object creates a temporary creature. This is backed up by the fact that they have Wis and Cha, which are explicitly not present in objects.

That said, they managed to murk up the rules quite a bit. Wouldn't be surprised if it's not as clear cut as first blush makes it out to be.

[Psyren]

That golems are items?

I know golems are items - I'm asking for a cite that items are not objects.


That creatures and objects are mutually exclusive?

All that quote shows is that things with no Wis are definitely objects - it doesn't say that it's impossible for a creature to have Wis and still count as an object. All owls are birds etc.

For instance, a Psion using metamorphosis explicitly still has a Wis score. Is he not an object?

[Clistenes]

I think that, by the letter of the rules, a golem is not an item. It is created the same way as an item, but it isn't one. I'm not even sure you could create it with a Wish spell the same way as a magic item.

[Duke of Urrel]

I think the question of whether animated objects are still objects or no longer objects after they're animated is moot. The description of animated objects in the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/animatedObject.htm) states that animated objects have the same hardness as before they were animated. Maybe there's a general rule that creatures don't have hardness, but there's a specific exception written right into the description of animated objects as monsters, which is to say also as creatures.

That having been said, I doubt that a solid object like a statue can be animated to wield weapons. According to the SRD, a solid object, when animated, acquires both a slam attack and the ability to move while also retaining its hardness. I doubt that a solid stone object like a statue can both retain its hardness and become flexible enough to grasp weapons and other objects. I would ask your DM about that.

My own opinion on the matter is that a statue capable of wielding a weapon is effectively a golem. It should have golem traits, and its construction should demand a similar investment in costly materials and experience points. Indeed, now that I have looked over the SRD's description of golems again just now, I'm not sure that even they are capable of wielding weapons, because the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/golem.htm) describes them as "incapable of any strategy or tactics." Still, I don't think it's too much of a leap to assume that a golem can hit someone with a magic sword if its master commands it to do so. But an animated statue, owing to its hardness (which golems do not have), is a different story. An animated statue may be no more capable of wielding a weapon than an animated table, and depending on its original shape, it may have to limit itself to head-butting slam attacks (albeit with a very hard head). Again: Ask your DM.

[TuggyNE]

All that quote shows is that things with no Wis are definitely objects - it doesn't say that it's impossible for a creature to have Wis and still count as an object. All owls are birds etc.

I noticed that, but initially assumed it was because of sloppy wording; i.e., the writers thought that the repetition would make it clear, even though the form is P -> Q; !Q -> !P, which gives no additional information.

Fortunately, the PHB glossary has got our back:
Creature: A living or otherwise active being, not an object.


For instance, a Psion using metamorphosis explicitly still has a Wis score. Is he not an object?

My usual explanation for metamorphosis (which is, as far as I know, the only such problematic case in the whole of the ruleset, besides the one here) is that they have most of the stats of objects but aren't really objects, since they only take the form.

However, it's not really clear from context that that's how it's intended to be.


I think that, by the letter of the rules, a golem is not an item. It is created the same way as an item, but it isn't one. I'm not even sure you could create it with a Wish spell the same way as a construct.

What letter of the rules would argue against it or even create any ambiguity? All feats create magic items. Craft Construct is an feat. There you go. (There's more, of course: the name of the feat is very similar to Craft Staff, Craft Magic Arms & Armor, etc and the golem creation process works the same way as ordinary magic items, down to time spent, gold spent, XP spent, prerequisites, effective CL, and market price. Finally, "The characteristics of a golem that come from its nature as a magic item (caster level, prerequisite feats and spells, market price, cost to create) are given in summary form at the end of each golem’s description.")


I think the question of whether animated objects are still objects or no longer objects after they're animated is moot. The description of animated objects in the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/animatedObject.htm) states that animated objects have the same hardness as before they were animated. Maybe there's a general rule that creatures don't have hardness, but there's a specific exception written right into the description of animated objects [I]as monsters, which is to say also as creatures.

There is no general rule that creatures don't have hardness. Neither is there a general rule that creatures do. In the absence of such, only creatures that specifically say they have hardness do. Such as animated objects, unambiguously. (But not golems.)


My own opinion on the matter is that a statue capable of wielding a weapon is effectively a [I]golem. It should have golem traits, and its construction should demand a similar investment in costly materials and experience points. Indeed, now that I have looked over the SRD's description of golems again just now, I'm not sure that even they are capable of wielding weapons, because the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/golem.htm) describes them as "incapable of any strategy or tactics." Still, I don't think it's too much of a leap to assume that a golem can hit someone with a magic sword if its master commands it to do so.

Iron golems are described as sometimes using shortswords. It would be pretty useless if they couldn't actually wield them to any effect.

[Phelix-Mu]

Caryatid columns are a type of construct from MM2, I think. They have hardness. There's probably some other critter out there that does.

Several types of golems are made including weapons. Brass golem comes to mind, but I'm sure there are others. Were the gem golems armed with weapons?

[unseenmage]

I think the question of whether animated objects are still objects or no longer objects after they're animated is moot. The description of animated objects in the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/animatedObject.htm) states that animated objects have the same hardness as before they were animated. Maybe there's a general rule that creatures don't have hardness, but there's a specific exception written right into the description of animated objects as monsters, which is to say also as creatures.

That having been said, I doubt that a solid object like a statue can be animated to wield weapons. According to the SRD, a solid object, when animated, acquires both a slam attack and the ability to move while also retaining its hardness. I doubt that a solid stone object like a statue can both retain its hardness and become flexible enough to grasp weapons and other objects. I would ask your DM about that.

My own opinion on the matter is that a statue capable of wielding a weapon is effectively a golem. It should have golem traits, and its construction should demand a similar investment in costly materials and experience points. Indeed, now that I have looked over the SRD's description of golems again just now, I'm not sure that even they are capable of wielding weapons, because the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/golem.htm) describes them as "incapable of any strategy or tactics." Still, I don't think it's too much of a leap to assume that a golem can hit someone with a magic sword if its master commands it to do so. But an animated statue, owing to its hardness (which golems do not have), is a different story. An animated statue may be no more capable of wielding a weapon than an animated table, and depending on its original shape, it may have to limit itself to head-butting slam attacks (albeit with a very hard head). Again: Ask your DM.

Objects-made-creatures is a thing, we call them Constructs. Non-Construct creatures with inappropriate anatomy can wield weapons that have been modified for their use. So too can Constructs with inappropriate anatomy.

However, nonproficiency would still come into the equation, as well it should.
I suspect the 'oddness' of Animated Objects wielding weapons you're describing is already represented in the game by this nonproficiency.

Sure the statue might get the sword in it's "grasp" and attack you with it, but but that attack isn't going to be very adept.

[Fouredged Sword]

Or just make some custom leather armor with armor spikes for it. No hands needed.