Adjudicate This: Defining "a creature" for the purpose of spell targetting.

[McBars]

Hey Playgrounders,

During an encounter in today's session the following situation arose:

Our Paladin cast Crown of Madness on a kobold; the kobold failed the save, and was only adjacent to another party member & a dead kobold. The paladin, per the spell text, ordered the kobold to use it's action to attack the dead creature (kobold corpse) which the DM allowed.

After combat finished, our cleric went around casting vampiric touch on the dead kobolds, claiming that he should be able to drain hp from the corpses, arguing the situation was analogous to the above scenario. The DM of course allowed him to attack the corpses to his heart's delight but denied him lifedraining from dead creatures. This upset the cleric for the remainder of the session.

I thought the Paladin situation was permissible per RAW, and somewhat RAI. I feel the cleric's argument was absurd from an RAI perspective; how can yo drain that which has no life? but looking at the spell texts, they both specify "a creature" (making no mention of living or dead) as the target.

How would you rule in both cases?

For reference:
Crown of Madness
"One humanoid of your choice that you can see within range must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or become charmed by you for the duration. While the target is charmed in this way, a twisted crown of jagged iron appears on its head, and a madness glows in its eyes. The charmed target must use its action before moving on each of its turns to make a melee attack against a creature other than itself that you mentally choose. The target can act normally on its turn if you choose no creature or if none are within its reach. On your subsequent turns, you must use your action to maintain control over the target, or the spell ends. Also, the target can make a Wisdom saving throw at the end of each of its turns. On a success, the spell ends." -PHB pg 229

Vampiric Touch
"The touch of your shadow-wreathed hand can siphon life force from others to heal your wounds. Make a melee spell attack against a creature within your reach. On a hit, the target takes 3d6 necrotic damage, and you regain hit points equal to half the amount of necrotic damage dealt. Until the spell ends, you can make the attack again on each of your turns as an action" -PHB pg 285

[randomodo]

My philsophy: A corpse is meat; using the example above your paladin could use crown of madness to order someone to attack a roast beef - since it's composed of cow corpse.

If it's dead, it is no longer a creature as far as Crown of Madness is concerned.

If you allow that corpses count as creatures, then I can see the point of the person trying to cast Vampiric Touch (except that they have no HP remaining to drain).

[Demonic Spoon]

My philsophy: A corpse is meat; using the example above your paladin could use crown of madness to order someone to attack a roast beef - since it's composed of cow corpse.

If it's dead, it is no longer a creature as far as Crown of Madness is concerned.

If you allow that corpses count as creatures, then I can see the point of the person trying to cast Vampiric Touch (except that they have no HP remaining to drain).

I agree with this, with the addendum that in the case of crown of madness, I would take the time to roll the creature's death saves and allow the attack so long as it hadn't actually died yet.

[randomodo]

in the case of crown of madness, I would take the time to roll the creature's death saves and allow the attack so long as it hadn't actually died yet.

I concur on that

[BRC]

With Vampiric Touch, it could also be noted that, even if the corpse was a valid target, they wouldn't heal because they wouldn't "Deal Damage".

In 5E, you cease taking damage once you hit 0. Subsequent attacks count as failed death saves, but "damage" (As in a reduction of hit points) does not occur.

So, even if a Corpse is a Creature, it does not have hit points. Therefore, Necrotic Touch deals no damage, and does not heal the caster. Just because the dice is rolled does not mean the damage is dealt.

Consider casting Vampiric Touch on something immune to necrotic damage. You can roll as high as you want, no damage is going to be dealt.

[rollingForInit]

With Vampiric Touch, it could also be noted that, even if the corpse was a valid target, they wouldn't heal because they wouldn't "Deal Damage".

In 5E, you cease taking damage once you hit 0. Subsequent attacks count as failed death saves, but "damage" (As in a reduction of hit points) does not occur.

So, even if a Corpse is a Creature, it does not have hit points. Therefore, Necrotic Touch deals no damage, and does not heal the caster. Just because the dice is rolled does not mean the damage is dealt.

Consider casting Vampiric Touch on something immune to necrotic damage. You can roll as high as you want, no damage is going to be dealt.

This is how I'd do it.

[Demonic Spoon]

Thematically, a dying creature does still have some life force in it. Personally, I'd allow it to work, but cut the amount healed in half to represent the fact that there's not all that much left to take.

[DireSickFish]

I'd make the creature under the effect of Crown of Madness attack the PC. Thematically the spell crown of madness seems to mean you are giving them insatiable blood-lust that you can direct. Therefore they need to attack a living (or undead, or construct ect.) creature next to them and I would not count a dead kobold as one.

Mechanically a creature needs to be alive (or undead, or constructed) and moving around to be targeted by any spell that specifies a creature. This makes Crown of Madness less powerful as you can't stop a PC from being hit, but I think the intent is that you are turning an enemy against the rest of its group not full control. It's not dominate person after all.

[Myzz]

I don't think either interpretation is RAW. Once it becomes a corpse it becomes a thing...

Of course, in the future for the Cleric to pull this off you could do subdual damage..? so they go to 0 HP but don't auto fail. Then when combat is over go around and do Vampiric Touch...

AND yes damage is technically done, well at least in the instance if you do their Max HP worth...

If the Cleric wants to spend his 3rd level spell slots to recover half 3d6 HP worth... go for it!

Cure Wounds does 3d8+wis mod when used as a 3rd level slot...

Of course he could make an attack on the corpse too...

[Myzz]

I'd make the creature under the effect of Crown of Madness attack the PC. Thematically the spell crown of madness seems to mean you are giving them insatiable blood-lust that you can direct. Therefore they need to attack a living (or undead, or construct ect.) creature next to them and I would not count a dead kobold as one.

Mechanically a creature needs to be alive (or undead, or constructed) and moving around to be targeted by any spell that specifies a creature. This makes Crown of Madness less powerful as you can't stop a PC from being hit, but I think the intent is that you are turning an enemy against the rest of its group not full control. It's not dominate person after all.

Of course if there were multiple PC targets, you get to choose which of those targets it attacks... SO if one is very hurt vs one not, or one in Plate with a sheild... or Raging Barbarian... or someone witha dmg shield up...

[heavyfuel]

Crearure = Book entry*

A bacteria isn't a creature, much like a leech isn't one, even if by our definition of biology they both are.

(* Entries that are mere refluffs, such as Antelope using Deer stats, are also creatures)

[Demonic Spoon]

I don't think either interpretation is RAW. Once it becomes a corpse it becomes a thing...

Of course, in the future for the Cleric to pull this off you could do subdual damage..? so they go to 0 HP but don't auto fail. Then when combat is over go around and do Vampiric Touch...

AND yes damage is technically done, well at least in the instance if you do their Max HP worth...

If the Cleric wants to spend his 3rd level spell slots to recover half 3d6 HP worth... go for it!

Cure Wounds does 3d8+wis mod when used as a 3rd level slot...

Of course he could make an attack on the corpse too...

Irrelevant. This is clearly a situation which RAW wasn't designed to handle (since "creature" is ambiguously defined). Also, this thread is titled "Adjudicate this: ...", not "Simple Q&A D&D 5 (by RAW) I"

That said, your interpretation of RAW is incorrect. The "negative max HP" clause only applies for the blow that knocked the creature to 0. After it hits 0, it stops taking damage and starts taking death saves when being hit.

[heavyfuel]

Corpses (dead creatures) are no longer creature, they are an object. Similarly to how he can't be commanded to hit the dead kobold, you can't cast Charm Person on it. If it were dying though, he would receive the 2 failed death saves for being victim of a crit.

Vampiric Touch doesn't work on dying creatures since they can't take damage, and the language reads: "you regain hit points equal to half the amount of necrotic damage dealt". Half of 0 is 0

[Demonic Spoon]

The dictionary definition of "creature" does not specify that it must be alive, and nowhere in the D&D rules that I am aware of does it provide a strict definition of what a "creature" constitutes; arguing RAW is silly because any RAW discussion comes down to what constitutes a creature.


This is an incredibly clear-cut case of "make rulings, not rules"

[SharkForce]

I don't think either interpretation is RAW. Once it becomes a corpse it becomes a thing...

Of course, in the future for the Cleric to pull this off you could do subdual damage..? so they go to 0 HP but don't auto fail. Then when combat is over go around and do Vampiric Touch...

AND yes damage is technically done, well at least in the instance if you do their Max HP worth...

If the Cleric wants to spend his 3rd level spell slots to recover half 3d6 HP worth... go for it!

Cure Wounds does 3d8+wis mod when used as a 3rd level slot...

Of course he could make an attack on the corpse too...

actually, it's much better than cure wounds. vampiric touch lasts for up to a minute, and can be used multiple times, iirc; it's good for half of 3d6 * 10 if he has enough targets.

[Mr.Moron]

Frankly the Cleric sounds like a neck beard of the highest order. If it was my group I would definitely be having a discussion with the rest of the player base if this is someone we want around, assuming they were being genuine about their complaint and not just taking the piss. It's such a blatantly disingenuous power grab to disrupt the game for it shows no respect for the GM or the other players.

Making the paladin attack the Kobold corpse is a perfectly reasonable bending of the term "Creature" because a Kobold corpse is something looks like a creature the Kobold could attack. The spell is affecting the kobold's mind telling him to "Attack that guy over there". That "Attack that guy over there", directed at muddled brain can make them attack the corpse is plainly intuitive, as would directing them at a target dummy or statue.

The Vampiric Touch spell is draining life force, life force a corpse doesn't have. It's not reasonable bending of term "Creature" because it's plainly absurd at it's face.

[TrexPushups]

actually, it's much better than cure wounds. vampiric touch lasts for up to a minute, and can be used multiple times, iirc; it's good for half of 3d6 * 10 if he has enough targets.

Easy enough solution for our reverted cleric Kevorkian to get his temp Hp and to keep a living target for the crowned minion.

Players have the option to declare they are knocking an opponent out when they drop them to 0 hp.

Now you have a bunch of unconscious targets. Beware of alignment shifts though.

[pwykersotz]

I agree that Crown of Madness shouldn't have allowed a dead creature to be targeted. However, I think that the ruling at the table was perfectly fine for the time. Without this thread, I might have been in the exact same situation. That said, the Cleric has no call to be angry, especially if this is considered fairly and clarified after the fact. Rules extrapolations are dangerous at the best of times, and more so the further you get from the basics.

[Strill]

Frankly the Cleric sounds like a neck beard of the highest order. If it was my group I would definitely be having a discussion with the rest of the player base if this is someone we want around, assuming they were being genuine about their complaint and not just taking the piss. It's such a blatantly disingenuous power grab to disrupt the game for it shows no respect for the GM or the other players.

Making the paladin attack the Kobold corpse is a perfectly reasonable bending of the term "Creature" because a Kobold corpse is something looks like a creature the Kobold could attack. The spell is affecting the kobold's mind telling him to "Attack that guy over there". That "Attack that guy over there", directed at muddled brain can make them attack the corpse is plainly intuitive, as would directing them at a target dummy or statue.

The Vampiric Touch spell is draining life force, life force a corpse doesn't have. It's not reasonable bending of term "Creature" because it's plainly absurd at it's face.

Yeah, I agree. The main distinction is that with Crown of Madness, the corpse is not being targeted by a spell, it's being targeted by the Paladin, who is mentally controlling the Kobold. I think that spells should be strict about what they can and cannot target, so Vampiric Touch cannot drain a corpse, but since the caster of Crown of Madness is the one who's doing the targeting, that doesn't apply.

[1pwny]

I agree with BRC and rollingForInit. Possibly with a dab of Demonic Spoon. Something along the lines of "You target the corpse, and drain the small amount of residual life force left in the body. You gain [1d4] hitpoints. The corpse is now completely drained of life force."

Yeah. You can target the corpse, but as the text says "you regain hitpoints equal to half the amount of necrotic damage dealt." So I feel this solution properly represents RAW and fluff.

[Galen]

In 3.5, at least, it is explicitly spelled that a dead creature is an object, not a creature. Not sure if such text exists in 5e.

[ImTheCleric]

Frankly the Cleric sounds like a neck beard of the highest order.

Hey, I'm the cleric from the party in question. It's worth noting that I too found this to be a hillarious misuse of the vampiric touch. What the Paladin neglected to mention is that my argument was AGAINST his use of crown of command, giving the example that if he's allowed to count a corpse as a creature for the purposes of attacking a creature with crown of command, then I would be allowed to count it as a creature for vampiric touch (which is stupid). For the DM's ruling on our dispute to hold up, it must hold up in all situations.

Also the player's handbook is not a dictionary and therefore we shouldn't be looking there for the definition of a fairly obvious word. The word "creature" has a very clear definition. "an animate being" according to dictionary.com. A corpse is not animate and therefore is not a creature.

As for whether or not damage is dealt once someone is at 0hp, I quote the player's handbook. "If you take any damage while you have 0 hit points, you suffer a death saving throw failure." It does not say you take a death saving throw INSTEAD. If YOU TAKE DAMAGE (meaning you most certainly do) you get a death saving throw.

As for whether or not a corpse can be attacked at all, I vote that if I can attack a piece of wood, or a door, or a chest, then anything is attackable. The question is whether the spell allows the attack. In this case, the key to determining that is the qualifier "creature". Thus my argument against crown of command's usage in this way hinged on this misuse of the qualifier "creature" and how it could be abused if he made a ruling in favor of the Paladin.

[heavyfuel]

The dictionary definition of "creature" does not specify that it must be alive, and nowhere in the D&D rules that I am aware of does it provide a strict definition of what a "creature" constitutes; arguing RAW is silly because any RAW discussion comes down to what constitutes a creature.


This is an incredibly clear-cut case of "make rulings, not rules"

Whether you liked it nor not, that was my ruling, which happens to be based on a houserule. I never said it was RAW, nor I even implied it... The only thing that is RAW in my previous answer is regarding the Vampiric Touch spell. The houserule itself is: "Corpses are objects". Everything else that needs to be ruled based on this definition will have the same treatment.

[Daishain]

Dead creature is no longer a creature, at least not until zombified. Dying creature could be targeted by both COM and VT, though I would likely reduce the HP gain from the latter

the only question I would have regarding the above would be whether perception or reality is more important when it comes to mind altering effects.

One could make the argument that the crowned creature is confused enough that recognizing the object of their fury is a mite more difficult than normal. It is after all an effect that invokes madness. If that is the case, anything that superficially resembles a creature might be a valid target

Of course, this is purely speculation and RAW does not cover it.

[heavyfuel]

Dead creature is no longer a creature, at least not until zombified.

Dead = Not creature

Undead = creature :smallwink:

[Shining Wrath]

Oddly, Vampiric Touch has no limitations about using it on undead. I may have to house rule that.

Anyway ...

I think RAW does cover this. Page 198 of PHB:


Most DMs have a monster die the instant it drops to 0 hit points ... Mighty villains and special nonplayer characters are common exceptions ...

This is similar to the players deciding, after the end of a battle, that they want to interrogate fallen foes. If a monster has been "dead" fewer than 3 rounds, it can be stabilized via any of the usual methods, then interrogated.

So in these two cases, the players want a fallen monster to still be alive. Roll a bunch of D6 equal to the number of rounds since the monster was dropped. Count odds as success, evens as failures (or vice versa, but you're wrong if you do :smalltongue:). If the monster gets fewer than 3 failures (or you aren't even rolling 3 dice), the monster is still alive.

For the Paladin's purposes, that makes it a legitimate target for Crown of Madness if it hasn't failed 3 times. For the Cleric's purposes, that means there's still some life force left to drain. The amount of life force left to drain is the amount required to kill a kobold outright; the HP maximum for a typical kobold is 5, so for each kobold that hasn't failed 3 stabilization rolls, the cleric can regain 5 HP.

For both the Paladin and the Cleric, if a kobold took enough damage to kill it outright (5 or more "overkill"), the corpse is a corpse.

[Kryx]

Hey, I'm the cleric from the party in question.
Please ignore the neck beard comment. It's a childish argument to make.

What you're arguing for is consistency of rules, which is good.

Creature is a game term, not a dictionary term.

You touch a living creature that has 0 hit points. The creature becomes stable. This spell has no effect on undead or constructs.

Based on that description it seems creatures are still creatures if they have 0 hit points. I would however follow the rules mentioned above & from 3.5 that a creature no longer qualifies after it dies. Depending on the timing of the actions the creature could very well have been alive at the time of Crown of Madness.

[Strill]

Based on the living keyword there it seems creatures are still creatures if they have 0 hit points. I would however follow the rules mentioned above & from 3.5 that a creature no longer qualifies after it dies. Depending on the timing of the actions the creature could very well have been alive at the time of Crown of Madness.

No, the living qualifier is there to distinguish living creatures from undead ones.

[Kryx]

No, the living qualifier is there to distinguish living creatures from undead ones.
You're right, but the fact that a creature with 0 hit points is still a creature is still proven in that spell description.

I would, as a DM, roll the death saves. As the book suggests I only roll death saves for creatures if it matters and in this case it does matter. The most likely scenario is that the creature is dead after 1 swing of crown of madness. It all depends on the timing.

[Kane0]

I would have ruled that Crown of Madness would only have worked if the target kobold thought the other kobold was still alive and Vampiric Touch did nothing, assuming they were in fact dead.

/2cp

[Chronos]

Quoth galen:

In 3.5, at least, it is explicitly spelled that a dead creature is an object, not a creature. Not sure if such text exists in 5e.
Other way around, actually. While everyone seems to think that's a rule in 3.5, it's not. A corpse is a creature with the "dead" condition, not an object. Perhaps surprisingly, this ends up clearing up a number of other rules that would otherwise be dysfunctional.

That said, 3.5 would deal with this situation, just in a different way: The 3.5 version of Vampiric Touch specifies living creature touched. This is mostly to make it not work on undead and constructs, but it'd also apply to corpses. I'm not sure why 5e stopped using the "living creature" qualifier in spells and the like (most equivalent situations in 5e are instead specified as "not undead or construct"), but it's already come back to bite them in the butt with the rules for Warforged.

[b4ndito]

The cleric was being a crybaby. He should apologize to the DM for being a crybaby, and he should apologize to you for making you take the time to even write this up.

[themaque]

I would have ruled that Crown of Madness would only have worked if the target kobold thought the other kobold was still alive and Vampiric Touch did nothing, assuming they were in fact dead.

/2cp

I actually agree with this ruling. The command from the Crown of Madness would work only so long as the Kobold see's his fallen comrade as still a creature. Even if he knows Meepo is dead, if it looks like Meepo, he might still go after it. Once he no longer see's Meepo but meat (to much damage, no longer resembling a "creature" ) he would have to pick a new target.

This FEELS right, and I think in keeping with style and substance. It would be a harder sell for me if this was 3.5/PF.

The Cleric drawing life force from the dead? No, that's just trying to exploit the system. Sure he can TARGET them, but he won't get anything out of them if they are dead. You CAN squeeze a stone, but that still doesn't mean you will get any blood from it.

[Vogonjeltz]

Dead = Not creature

Undead = creature

Demetri Martin fan?

I don't know that anyone considers a carcass a creature. After it's dead it's just a corpse.

[Malifice]

With Vampiric Touch, it could also be noted that, even if the corpse was a valid target, they wouldn't heal because they wouldn't "Deal Damage".

In 5E, you cease taking damage once you hit 0. Subsequent attacks count as failed death saves, but "damage" (As in a reduction of hit points) does not occur.

So, even if a Corpse is a Creature, it does not have hit points. Therefore, Necrotic Touch deals no damage, and does not heal the caster. Just because the dice is rolled does not mean the damage is dealt.

Consider casting Vampiric Touch on something immune to necrotic damage. You can roll as high as you want, no damage is going to be dealt.

Actually, it does still deal the damage, but the damage is not recorded as hit point loss by the recipent, it instead counts as two failed death saves.

AFB but isn't an attack against an incapacitated foe (one at 0 HP) automatically a critical hit (and thus 2 failed saves)?

Either way, its still dealing damage to them and hurting them, so I would allow the HP regeneration (assuming they aren't dead already)

Each to their own.

[heavyfuel]

Demetri Martin fan?

I don't know that anyone considers a carcass a creature. After it's dead it's just a corpse.

Nope. Never even heard of the guy... Is he any good as a comedian?

[Talderas]

There's a couple spells I'm looking at to determine if a dead creature is a creature or an object assuming this creature became instantly dead on 0hp or whether it did so due to failing three death saves.

The first spell is Animate Objects. This spell can only target objects and I have read people talking, though not necessarily in 5th edition, about animating corpses with the spell. If a corpse is a valid target for the attack forced by Crown of Madness then it cannot be targeted by this spell.

The second spell is Polymorph. It targets a creature and that creature gains the hit points of the form into which it's polymorphed which brings it back to life? What happens when the polymorph spell ends is equally confusing. It's returned to 0 hit points so it's possibly dying or is it dead or is it stable? I don't know.

[Shining Wrath]

I think a lot of people are missing the point that a creature at 0 HP but rolling for stabilization, or that has successfully stabilized, is not dead. That makes it a valid target.

[heavyfuel]

I think a lot of people are missing the point that a creature at 0 HP but rolling for stabilization, or that has successfully stabilized, is not dead. That makes it a valid target.

A creature at 0 also can't take damage, necrotic or otherwise. Half of 0 damage dealt is 0.

And rearding Crown of Madness, the kobold was dead, not at 0 and rolling death saves.

[Talderas]

I think a lot of people are missing the point that a creature at 0 HP but rolling for stabilization, or that has successfully stabilized, is not dead. That makes it a valid target.

That is not a missed point. Death saves are only rolled for creatures of importance which means PCs or NPCs of significant note. Most hostiles that players are encountering are dead upon reaching 0 hit points so they are corpses.

--


A creature at 0 also can't take damage, necrotic or otherwise. Half of 0 damage dealt is 0.

This line is entirely incorrect. If you are at 0 hit points and you take damage, you roll a death save. If you are at 0 hit points and you take a critical hit you roll two death saves. If you are at 0 damage and the damage dealt exceeds your maximum hit points you are dead. The rules are on page 197.

A creature at 0 hit points most certainly take a non-zero amount of hit point damage and consequently any abilities that trigger based off dealing hit point damage will proc which means even if the target's hit points are not lowered by virtue of being at zero hit points. The person using vampiric touch will still gain temporary hit points based on half the damage dealt.

--

Treating a corpse as a creature, which is required for the purpose of Crown of Madness, introduces weirdness. It's a matter of consistency so if a corpse is a creature rather than it's own type (dead creature) or an object then it must be treated as a creature for all spells and effects.

[broodax]

There's a couple spells I'm looking at to determine if a dead creature is a creature or an object assuming this creature became instantly dead on 0hp or whether it did so due to failing three death saves.

The first spell is Animate Objects. This spell can only target objects and I have read people talking, though not necessarily in 5th edition, about animating corpses with the spell. If a corpse is a valid target for the attack forced by Crown of Madness then it cannot be targeted by this spell.

The second spell is Polymorph. It targets a creature and that creature gains the hit points of the form into which it's polymorphed which brings it back to life? What happens when the polymorph spell ends is equally confusing. It's returned to 0 hit points so it's possibly dying or is it dead or is it stable? I don't know.


You've got the right idea, but missed the obvious spells to check: Reincarnate, Revivify, Ressurection.

These all target creatures, not objects, that are dead. Now, of course this is extrapolation, but I think it makes it abundantly clear that the intent, at least, in 5e, is that corpses are still creatures.

[DireSickFish]

You've got the right idea, but missed the obvious spells to check: Reincarnate, Revivify, Ressurection.

These all target creatures, not objects, that are dead. Now, of course this is extrapolation, but I think it makes it abundantly clear that the intent, at least, in 5e, is that corpses are still creatures.

Yeah but aren't you targeting the creature in the afterlife and not the corpse? It specifically calls out that you can do it to a creature, that you have a bodypatr/corpse of.

[broodax]

Yeah but aren't you targeting the creature in the afterlife and not the corpse? It specifically calls out that you can do it to a creature, that you have a bodypatr/corpse of.

No, the range is touch, and you are targeting the thing you touch, which is also the creature. The spell descriptions also refer to "its soul" separately from "the creature". The soul might be a separate thing, but it's not the same thing that you are targeting.

[The_Ditto]

The way I see it:

Yes, can target the "dead corpse".
At the time of choosing your target, you likely cannot tell with 100% certainty whether it's a dead corpse, and unconscious body, or a living creature playing possum. Now, what effect it might have after striking .. well, that depends on it's state ;)

So yeah, Paladin can have kobold strike at "dead kobold". (Consider if you'd allow him to strike at somebody playing possum - if not, you're allowing a great deal of power to the ability to play possum and not having to worry about being hit by things ;) )

Yes, the cleric can target the dead corpse (or unconscious kobold, or even pretending to be unconscious kobold) ... however, he'd only get HP back if the spell actually dealt damage (as others have already repeatedly pointed out). So only in the Playing possum scenario ..

[Icewraith]

Note that Crown of Madness targets a creature, and then you command that creature to attack other creatures. The requirement that the attack target be a creature is much less stringent than the requirement that the Crown of Madness target be a creature.

Otherwise, Crown of Madness would be the best golem-detecting spell ever. Is that statue just a statue? Crown of Madness someone and order them to attack the statue. If they attack the statue, the statue was actually a golem or other construct of some sort. You could order the target to attack the invisible creature in front of them and in theory they only do so if there is actually an invisible creature in front of them.

Therefore I'd argue that the Crown of Madness target will attack things it believes to be creatures, including illusions, corpses that haven't been damaged to the point that they're obviously dead, constructs that aren't currently pretending to be statues, etc. I'd also argue that a Crown of Madnessed target will attack animated objects because they move around and attack things on their own- they seem to be alive and make attack rolls and saving throws, have HP and AC- they're creature-like. Unless it can distinguish the two, the Crown of Madness target should attack a sufficiently realistic puppet controlled by invisible wires that looks like an undead, even though it's not actually a "creature". If the Crown of Madness target doesn't know that something isn't actually a creature it will attack it anyways, and if it doesn't know that something actually is a creature it will not attack.

So you can't order a Crown of Madnessed target to waste its turn attacking the ground, or chairs or something, but you can order it to attack plants, illusions, things that might be unconscious and not dead, etc if you're out of opponents to make it attack.

[Vogonjeltz]

Nope. Never even heard of the guy... Is he any good as a comedian?

Yes, I enjoyed his show while it was on Comedy Central, and according to the wiki-bio he was a contributor for the Daily Show. If I recall correctly his stand-up involved alot of visual jokes (like graphs where the X-axis is "Ability to draw mountains" and the Y-axis is "Time", and the actual graph becomes a series of increasingly intricate mountains).


There's a couple spells I'm looking at to determine if a dead creature is a creature or an object assuming this creature became instantly dead on 0hp or whether it did so due to failing three death saves.

The first spell is Animate Objects. This spell can only target objects and I have read people talking, though not necessarily in 5th edition, about animating corpses with the spell. If a corpse is a valid target for the attack forced by Crown of Madness then it cannot be targeted by this spell.

The second spell is Polymorph. It targets a creature and that creature gains the hit points of the form into which it's polymorphed which brings it back to life? What happens when the polymorph spell ends is equally confusing. It's returned to 0 hit points so it's possibly dying or is it dead or is it stable? I don't know.

I'd be inclined to say that's fine, especially considering it's a 5th level spell whereas Animate Dead is a 3rd level spell. Perusing the statistics on the animated objects and comparing them to Zombies leads me to believe you'd have been better off just making a bunch of zombies (especially considering the duration of animate objects is only up to 1 minute, whereas Zombies are actually like that for good!).

Assuming we agree the corpse is an object (which I certainly do), then it is immune to Polymorph. PHB page 185, objects are immune to all saving throws except strength and dexterity (which they fail automatically).

I can't think of any reason at all that someone would think an object like a carcass is a creature. As such I'd say neither the crown nor the vampiric touch can target the dead kobold.

[broodax]

Weird. So y'all are just going to ignore the spells that clearly target dead creatures?

Polymorph, by the way, isn't an issue. You may very well be able to polymorph a dead creature into something, and it would then change hitpoint totals, but it would still be dead.

[Malifice]

A creature at 0 also can't take damage, necrotic or otherwise. Half of 0 damage dealt is 0.


Creatures at 0 HP can take damage. That damage just doesn't affect hit points anymore. It instead forces failed death saves, or if the damage is higher than the creatures maximum hit point total, kills them outright.

Conceptually accurate too. Stick a knife in a creature at 0 HP. I assure you you will damage that creature (game terms its an automatic critical hit forcing 2 failed death saves)

[Talderas]

You've got the right idea, but missed the obvious spells to check: Reincarnate, Revivify, Ressurection.

These all target creatures, not objects, that are dead. Now, of course this is extrapolation, but I think it makes it abundantly clear that the intent, at least, in 5e, is that corpses are still creatures.

I did check them then I discarded them because the target is "dead creature". WotC hasn't always done a good job when it comes to adjectives so it's not easy to tell whether "dead" is an adjective descriptor of the creature type or "dead creature" is the target and it is or is not an object or it's own type of target.

There is also the definition of object in the DMG on pg246-247.


For the purpose of these rules, an object is a discrete inanimate item like a window, door, sword, book, table, chair, or stone, not a building or a vehicle that is composed of many other objects.

A corpse is certainly discrete. It is individual, separate, and distinct. It is also quite inanimate as that is a rather common function of death. It is also not composed of many other objects. Among the statistics of objects I think it is important to note that bones have an AC of 15. Objects are also immune to the psychic and poison damage types which is something that would be common sense for a dead creature. It has no mind to attack with psychic damage and lacking a functioning circulatory system would make poison damage ineffective.

By RAW I believe corpses match all the criteria to classify them as objects rather than creatures.

--


I'd be inclined to say that's fine, especially considering it's a 5th level spell whereas Animate Dead is a 3rd level spell. Perusing the statistics on the animated objects and comparing them to Zombies leads me to believe you'd have been better off just making a bunch of zombies (especially considering the duration of animate objects is only up to 1 minute, whereas Zombies are actually like that for good!).

Assuming we agree the corpse is an object (which I certainly do), then it is immune to Polymorph. PHB page 185, objects are immune to all saving throws except strength and dexterity (which they fail automatically).

IIRC an animated object is more potent than a zombie. It is also not vulnerable to turning attempts and isn't evil aligned. Animate dead has a 1 minute cast time while animate objects is 1 action. Also, only unwilling creatures have to make a save against polymorph. Unless I'm mistaken, only attended objects get to make saves.

[broodax]

If you contend that 'dead creature' is a new type of entity, that could potentially work. Except that:

a) "A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below)."

Perhaps that list isn't exhaustive, but that seems a bit weird. Or perhaps you would say that a 'dead creature' is a type of object. However:

b) The spells consistently refer to 'the creature' without the dead descriptor.

I agree that WotC's use of language leaves a lot to be desired, but you have to stretch pretty far to think that they meant 'object' when the wrote 'creature' those seven or so times.

c) Revivify specifies 'a creature that has died...' not a 'dead creature'

If you're relying on the definition I think you have some trouble. For one, you contradict yourself by claiming that a dead creature is not composed of many other objects and then pointing out some of the very objects of which it is composed.

"It is also not composed of many other objects. Among the statistics of objects I think it is important to note that bones have an AC of 15."

I unfortunately don't have the DMG on hand to be able to look up the definitions myself.

[The_Ditto]

Cool, so I can cast Animate object and target somebody's Hand ? (hey, it's not a creature, it must be an object?) :smalltongue:

"I'll name it Ash."
:smallbiggrin:

[Talderas]

Perhaps that list isn't exhaustive, but that seems a bit weird. Or perhaps you would say that a 'dead creature' is a type of object. However:

b) The spells consistently refer to 'the creature' without the dead descriptor.

This is, perhaps surprisingly, a non-issue because we're only concerned with the targeting of the spell. Unless the spell references a secondary effect with another target the target has been locked in based on the line that describes targeting. Any other references that might be tangentially related to the target can be applied to the spell's target unless the spell's description puts some sort of conditional in place in order to control which effects can affect certain types of targets.


c) Revivify specifies 'a creature that has died...' not a 'dead creature'

I've explicitly ignored spells dealing with the dead because they're not consistent in their description of dead bodies. Animate dead and gentle repose, for instance, reference corpses while other spells like raise dead or revivify reference dead creature or creature who recently died. Without the internal consistency within that group of spells you need to look elsewhere to find out what a corpse qualifies as and that's why I look to the definition of object.


If you're relying on the definition I think you have some trouble. For one, you contradict yourself by claiming that a dead creature is not composed of many other objects and then pointing out some of the very objects of which it is composed.

The reason I cited bone specifically is because it's an example of organic material of which an object can be made. It is also just a chart of example materials with armor classes. They also include wood as another organic material but it's a bit more ubiquitous. They also don't have the armor class for flesh. That doesn't mean you couldn't attack a steak on a plate.

--


Cool, so I can cast Animate object and target somebody's Hand ? (hey, it's not a creature, it must be an object?)

A creature's hand is demonstrably animate so it's certainly not an object.

[broodax]

I don't think we can ever have success adjudicating the targeting of dead creatures if we ignore spells that target dead creatures. I agree that Gentle Repose and Animate Dead are unclear. They give no clues whatsoever to the game's general definition of dead bodies. Animate dead is especially unclear because it affects not only a dead creature, but an undead creature, and/or a collection of objects which are the remains of potentially many dead creatures.

I don't see why that should make us ignore the complete clarity with which Reincarnate, Revivify, and Resurrection refer to their target as a creature.

It is only because you are unsure of the target criteria that we need to look elsewhere in the spell for clues. You have claimed that the spells are unclear when they state "dead creature". To claim that they must clearly mean it to be a new type of object when every other place in the spell where the target is referenced refers to a "creature" seems disingenuous at best, especially when one of the spells does in fact refer to a 'creature that has died'.

[Vogonjeltz]

Weird. So y'all are just going to ignore the spells that clearly target dead creatures?

Polymorph, by the way, isn't an issue. You may very well be able to polymorph a dead creature into something, and it would then change hitpoint totals, but it would still be dead.

Those specifically target a subset of objects (dead creatures). I don't see any problem.

Polymorph can't target objects, True Polymorph on the other hand, can. And using it would certainly make a live creature, albeit if you did the full hour they would become a completely different live creature than they used to be.


IIRC an animated object is more potent than a zombie. It is also not vulnerable to turning attempts and isn't evil aligned. Animate dead has a 1 minute cast time while animate objects is 1 action. Also, only unwilling creatures have to make a save against polymorph. Unless I'm mistaken, only attended objects get to make saves.

It has more hp and there's variance in the ability scores. I was giving extra weight to the duration of the creatures; zombies lasting effectively forever, animated objects lasting only the 1 minute the spell lasts. I think if we're talking in a pinch, yes animate object is more useful in combat, whereas animate dead likely would be more useful given prep time.

As far as the objects and saves go, I think you are mistaken for 5th edition. The rules for interacting with objects on PHB pg 185 say nothing about attendance, only that characters can damage objects and that objects are immune to some types of damage, that the DM determines an objects AC, hit points, etc... and lastly that they always fail strength and dex saves and are immune to effects that require other saves.

Depending on the circumstances I might allow a strength or dexterity save by an attending character to protect the item (i.e. they move the item out of harms way, or hold the item up to prevent it being knocked down). But that would be highly dependent on it all making sense within the given circumstances.

[broodax]

Those specifically target a subset of objects (dead creatures). I don't see any problem.


While you might be able to stretch 'dead creature' as a type of object AND ignore all the times that the spells just refer to a creature, Revivify disagrees completely:


You touch a creature that has died...

If you want to say that a "creature that has died" is a type of object then I assume you are simply working on the assumption that a creature becomes an object when it dies, rather than trying to find any evidence in the rules.

[Yagyujubei]

With Vampiric Touch, it could also be noted that, even if the corpse was a valid target, they wouldn't heal because they wouldn't "Deal Damage".

In 5E, you cease taking damage once you hit 0. Subsequent attacks count as failed death saves, but "damage" (As in a reduction of hit points) does not occur.

So, even if a Corpse is a Creature, it does not have hit points. Therefore, Necrotic Touch deals no damage, and does not heal the caster. Just because the dice is rolled does not mean the damage is dealt.

Consider casting Vampiric Touch on something immune to necrotic damage. You can roll as high as you want, no damage is going to be dealt.

this right here is straight up /thread.

straight up RAW mechanics. creatures at 0 hitpoints take failed deathsaves instead of dmg. There's no need for dispute here.

paladin can use crown of madness to make a kobold attack another fallen kobold as long as it has death saves left, otherwise it wont work.

cleric can absolutely do the same with vampiric touch but he wont get any healing from it. he'll only take away saves. if he dont like it he can find another table i say

[broodax]

You should have read the rest of the thread rather than /threading, or just read the book. Creatures make death saves when they take damage, not instead of taking damage.

[Vogonjeltz]

If you want to say that a "creature that has died" is a type of object then I assume you are simply working on the assumption that a creature becomes an object when it dies, rather than trying to find any evidence in the rules.

No, your assumption is totally wrong and you have the situation backwards. Here are the standard definitions of the words applicable:

creature: an animal or person.
object: a thing that you can see and touch and that is not alive.
alive: having life : living : not dead

Therefore the default english meaning of "a creature that has died" is an object that previously held the state of being as a living creature.

I find nothing that redefines those words, just spells saying what needs to be targeted. Again, not just any object, but a specifically "creature that has died". i.e. An object that was a living creature previously.

Now, all you need to do to provide a convincing argument is find where in the rules it says objects are specifically defined to exclude dead things or creature is now defined to specifically include dead things.

[broodax]

No, your assumption is totally wrong and you have the situation backwards. Here are the standard definitions of the words applicable:

creature: an animal or person.
object: a thing that you can see and touch and that is not alive.
alive: having life : living : not dead

Therefore the default english meaning of "a creature that has died" is an object that previously held the state of being as a living creature.

I find nothing that redefines those words, just spells saying what needs to be targeted. Again, not just any object, but a specifically "creature that has died". i.e. An object that was a living creature previously.

Now, all you need to do to provide a convincing argument is find where in the rules it says objects are specifically defined to exclude dead things or creature is now defined to specifically include dead things.

I am not sure where you're getting your definitions, however, you've got huge problems with your argument.

First, in English, creatures are not defined with respect to life and death. It's arguable whether objects are.


1: something created either animate or inanimate: as
a : a lower animal; especially : a farm animal
b : a human being
c : a being of anomalous or uncertain aspect or nature <creatures of fantasy>


It specifically notes that a creature can be animate or inanimate.


1: a : something material that may be perceived by the senses <I see an object in the distance>
b : something that when viewed stirs a particular emotion (as pity)

Now, the definition on the web has an interesting note that is outside of the actual definition, noting that an object is something that is "not alive". If you include this in the definition, you can argue that a living thing cannot be an object, so I'll grant that. Fortunately it has no bearing on this discussion.

Second, in DnD, creature and object have historically had game-specific definitions. Now 5e seems to want to rely on standard English definitions instead of defining things well, which is unfortunate and the reason that we're in this situation in the first place. Whether you look for a specific definition or not though, the spells in question present a rather large problem to your argument.

Are you in fact claiming that a "creature that has died" is not a creature? The word is right there. It is a creature. The creature has died, but it is a creature. You might be able to argue that it is a creature and an object. In past editions these things have been well defined as mutually exclusive, but they are not in 5e (at least that I have seen). However, none of the things you wrote: "was a creature", "object", "previously held the state", etc. are there. It says creature.

There is nothing in the rules that indicates a creature ceases to be a creature when it dies. The English definition of creature does not require that something be alive. The spells in question continue to refer to creatures as creatures even after they have died. All of the evidence indicates that dead creatures are still creatures.

[Vogonjeltz]

I am not sure where you're getting your definitions, however, you've got huge problems with your argument.

First, in English, creatures are not defined with respect to life and death. It's arguable whether objects are.

Merriam-Webster a recognized dictionary authority for the definition of words in the english speaking world. So, while it's certainly true that everything in the universe is arguable in the sense that we are capable of doing so, it would be a fruitless argument because those are the commonly accepted definitions of the words.


It specifically notes that a creature can be animate or inanimate.

Which is fine, because animate also is a reference to motility. Of or relating to animal life as opposed to plant life. For example, plant life is inanimate, although it is alive.


Now, the definition on the web has an interesting note that is outside of the actual definition, noting that an object is something that is "not alive". If you include this in the definition, you can argue that a living thing cannot be an object, so I'll grant that. Fortunately it has no bearing on this discussion.

Ok?


Second, in DnD, creature and object have historically had game-specific definitions. Now 5e seems to want to rely on standard English definitions instead of defining things well, which is unfortunate and the reason that we're in this situation in the first place. Whether you look for a specific definition or not though, the spells in question present a rather large problem to your argument.

It doesn't matter that in 3.5e there was a specific definition of such things, in 5th edition there isn't. Full Stop.


Are you in fact claiming that a "creature that has died" is not a creature? The word is right there. It is a creature. The creature has died, but it is a creature. You might be able to argue that it is a creature and an object. In past editions these things have been well defined as mutually exclusive, but they are not in 5e (at least that I have seen). However, none of the things you wrote: "was a creature", "object", "previously held the state", etc. are there. It says creature.

Yes, in the same way that building made of trees is just Wood, not a tree, and a caterpillar that has undergone metamorphasis (into a butterfly) is not a caterpillar. Things change, yet you can still reference their original state of being without them being that thing any longer.


There is nothing in the rules that indicates a creature ceases to be a creature when it dies. The English definition of creature does not require that something be alive. The spells in question continue to refer to creatures as creatures even after they have died. All of the evidence indicates that dead creatures are still creatures.

That's because (1) the thing that defines a creature is life. (2) Dead things are not alive, ipso facto, (3) a creature that has died is a creature no more.

[broodax]

Merriam-Webster a recognized dictionary authority for the definition of words in the english speaking world. So, while it's certainly true that everything in the universe is arguable in the sense that we are capable of doing so, it would be a fruitless argument because those are the commonly accepted definitions of the words.

Please show me where in the definition it points out that creatures must be living:


Full Definition of CREATURE

1
: something created either animate or inanimate: as
a : a lower animal; especially : a farm animal
b : a human being
c : a being of anomalous or uncertain aspect or nature <creatures of fantasy>
2
: one that is the servile dependent or tool of another : instrument

Using animate to distinguish between plants and animals is only the third definition of the word, the first 2 being used to indicate life. Further, the other definitions of creature specifically refer to animals only, not plants. There is no evidence whatsoever that the definition is animate according to its third most common usage.

Even if it were, if it specifically mentions only animals, and further clarifies that creatures can be moving or un-moving, it does not anywhere specify that they must be alive.



Yes, in the same way that building made of trees is just Wood, not a tree, and a caterpillar that has undergone metamorphasis (into a butterfly) is not a caterpillar. Things change, yet you can still reference their original state of being without them being that thing any longer.


But we would not call that a tree. That would be weird. Because it's not a tree. We call it wood. We would especially not call it a tree in a book that makes specific mention of how trees and wood are treated differently, then refer to it as a tree, sans descriptor, many more times. The only time we refer to wood or paper as "dead trees" is when being hyperbolic.

Your example of caterpillars is confusing. I have never heard of a butterfly describes as a caterpillar. It is always described as something that was a caterpillar.

The spells do not reference "an object that used to be a creature", they specifically refer to the target of the spell as a "creature".



That's because (1) the thing that defines a creature is life.

You have not shown this in either English or DnD.

[Vogonjeltz]

I have, but obviously what I can't do is make you agree or acknowledge it.

[broodax]

Please, refresh my memory. Where in the definition of the word "creature", is it made clear that a creature must be alive?

[Fwiffo86]

Please, refresh my memory. Where in the definition of the word "creature", is it made clear that a creature must be alive?

Are you a creature?

Please submit evidence.

[pwykersotz]

Are you a creature?

Please submit evidence.

HE IS THE BROODAX. HE IS BORN IN FLESH.

http://art.penny-arcade.com/photos/217508184_d753V/0/1050x10000/217508184_d753V-1050x10000.jpg

[Cactuar]

Please, refresh my memory. Where in the definition of the word "creature", is it made clear that a creature must be alive?

I believe animals are, by definition, alive. Humans are animals so they are alive, and the "being" referred to in the third part of the description is also specifically called out in the definition of "being" as being a living thing.

So in the definition.

EDIT: Definitions



animal (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/animal)

: a living thing that is not a human being or plant
: any living thing that is not a plant
: a person who behaves in a wild, aggressive, or unpleasant way



Being (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/being)

: a living thing
: the state of existing
: the most important or basic part of a person's mind or self
The second definition (State of existing) doesn't make sense in the context of "creature"

[broodax]

Wow, learn (or get reminded) of something new every day. I would never have guessed that the dictionary definition of animal was so concrete (and often circular). I never even bothered to look it up during all of this dictionary-delving.

I must admit, that if that's the definition we accept, then a thing ceases to be an animal, and therefor a creature, when it dies.

Now, this means that the phrase "dead creature" is an oxymoron, but I'll happily chalk that up to horrible writing and leave fixing those spells as an uninteresting exercise.

Aside: I'm happy to live with the dictionary for this purpose. I think we're pretty limited in the amount of linguistic debate we can (or should) go into for the sake of DnD. Now, I happen to think that the definition of animal in the dictionary is wrong and overly simplistic. This is a turnabout for me as usually I'm on the side of prescriptive definitions, but if you polled people on the street I think you'd get a major amount of disagreement on this point, not to mention the obvious every-day usage oxymorons that it creates.

http://www.bu.edu/bostonia/winter-spring13/what-is-life/ Here is a good read that gets into some of the nuance, and it has zombies.