Animate object on skeletons to trick party of clerics

[flamewolf393]

So in a grimdark world overflowing with undead, the most common adventurer will probably has some cleric/paladin levels for dealing with them.

So one necromancer decided that his first line of defense will be to have corpses animated with animate object instead of animate dead. The clerics/paladins try to turn/energy blast/smite/etc the "undead" only to have no effect and be ripped to shreds.

If they survive they have still wasted anti-undead resources and can be attacked by the real undead later.

What do you guys think?

[Hellpyre]

Might work, might not. I'd probably give them a roll to notice the lack of negative energy or the different movement of the skeletons, but you could probably swing it. Do note that for whatever reason it isn't on the 3.5 Wiz/Sor list, though.

[AnimeTheCat]

well, if the paladin is doing what I tend to do and have my at will "Detect Evil" active at all times, this probably won't work for the smite part. I do it in large part because paladins don't get very many smites per day so they are precious and valuable to me.

Otherwise, yeah, it should work. Maybe a knowledge (Religion) check to see that the "undead" aren't moving quite in the same way as one powered by negative energy, but I don't think that's necessary.

This tactic would largely depend on your players, the description of the animate object skeleton, and other circumstances that I (or pretty much anyone else) can predict.

[Blue Jay]

So in a grimdark world overflowing with undead, the most common adventurer will probably has some cleric/paladin levels for dealing with them.

So one necromancer decided that his first line of defense will be to have corpses animated with animate object instead of animate dead. The clerics/paladins try to turn/energy blast/smite/etc the "undead" only to have no effect and be ripped to shreds.

If they survive they have still wasted anti-undead resources and can be attacked by the real undead later.

What do you guys think?

Conceptually, it's pretty cool. The distinction between "skeletons as undead" and "skeletons as constructs" is a theme that ties in with the "is necromancy necessarily evil?" sorts of debates. Honestly, I'm not sure why there needs to be a distinction between different types of animation magic, but the default D&D setting does make this distinction.

But in my opinion, this kind of thing makes the fourth wall feel really thin: it feels like the necromancer is directly engaging the game mechanics, like he read the stat block and realized that animated objects have the Construct type, rather than the Undead type. If you're going to do this, make sure you dedicate some time to developing a good, in-world reason why a "construct skeleton" and an "undead skeleton" are different: emphasize that the two types of animation come from different schools or traditions of magic (which your evil necromancer is synthesizing in some way), or use energy channeled from different Planes or different deities. And make sure you weave it into your story someway: don't just suddenly pop up with "nope, these ones are constructs." And, since the idea has a very obvious tactical application in a world where undead are everywhere and everybody can turn them, perhaps you'll need to explain why this tactic hasn't been incorporated into the regular strategic plans of warlords worldwide.

I personally also don't like using tricks that are specifically made to jerk the players around (because I don't like being jerked around as a player), so I've got a second bias against this. Take that for what it's worth.

[ShurikVch]

The Lost Tomb of Kruk-Ma-Kali have Bone Golem Warrior:
Bone golem warriors are special creations made from the bones of powerful fighting characters. They retain some of their fighting ability and are often mistaken foe undead. Their creators revel in the notion that the victims of their construct will waste their time trying to turn an animated corpse that is actually not undead.

[flamewolf393]

...But in my opinion, this kind of thing makes the fourth wall feel really thin: it feels like the necromancer is directly engaging the game mechanics, like he read the stat block and realized that animated objects have the Construct type, rather than the Undead type...

I personally also don't like using tricks that are specifically made to jerk the players around (because I don't like being jerked around as a player), so I've got a second bias against this. Take that for what it's worth.

First, a lot of game mechanics are actually in universe canon ideas that are understood by casters the same way we understand the laws of physics. Undead specifically use negative energy to animate a corpse. Constructs use Transmutation to control an object. Different source of magic and much less common, but still a hard-line observable difference in universe.

Second, its not jerking the player around. Its an intelligent NPC/enemy using clever tactics to gain an advantage. How is this any worse than putting an illusion over a trap, disguising a master assassin as a big clunky warrior, or any other tactic centered around deceit? He can safely assume his home will be assaulted at some point, so he designs defenses that are centered around wasting enemies resources so they are easier to kill.

[zlefin]

A neat trick; not htat powerful; it works once, then people will prepare for and counter it. A key question is how much the construct-type ones will cost. In general, animation for construct-type stuff is WAY more expensive than normal undead creation; so while it might get the foe to waste some resources, it's probably not worth-while from a cost perspective. There's also plenty of ways to crush undead without using special anti-undead stuff, and I wouldn't expect cleric/paladin levels to be that common (especially as turning checks aren't something you can get well from dips).

[Blue Jay]

First, a lot of game mechanics are actually in universe canon ideas that are understood by casters the same way we understand the laws of physics. Undead specifically use negative energy to animate a corpse. Constructs use Transmutation to control an object. Different source of magic and much less common, but still a hard-line observable difference in universe.

Second, its not jerking the player around. Its an intelligent NPC/enemy using clever tactics to gain an advantage. How is this any worse than putting an illusion over a trap, disguising a master assassin as a big clunky warrior, or any other tactic centered around deceit? He can safely assume his home will be assaulted at some point, so he designs defenses that are centered around wasting enemies resources so they are easier to kill.

When I read your opening post, the impression I got was that you were going to present a game world to your players that would convince them all to play paladins and clerics, and then you would design your encounters to specifically gimp paladins and clerics. I realize that that's an exaggeration of what you actually intended, but what I was trying to say is that you should make sure that it doesn't come off like this to your players.

My favorite PC was a half-nymph healer/diplomancer who was specifically recruited into a story arc because she would make a good party face. But, for the first stretch of the game, every time she opened her mouth, she either got mocked, offended someone, got shot at or even sexually assaulted. The results of my Diplomacy rolls made no difference, because the DM was just trying to sell the fact that the game world was cruel and heartless, and my delicate little princess was not in Kansas anymore. It was really frustrating, because I felt like I'd been misled into playing a character that the DM just wanted to abuse. We eventually talked it out and figured out a compromise solution, and now I still think of that game as just about the best game I've ever played in. But it was rough for the first little bit.

What I'm saying is, make sure that all of this comes out as part of the game you're running, and it doesn't feel like you're conspiring with your NPC's to play jokes on the players.

And now I realize just how preachy that sounds. Okay, ignore me now. :smallredface:

[flamewolf393]

What I'm saying is, make sure that all of this comes out as part of the game you're running, and it doesn't feel like you're conspiring with your NPC's to play jokes on the players.

And now I realize just how preachy that sounds. Okay, ignore me now. :smallredface:

Of course not, its just meant to be this one particular bad guy had a clever idea to get by in a world that makes a lot of assumptions. Its hardly going to be a recurring thing.

The game plays to a certain theme, but at the same time cant let the players get complacent with everything going the way they are used to :smallbiggrin:

[lord_khaine]

What do you guys think?

It is a good catch that animate object can also be used on corpses, and that its likely going to be impossible for most people to tell the difference between regular necromancy zombies and your weird transmutation zombies.

Unfortunately though, its an idea that does not survive contact with "reality"
Namely that your necromancer need to be level 11 to cast animate object. And for adventures of a level thats able to take on such a threat, then regular zombies are a barely noticed speed bump.


So in a grimdark world overflowing with undead, the most common adventurer will probably has some cleric/paladin levels for dealing with them.

Also the original premise has a flaw. Just randomly adding 1-2 levels of Cleric/Paladin is not going to make the majority of adventures better able to deal with undeads. After all, turn undead is an all or nothing investment. Either you go all in on it, or else you would not be able to turn anything that can harm you. And at that point your better off using those turn attempts to fuel divine feats.

[Karl Aegis]

It's a Knowledge (Arcana) check to identify an animated object.

It's a Knowledge (Religion) check to identify a skeleton templated creature.

When does the trick start? Do you just not ever identify what is trying attack you? The Improved Speed trait should immediately give away these aren't skeletons and the fact you're getting attacked by slams, not claws, should double give it away.

[flamewolf393]

It's a Knowledge (Arcana) check to identify an animated object.

It's a Knowledge (Religion) check to identify a skeleton templated creature.

When does the trick start? Do you just not ever identify what is trying attack you? The Improved Speed trait should immediately give away these aren't skeletons and the fact you're getting attacked by slams, not claws, should double give it away.

Thing is, if youve been fighting undead for quite a while now, and heres some more things that look exactly the same, are you going to think to make a knowledge check on them or are you just going to keep fighting them same as usual? There is no reason to think there is anything weird about them until your channel positive energy fails to work, or (like you said) you see them use a different type of attack than normal. And by then youve wasted at least one full round of combat and still have to come up with your new tactics.

[ericgrau]

I don't see their behavior being noticeably different either, whether the obeserver is a undead/construct expert or not. Once you see something odd happen such as turn undead failing, sure. Or maybe they're just really powerful undead or you rolled low as far as you know. Then they drop quickly to sword blows. And you say hmm, they aren't all that strong and finally figure it out. Or if you still haven't figured it out, you tell the DM your PC is examining the remains very closely and you find some minute detail like the way it decayed and THEN finally you roll your knowledge check.

[lord_khaine]

Thing is, if youve been fighting undead for quite a while now, and heres some more things that look exactly the same, are you going to think to make a knowledge check on them or are you just going to keep fighting them same as usual? There is no reason to think there is anything weird about them until your channel positive energy fails to work, or (like you said) you see them use a different type of attack than normal. And by then youve wasted at least one full round of combat and still have to come up with your new tactics.

So best case scenario: One single guy waste a standart action on a turn undead attempt, before the party registers that something fishy is going on.
Most likely scenario: the fake zombies are a little to fast to be normal zombies, and are killed by a party that takes them a little more seriously than normal zombies. Afterwards corpses are examined and the ruse is discovered.
Worst case scenario: The heroes are a group of clericless thugs who simply crush the fake!zombies with brute force, and newer even discover how smart the necromancer had been as they murder their way though the minions.

And the price for this, 3000 xp to make about 6 fake!zombies.

[Fouredged Sword]

They would also show up very differently under detection magic, being transmutation rather than necromancy and TN rather than CE.

That said, this is a fun idea and you should feel free to go for it fully. Better yet, the "necromancer" isn't a necromancer at all, but rather a scammer. He uses a "zombie horde" to threaten a town and then swoops in to "defeat" them and claim the reward. Not being a necromancer himself, he is just a two bit CN artificer trying to find a way to make enough money to complete his masterpiece.

[ShurikVch]

Animate object on skeletons to trick party of clericsTo take it literally: some time ago I asked in the Simple RAW Thread for 3.5, if I can cast Animate Objects on a skeleton, and got answer: "No, you can't. Skeleton is not a single object, but a pile of bones - and each bone is an object."


Unfortunately though, its an idea that does not survive contact with "reality"
Namely that your necromancer need to be level 11 to cast animate object. And for adventures of a level thats able to take on such a threat, then regular zombies are a barely noticed speed bump.Well, Bone Golem Warrior is a CR 10 encounter with 15 HD, thus - very respectable threat for the level...


Most likely scenario: the fake zombies are a little to fast to be normal zombies, and are killed by a party that takes them a little more seriously than normal zombies. Afterwards corpses are examined and the ruse is discovered.Firstly: why they should to "take them a little more seriously than normal"? Fast Zombie is measly +½ CR. Also, there are such feats as Nimble Bones and Uncanny Speed...
And secondly: is there really a way to discovering what's animated a corpse before it was destroyed?

[ExLibrisMortis]

Master's Voice works either way. A prepared PC need never fear skeletons animate!

[Crake]

I see three major problems with this:
1. A skeleton is not a single object, a corpse disguised as a zombie would actually work though.
2. Animate objects is a cleric/chaos domain/bard spell, and not a wizard spell, so the necromancer will need to figure a way to get this added to their spell list (basically they will have to either be a cleric, or be chaotic aligned for the chaos domain via arcane disciple).
3. Animate objects is a 1 round/level spell, sure it can be permanencied, which will allow you to animate 11 things, but the cost is 3000xp, or 15,000gp if you're converting it to a gp cost via buying a scroll. 15,000gp for (at minmum caster level) 11 medium, 2HD constructs that can be dispelled. Anyone in the party with arcane sight up able to make a DC26 spellcraft check (see 2 posts down) will immediately recognize transmutation magic that it's an animate objects spell cast on the corpses and if they have a dispel magic, they've immediately killed 15,000gp worth of stuff. It would be better to instead spend that 15,000gp to make, oh, I dunno, 300 zombies. That will eat up those turn undeads much more thoroughly.

[lord_khaine]

Well, Bone Golem Warrior is a CR 10 encounter with 15 HD, thus - very respectable threat for the level...

It certainly is. And a Skeleton Young adult red dragon is only CR 8 despite its 19 HD. But neither has any relevance to the subject.


Firstly: why they should to "take them a little more seriously than normal"? Fast Zombie is measly +½ CR. Also, there are such feats as Nimble Bones and Uncanny Speed...
And secondly: is there really a way to discovering what's animated a corpse before it was destroyed?

Simple, because you dont know if its just a zombie with the fast trait. All you know is that its not a regular zombie. And at that point it can really be any number of unpleasant things.
Secondly, thats something thats up to the gm since its a pretty murky area. The rules dont handle it to well that its suddenly not knowledge religion you need to use to identify the corpse.

[Crake]

Simple, because you dont know if its just a zombie with the fast trait. All you know is that its not a regular zombie. And at that point it can really be any number of unpleasant things.
Secondly, thats something thats up to the gm since its a pretty murky area. The rules dont handle it to well that its suddenly not knowledge religion you need to use to identify the corpse.

Actually it would be a DC26 spellcraft check to identify a spell based on it's effects.


20 + spell level Identify a spell that’s already in place and in effect. You must be able to see or detect the effects of the spell. No action required. No retry.

[ExLibrisMortis]

I see three major problems with this:
1. A skeleton is not a single object, a corpse disguised as a zombie would actually work though.
A skeleton is a single object. It's one skeleton/corpse/set of remains. You can't square animate dead--with its "Target: One or more corpses touched" and "skeleton can be created only from a mostly intact corpse or skeleton" text--with the idea that each bone is a separate object. In general, D&D doesn't work like that. A lock is one object. A rifle is one object. A chain is one object. A skeleton, like all of those, is composed of many parts (each of which may be an object), but it is definitely also an object.

[ShurikVch]

It certainly is. And a Skeleton Young adult red dragon is only CR 8 despite its 19 HD. But neither has any relevance to the subject.Skeleton Young adult red dragon is looks like a huge Dragon skeleton
Bone Golem Warrior is looks like armed and armored humanoid skeleton
Why PCs should suspect it to be something other than a regular Skeleton (excluding casting of Detect Undead)?


Actually it would be a DC26 spellcraft check to identify a spell based on it's effects.lord_khaine said: "the fake zombies are a little to fast to be normal zombies, and are killed by a party that takes them a little more seriously than normal zombies. Afterwards corpses are examined and the ruse is discovered."
Shouldn't "afterwards" mean "after the destruction"?
If yes - then doesn't it mean whatever magic (or not a magic) which animated the corpses is already gone?

[Mehangel]

A skeleton is a single object. It's one skeleton/corpse/set of remains. You can't square animate dead--with its "Target: One or more corpses touched" and "skeleton can be created only from a mostly intact corpse or skeleton" text--with the idea that each bone is a separate object. In general, D&D doesn't work like that. A lock is one object. A rifle is one object. A chain is one object. A skeleton, like all of those, is composed of many parts (each of which may be an object), but it is definitely also an object.

Yeah, going to have agree with ExLibrisMortis on this one. Calling a skeleton multiple objects is a slippery slope, as it could easily result in some rather weird rulings (suddenly, no-one can animate anything made of cloth as they are made up of thousands of individual threads, fine-sized objects).

[unseenmage]

A skeleton is a single object. It's one skeleton/corpse/set of remains. You can't square animate dead--with its "Target: One or more corpses touched" and "skeleton can be created only from a mostly intact corpse or skeleton" text--with the idea that each bone is a separate object. In general, D&D doesn't work like that. ...
A skeleton can be both a corpse and many objects. Animate dead cares not about object/nonobject status. Animate Objects cares not about 'intact corpse' status.
They are not the same spell and do not target the same things.


Yeah, going to have agree with ExLibrisMortis on this one. Calling a skeleton multiple objects is a slippery slope, as it could easily result in some rather weird rulings (suddenly, no-one can animate anything made of cloth as they are made up of thousands of individual threads, fine-sized objects).

It's easy enough to thread some wire through the bones to make them one object, that when animated resembles a skeleton. But a pile of bones is definitely many objects.

The other items mentioned are single objects composed of smaller components, which if seperated are individual objects.
Because they are adhered to one another or inextricably linked somehow they are single objects.

The 3.0 Animate Objects spell has language for animating specific volumes instead of individual objects. One could use that language instead, say through researching a custom 3.5/PF spell that mimics the 3.0 version.

Edit My preferred use of this ruse is to send a mixed bag of Animated Object corpses and undead corpses at the same time. This way the animated objects still survive the turn attempt and maybe the PCs assume theyre just stronger undead and waste some holy water or imoroved turn attemps or something.

[ExLibrisMortis]

A skeleton can be both a corpse and many objects.
Good. A corpse is an object. Animate objects works on skeletons. Discussion over.

[Crake]

Good. A corpse is an object. Animate objects works on skeletons. Discussion over.

Clearly you willfully ignored the "many" in "many objects" there. A corpse is the remains of a living creature. Just like a body can be hacked up into smaller pieces, or objects, a decayed corpse that has become nothing but bones is now the collection of objects that is that skeleton. It is one corpse, many objects.


Yeah, going to have agree with ExLibrisMortis on this one. Calling a skeleton multiple objects is a slippery slope, as it could easily result in some rather weird rulings (suddenly, no-one can animate anything made of cloth as they are made up of thousands of individual threads, fine-sized objects).

My general definition of "object" is something that is generally interconnected enough that pulling it apart would require either dealing damage, or using a strength check. Thus in my book, a chain would be a single object. If the object can be manipulated in such a way that it binds another object, it doesn't then become part of that object, so a padlock for example would not become part of the same object as a chain, and the chain keeping the door shut does not become a part of the door, but a chain's individual links cannot be manipulated to undo each other, so a chain is treated as a single object. Sundering a link would in turn create two objects from one, the same way chopping a piece of wood in half would get you two objects. Following that logic, a fleshy corpse would be a single object, but a skeleton, who's bones could be literally just picked up and thrown 20 feet away without any resistance from the rest of the skeleton is not a single object.


lord_khaine said: "the fake zombies are a little to fast to be normal zombies, and are killed by a party that takes them a little more seriously than normal zombies. Afterwards corpses are examined and the ruse is discovered."
Shouldn't "afterwards" mean "after the destruction"?
If yes - then doesn't it mean whatever magic (or not a magic) which animated the corpses is already gone?

By the listed use of spellcraft, you would get a free spellcraft check vs DC26 as soon as you saw the animated skeletons. No action required by the player, they shouldn't even have to ask to roll, it's a passive check based on seeing the effects of a spell. There is, of course, no option to retry the check, and DC26 is by no means an automatic success at level 11 or so, which is when 6th level spells come online, though by then you should have a pretty decent chance.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Clearly you willfully ignored the "many" in "many objects" there.
I did not. I am asserting that since a corpse is an object, and a skeleton is a corpse, a skeleton is also an object. That a skeleton is also many objects is not in contradiction with all that, so I did not mention it further.

A corpse is an object. A skeleton is an object. A bone is an object. You can use animate objects on corpses, skeletons, and bones.

[Mehangel]

Another reason that I am all for allowing animate objects to work with skeletons is the following:

A human corpse is a medium object. It then goes to reason that the sum of the bones of a human body should also effectively be a medium object.

I also doubt that all 200+ bones would be 'separated' from the other bones; whenever I go into the desert or mountains and find an animal skeleton, the majority of the bones are still interlocked. So why Crake would you have to reanimate each bone separately?

[Blue Jay]

Good. A corpse is an object. Animate objects works on skeletons. Discussion over.


Clearly you willfully ignored the "many" in "many objects" there. A corpse is the remains of a living creature. Just like a body can be hacked up into smaller pieces, or objects, a decayed corpse that has become nothing but bones is now the collection of objects that is that skeleton. It is one corpse, many objects.

I think it could go either way, depending on the exact circumstances. In fact, I think it should go both ways: sometimes, you can animate a whole skeleton as a single Medium construct, and sometimes you'd instead get a pile of Tiny constructs. It would depend on the state of the skeleton before animation, on how the caster wants to cast the spell, on the dramatic or comedic nature of the game, etc. For groups that like an element of a chance, it might even be fun to let the dice decide what kind of constructs you get.

As a DM adjudicating what happens when a player casts animate objects on a skeleton, I'd say let it work the way the player wants it to work. If what they want might be disruptive to the game, work it out like mature people.

As a DM designing an NPC who animates skeletons as constructs, I'd say don't get hung up on the rules, and just design your game/story in a way that you and your table will enjoy it. Everybody knows DM's fudge stuff, so as long as you're honest and not vindictive about it, I'm sure you and your group can figure out how to get past any conflicts this causes.

[Crake]

I did not. I am asserting that since a corpse is an object, and a skeleton is a corpse, a skeleton is also an object. That a skeleton is also many objects is not in contradiction with all that, so I did not mention it further.

A corpse is an object. A skeleton is an object. A bone is an object. You can use animate objects on corpses, skeletons, and bones.

A corpse is not always an object. It can be an object, but it also can be a collection of objects. Your logic states that: all corpses are singular objects, a skeleton is a corpse, thus all skeletons are singular objects. The error in your logic is assuming that all corpses are singular objects, despite the fact that this is demonstrably not the case.


Another reason that I am all for allowing animate objects to work with skeletons is the following:

A human corpse is a medium object. It then goes to reason that the sum of the bones of a human body should also effectively be a medium object.

I also doubt that all 200+ bones would be 'separated' from the other bones; whenever I go into the desert or mountains and find an animal skeleton, the majority of the bones are still interlocked. So why Crake would you have to reanimate each bone separately?

Note that I'm not talking about spells like animate dead, which specifically target a corpse which can be a collection of objects, but rather animate objects, which specifically animates individual objects into their own, separate constructs. Sure, perhaps some of the bones would be left connected by undecayed cartlidge or flesh, and those interconnected bones would be treated as a single object, but unless the corpse is more of a dessicated husk rather than a skeleton, it's unlikely that enough of the skeleton would be interconnected to create a humanoid structure. Keep in mind that animate dead strips the flesh from the bones, creating essentially a bleached bone skeleton, with no flesh interconnecting the pieces:


Skeletons

A skeleton can be created only from a mostly intact corpse or skeleton. The corpse must have bones. If a skeleton is made from a corpse, the flesh falls off the bones.

So in the event that you were trying to mimic a skeleton-templated creature, having flesh interconnecting the pieces would, in and of itself, be a dead giveaway.

Either way, I believe my logic as to the limits of what is considered an object are pretty straightforward and don't result in many edge cases unless you're specifically going out of your way to make fuss out of it. I've made my case, you don't have to agree with me, the only thing that matters in this circumstance is what the GM of this particular game in question thinks.

[Fouredged Sword]

Another funny thing to do would be to haunt shift an undead creature into a non-magical corpse. It would gain all the haunt shift benefits and look like a normal undead.

[ExLibrisMortis]

A corpse is not always an object. It can be an object, but it also can be a collection of objects. Your logic states that: all corpses are singular objects, a skeleton is a corpse, thus all skeletons are singular objects. The error in your logic is assuming that all corpses are singular objects, despite the fact that this is demonstrably not the case.
You misunderstand. You assume that if a corpse is a single object, it can't also be multiple objects. Look at what I wrote:

[... ] a skeleton is also an object. That a skeleton is also many objects is not in contradiction with all that [...]
Thus there is no error in my logic. A skeleton (or a corpse) is always an object. A skeleton is also a collection of objects. Those things do not interfere with one another. Just like a lock is a single object, and so is each pin or tumbler. Or a clock, which is a single object composed of many objects.

Think of object status as some set-like structure imposed on the world to better talk about the things we are interested in. Objects can contain or be made up of other objects.

[Crake]

You misunderstand. You assume that if a corpse is a single object, it can't also be multiple objects. Look at what I wrote:

Thus there is no error in my logic. A skeleton (or a corpse) is always an object. A skeleton is also a collection of objects. Those things do not interfere with one another. Just like a lock is a single object, and so is each pin or tumbler. Or a clock, which is a single object composed of many objects.

Think of object status as some set-like structure imposed on the world to better talk about the things we are interested in. Objects can contain or be made up of other objects.

You're basically requiring that we go to the dictionary definition of an object. Dictionary.com defines an object as:


anything that is visible or tangible and is relatively stable in form.

That last part is where your argument falls apart. While an individual bone may be stable in form, a collection of bones is not. The bones can all be translated, rotated and generally acted upon individually with no stability between the whole. On the other hand, an intact fleshy corpse is relatively stable in form until you lop off a section, in which case those two sections are now individually stable in form, but no longer stable as a whole, and as such are not considered a singular object. Now, of course, there are circumstances where an object can be both individually stable in and of itself, while also being part of a stable, larger whole. An example of this would be a link in a chain. The chain is an object that is stable in form, while the link also fits that definition, but the individual bones of a skeleton do not fit that definition unless the bones themselves are somehow linked to maintain a stable form.

[ExLibrisMortis]

You're basically requiring that we go to the dictionary definition of an object.
No, I'm not, that's all you. For the sake of the argument, let's say I happen to think that skeletons are stable. Have we resolved anything? No. It's an incredibly narrow and uninformative dictionary definition.

Here's another, more nuanced definition of object (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_(philosophy)).

The pragmatist Charles S. Peirce defines the broad notion of an object as anything that we can think or talk about. In a general sense it is any entity: the pyramids, Alpha Centauri, the number seven, a disbelief in predestination or the fear of cats. In a strict sense it refers to any definite being.

Note that nowhere does it require 'stability' or 'having a certain degree of interconnectedness'. Also note that in D&D, the broad sense of object is more commonly used, albeit with the restriction that they must be physical objects. For example, suits of armour are objects, even though they include separate helmets, greaves, and bracers. A spell component pouch is an object, even though it includes many (unspecified) components.


In fact, I think it should go both ways: sometimes, you can animate a whole skeleton as a single Medium construct, and sometimes you'd instead get a pile of Tiny constructs. It would depend on the state of the skeleton before animation, on how the caster wants to cast the spell, on the dramatic or comedic nature of the game, etc. For groups that like an element of a chance, it might even be fun to let the dice decide what kind of constructs you get.
Blue Jay has the right of it. I'd particularly let the caster define what their target is, based on the flexibility of the 'object' designation.

[Crake]

No, I'm not, that's all you. For the sake of the argument, let's say I happen to think that skeletons are stable. Have we resolved anything? No. It's an incredibly narrow and uninformative dictionary definition.

Stability is a demonstrable quality of an object. If you can demonstrate how a collection of bones that are in no way interconnected is somehow stable, then perhaps you might have a leg to stand on. If you cannot, and simply are stating your opinion, then it has no baring on an objective matter.


Here's another, more nuanced definition of object (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_(philosophy)).


Note that nowhere does it require 'stability' or 'having a certain degree of interconnectedness'. Also note that in D&D, the broad sense of object is more commonly used, albeit with the restriction that they must be physical objects. For example, suits of armour are objects, even though they include separate helmets, greaves, and bracers. A spell component pouch is an object, even though it includes many (unspecified) components.

That is because it is the philosophical technical term, not even a defintion, of an object. If your definition of object literally includes ideas then you're not using an applicable definition to physical objects, and is not usable in a debate of such.


Blue Jay has the right of it. I'd particularly let the caster define what their target is, based on the flexibility of the 'object' designation.

Note that blue jay specifies as one of the variables that the state of the skeleton matters, as I have pointed out already. If the state of the skeleton interconnects enough of the bones that the skeleton remains a stable, coherent whole, then yes, it could be considered a singular object. He then goes on to state that it can also be the subjective decision of the GM for either dramatic or comedic, or chance-related purposes to enhance the enjoyment of those at the table, but none of those last three have any baring on the objective definition of an object.

[ExLibrisMortis]

1a) It is not.
1b) The set of bones is still there one second later. It is stable.
2a) The definition of 'object' is a philosophical matter. It is not something you just get for free. We've been talking philosophy the whole time (applied to D&D, but still, philosophy).
2b) I did say D&D restricts the definition to physical objects. That does not alter my point, and my examples still refute yours.
3) Yes, Blue Jay does say the state of the skeleton matters, but he does not specify how. For example, you could interpret it as "the number and type of missing bones matters", rather than "the bones must be interconnected".

D&D simply does not care about stability or interconnectedness. D&D takes a pragmatic view on object designation: it can be alive (plants, trees), it can be incorporeal (ghost possessions), it can be disjunct (armours), it can be purely magical (orb of force), it just can't have a Wisdom or Charisma score.

In any case, this will be my final addition to this sidetrack, as we're not exactly contributing to the original topic.

[Crake]

The definition of 'object' is a philosophical matter.

In the context of this discussion it is not. The fact that you're trying to make it such is shifting the goal posts beyond the reasonable requirement needed to settle on a conclusion, and proves that you're not interested in discussion and are already set in your notion on the matter. As I said earlier, I've made my point, whether you agree or not at this point is of no concern to me, you do you and rule it however you want at your table.

[Calthropstu]

I don't see their behavior being noticeably different either, whether the obeserver is a undead/construct expert or not. Once you see something odd happen such as turn undead failing, sure. Or maybe they're just really powerful undead or you rolled low as far as you know. Then they drop quickly to sword blows. And you say hmm, they aren't all that strong and finally figure it out. Or if you still haven't figured it out, you tell the DM your PC is examining the remains very closely and you find some minute detail like the way it decayed and THEN finally you roll your knowledge check.

Actually, at least in pf, animated objects have hardness 5... so when your hammer fails to bypass dr, when the skeleton punches you, when you run into one after casting detect undead and nothing registered, yeah something is odd.

[ericgrau]

Actually, at least in pf, animated objects have hardness 5... so when your hammer fails to bypass dr, when the skeleton punches you, when you run into one after casting detect undead and nothing registered, yeah something is odd.

Yes that works too. Any noticeable difference could make the opponent suspicious and/or trigger a knowledge check. But I mean, something perceptible has to happen one way or another.

[Yahzi]

What do you guys think?
Skeletons are cheap.

Permanent animated objects are not.

You could probably higher fighters with high Disguise checks and have them pretend be undead for cheaper than making permanent animated objects.

[Florian]

I´m not really a proponent of blurring the lines between what normally are very different creatures, in this case undead skeleton > animated object (skeleton) > bone golem or in an expanded sense between animated object (armor) > helmed horror. I think that each creation method should be unique and by default exclude other types of magic from producing a similar result. Now illusion spells? Entirely different matter.

[ericgrau]

Skeletons are cheap.

Permanent animated objects are not.

You could probably higher fighters with high Disguise checks and have them pretend be undead for cheaper than making permanent animated objects.

Yeah if they're high enough level to handle the fight and you pay well. Otherwise you'll need to dominate them as they won't be too enthused about being used as cannon fodder.