Animate Object: dolls? skeletons? dead bodies?

[Dalebert]

You can't animate a magical object but if you animated dolls or skeletons, could they pick up some magic daggers for instance? I'm mainly thinking of getting around resistances; not trying to increase dmg. The spell says what dmg they do but that the DM has discretion to say instead of bludgeoning, it could be a different type.
EDIT: I've since concluded that this is probably a reach and I'm not going to try it but new commenters are missing where I say that. The thread is thus more about the below questions.

Note: Dead creatures are effectively objects per the boss of D&D (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/05/14/corpse-creature-or-object/). That's been my stance since before I heard him say it.

Another cool thing about animating dolls or skeletons is you could command one to give a downed PC a healing potion or interact with an object in some other helpful way.

[JackPhoenix]

I'd allow it, but the objects would lack proficiency with the weapons.

[AttilatheYeon]

They do melee slam attacks, so i think the intent is no. But why try to get them to use magic items, just animate alchemists fire, acid, holy water etc.

[Avonar]

I would say no. A pile of flesh has no notion of how to use a weapon, I imagine it would just flail around into the target.

Nothing to stop you flavouring it as using a weapon but mechanically, no. That's what animate dead is for.

[Slipperychicken]

I'd say you could animate dead bodies and have them attempt to use weapons, but they lack proficiency and use their str/dex to hit and damage. They may not use both a weapon and their slam attack in the same turn. Also you have to go through the trouble of equipping them within the spell's duration. I'd count it as necromancy.

A medium-sized object would be pretty bad with weapons anyway, having strength 10, dex 12, and no proficiency. I think you'd be better off just casting animate dead at level 5, or even just paying some commoners to fight for you.

[Avonar]

Here's the part that I think settles this:

"If you command an object to attack, it can make a single melee attack against a creature within 5 feet of it. It makes a slam attack with an attack bonus and bludgeoning damage determined by its size. The DM might rule that a specific object inflicts slashing or piercing damage based on its form."

I believe that this section specifically limits them to slam attacks only. You could potentially allow one holding a weapon to change the damage type, but not to make a weapon attack.

You could house rule other ways, but RAW no, they cannot attack with weapons.

[Temperjoke]

Besides, wouldn't it be easier to just animate the weapon you're trying to have the corpse use? Then it could fly around instead of being more limited in movement.

[Millstone85]

Besides, wouldn't it be easier to just animate the weapon you're trying to have the corpse use? Then it could fly around instead of being more limited in movement.The point is to have the corpse wield a magical weapon, which the spell can't animate.

[Temperjoke]

The point is to have the corpse wield a magical weapon, which the spell can't animate.

Ah I forgot that part, the whole magical weapon not being able to be animated.

I'd almost say that it couldn't be armed with a weapon. I mean, it's different just carrying something, versus the motor control necessary to grip a weapon by it's hilt to use. I'd argue that this spell doesn't give that level of control. On the idea of using this to even animate whole skeletons, I'd say no. Animate Dead, in my imagination, also binds the various bones and pieces together. Animate Object could individually animate a number of bones, but I don't see it animating a whole skeleton. But that's my opinion.

[Slipperychicken]

Ah I forgot that part, the whole magical weapon not being able to be animated.

I'd almost say that it couldn't be armed with a weapon. I mean, it's different just carrying something, versus the motor control necessary to grip a weapon by it's hilt to use. I'd argue that this spell doesn't give that level of control. On the idea of using this to even animate whole skeletons, I'd say no. Animate Dead, in my imagination, also binds the various bones and pieces together. Animate Object could individually animate a number of bones, but I don't see it animating a whole skeleton. But that's my opinion.

It does give medium objects 12 dexterity, 10 strength, 10 constitution, 3 intelligence, 3 wisdom, and 1 charisma. I'd say that's plenty to flail a weapon at someone, but it's ultimately a GM call as to whether to allow what OP wants.

[SharkForce]

you could always try animating torches. obviously they won't deal crazy amounts of fire damage, but fire damage is not bludgeoning, slashing, or piercing damage from nonmagical weapons. heck, you *could* even try to design (or have someone else design) other kinds of weapons that don't primarily deal those damage types; a glass club that is filled with acid and starts leaking as soon as it strikes something the first time, a mundane sword that has an oil reservoir for a lamp-like effect, maybe even an electrically charged metal object if alchemy is able to pull that off in your campaigns.

[90sMusic]

Tie magical daggers to a stick, animate the stick, call it a spear. Done. :P

[polymphus]

I feel like Animate Objects could be done on a corpse but it's NOT the same as animate dead. It's a corpse, not a zombie: zombies have limited motor function or ability to think, a corpse has 0. It's essentially a big ole chunk of meat and bones, flying through the air, whacking into stuff without any particular intent or direction.

You're not creating undead, you're essentially using magic to pick the corpse up and fling it at somebody. Your magic instills it with enough movement to fling itself but that's very different from walking/biting/scratching.

[Dalebert]

Seems the nature of the animation would depend on th object. The spell says it gives the object a semblance of life. For a doll, that seems pretty intuitive.

I guess it makes sense they wouldn't have proficiency. It's just the spell lists specific attack values and damage. I'm not going to try having them use weapons but animating dolls and not having them move in the intuitive manner is not a "semblance of life". It's not telekinesis.

And I don't see any problem with animating dead bodies. It only lasts a minute and is a higher level spell. Just use the animate object mechanics for attacks. What breaks? Why do folks feel the need to be the fun police?

[Provo]

What breaks? Why do folks feel the need to be the fun police?

I think the concern is because you are trying to get around an intentional restriction.

That being said, I agree with you. A "semblance of life" makes it clear to me how a doll/body would move.

I'd allow it with the loss of proficiency.

[MadBear]

You can't animate a magical object but if you animated dolls or skeletons, could they pick up some magic daggers for instance? I'm mainly thinking of getting around resistances; not trying to increase dmg. The spell says what dmg they do but that the DM has discretion to say instead of bludgeoning, it could be a different type.

Note: Dead creatures are effectively objects per the boss of D&D (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/05/14/corpse-creature-or-object/). That's been my stance since before I heard him say it.

Another cool thing about animating dolls or skeletons is you could command one to give a downed PC a healing potion or interact with an object in some other helpful way.

The main problem I see with this, is that you are definitely going against the spirit of the spell. If it specifically forbids you from animating magical objects, then trying to animate objects that wield the un-animate-able objects just pushes it back a step. As a DM I might allow it as a 1-off rule of cool for the story moment, but if you kepts a pouch of +1 daggers that you'd give your inanimate objects to use during the spell, I'd call foul.

[Waterdeep Merch]

The main problem I see with this, is that you are definitely going against the spirit of the spell. If it specifically forbids you from animating magical objects, then trying to animate objects that wield the un-animate-able objects just pushes it back a step. As a DM I might allow it as a 1-off rule of cool for the story moment, but if you kepts a pouch of +1 daggers that you'd give your inanimate objects to use during the spell, I'd call foul.
Animate Objects is already one of the better spells in its caster level, too. Its' users don't need the buff.

The funniest use I've seen was someone who hand-crafted dozens of little dolls of her wife to attack people with. Her wife was a pirate, making the imagery absolutely hilarious.

Doubles as the only good use I've seen for woodcarvers' tools.

[alchahest]

please don't animate dolls it's creepy. animate good, wholesome skulls instead :)

[Dalebert]

The main problem I see with this, is that you are definitely going against the spirit of the spell. If it specifically forbids you from animating magical objects, then trying to animate objects that wield the un-animate-able objects just pushes it back a step.

I've already let that go. Mentioned it earlier but it's a little buried.

Now have moved on to creative uses for animated objects other than attacking, e.g. dolls administering healing potions. I do like the idea of skulls that bit people. It's probably well within the design of the spell for them to do piercing instead of bludgeoning.

[Temperjoke]

I've already let that go. Mentioned it earlier but it's a little buried.

Now have moved on to creative uses for animated objects other than attacking, e.g. dolls administering healing potions. I do like the idea of skulls that bit people. It's probably well within the design of the spell for them to do piercing instead of bludgeoning.

Yeah, the spell does say that the DM has discretion to change the damage type to be suitable to the particular object.

I like imagining a character using this spell to trap an enemy in a barrel or box, then sending a bunch of swords stabbing into it, like a stage magician's trick, only painful.

[Slipperychicken]

I've already let that go. Mentioned it earlier but it's a little buried.

Now have moved on to creative uses for animated objects other than attacking, e.g. dolls administering healing potions. I do like the idea of skulls that bit people. It's probably well within the design of the spell for them to do piercing instead of bludgeoning.

That sounds like some fun imagery. I'd allow it. Remember to give your dolls some nurse and doctor outfits.

[Gastronomie]

As a DM, I don't like disallowing stuff players wanna do, but at the same time I don't want them to break the game.

I'd allow it if the spell is upcast.

[the_brazenburn]

Another interesting question now: what spell do you use to animate creepy dolls/puppets/other human-shaped objects? Can you use Animate Dead, even though they were never alive? Or can Animate Objects make them act like actual living creatures?

[Dalebert]

Another interesting question now: what spell do you use to animate creepy dolls/puppets/other human-shaped objects? Can you use Animate Dead, even though they were never alive?

You use Animate Objects. No, Animate Dead only works on bodies, and more specifically humanoid ones.


Or can Animate Objects make them act like actual living creatures?

That's exactly what the spell does per the description. First sentence: "Objects come to life at your command." They become creatures that obey you.

[Easy_Lee]

Just tie a cable around the weapon and animate the cable. That should do the trick. Alternatively, use chains. Hell, use ribbons and make a Honedge.

[SharkForce]

Another interesting question now: what spell do you use to animate creepy dolls/puppets/other human-shaped objects? Can you use Animate Dead, even though they were never alive? Or can Animate Objects make them act like actual living creatures?

animate object should work fine. i wouldn't necessarily say they'd act exactly like actual living creatures, or at least, not in the sense that a doll will act exactly like a human. it will act like a living doll, which may be similar in many respects, but probably not in every way; most dolls will either be far more or far less flexible than a human, with different joints. they may not have functioning mouths, eyelids, separate fingers, etc.

i mean, think about it this way... apart from the fact that, say, a barbie doll has absurdly unrealistic proportions, they have no elbow joints, their shoulder joints move in a more or less complete perfect circle but only in one axis, and their leg joints can easily go beyond a split in the forward/backward axis, are limited to maybe 270ish degrees (far more than a human), but have very poor mobility in any other axis. would an animated barbie doll move like a human? no. it would move like a barbie doll.

now, with a corpse, by default it should have joints and proportions like whatever creature it used to be, but there should be some definite differences based on how damaged it is, how much decay has occurred, etc. even then, i would require some fairly specific orders to make it move close to correctly; it doesn't feel pain, it doesn't care that it is uncomfortable for its arms to bend that way, it doesn't care to make expressive movements with its face, or to use typical body language. i would expect it to trigger some *serious* uncanny valley response if it looks close to correct. unless the object in question has existed for long enough that you could have given it a very long detailed list of instructions. even then, probably creepy as heck once you start paying close attention.

[Dalebert]

Animated objects can bend in ways the original object couldn't. Picture an animated chair. It would use it's legs to walk. I wouldn't assume an animated Barbie doll couldn't bend at the elbows. I agree with much of your post though. In general, animated objects, especially dolls or dead bodies, would be super creepy. But they'll get the job done.

[MeeposFire]

For some reason I want to imagine that if a corpse was reanimated using animate dead it would walk smoothly like a computer generated skeleton like from Pirates of the Caribbean but for animate objects the same corpse would move more like stop motion which oddly is actually creepier (as the example in my head think the Terminator going down the hallway from the first movie after all of its skin is burned off it is very creepy looking)..

[SharkForce]

Animated objects can bend in ways the original object couldn't. Picture an animated chair. It would use it's legs to walk. I wouldn't assume an animated Barbie doll couldn't bend at the elbows. I agree with much of your post though. In general, animated objects, especially dolls or dead bodies, would be super creepy. But they'll get the job done.

the spell is pretty clear that they can bend... it's also pretty clear that it isn't like an actual joint, and is just enough to let them get around. i would expect things that already have sufficient joints to not need them for movement probably don't use that extra bendiness that the spell allows.

i will say that if you made a hyper-realistic marionette with no strings (or kept the strings for that matter, though at close range they would be visible), it could potentially move in a very human-like manner.

but generally speaking, if you animate a doll, it will move like an animated doll, not a living human. as noted, i would say that if you animate a corpse, provided the corpse is in reasonably good shape, i would say it moves more or less like a human.

in either event, provided some form of suitable grasping appendage is available, i would allow use of magical weapons. however, as with others, i would not consider it to be proficient with said weapon. and, just for clarity, it need not be human-shaped, just have some limb it could use to grasp the weapon; if you had, say, a dagger with a ring in the handle to allow rope to pass through, i would absolutely allow animated rope to wield it. if you had a ship that you custom built to mount a dart on the front like a ram, i would allow it to make clumsy ramming attacks with the dart. if you built some weird thing that looks like a forearm and hand with legs sticking out of the bottom, i would allow that to wield a sword (probably to wield a sword, it would need to be larger than tiny though... probably small would be fine for a short sword, not as sure about long sword).

[Wilko]

I'm a bit iffy on this and i don't have a PHB to hand but i seem to recall that you can have weapons silvered which doesn't make them magical but does bypass non-magical resistance?

[JackPhoenix]

I'm a bit iffy on this and i don't have a PHB to hand but i seem to recall that you can have weapons silvered which doesn't make them magical but does bypass non-magical resistance?

No, it bypass resistance to non-silvered weapons. Silver weapon helps you against lycantrophes, who are immune to non-silvered, non-magical weapons, but it won't do anything against, say, golems, which are immune to non-adamantine, non-magical weapons.

[Dalebert]

As long as they are harmed by silver, you can just animate a handful of silver coins. I think you're pretty much screwed if they need magical weapons. Just use a different spell. Even if a DM let you have them use magic weapons, it's not worth it they're treated as not having proficiency.

[Easy_Lee]

Some archetypes get magical weapons automatically, others don't. If a DM doesn't allow players who need them to acquire magical weapons, your table has bigger problems than creature immunity.

[Dalebert]

What does that have to do with the Animate Objects spell?

[Easy_Lee]

What does that have to do with the Animate Objects spell?

Misread your post - thought you said "if DMs don't let you use magical weapons" just in general, rather than specific for the spell.

As far as animating corpses and having them pick up magical weapons, I still say attaching an item like a chain to the weapon would be an easier test to see if the DM was okay with the concept. If so, maybe try it on corpses next time and point out that there's no mechanical benefit to doing that over using a harder-to-destroy chain.

[Ventruenox]

I still say attaching an item like a chain to the weapon would be an easier test to see if the DM was okay with the concept. If so, maybe try it on corpses next time and point out that there's no mechanical benefit to doing that over using a harder-to-destroy chain.

I want to steal this idea and tweak it. Animate the chain, but have it wrapped around the corpse to take it along for a ride. Send that macabre marionette against your opponents, or better yet against PCs. They focus on hacking apart the corpse thinking it is a zombie, when the real threat is the chain. Should be good for a few rounds of confusion.

[Coidzor]

I'm not sure if 5e's Animate Objects spell actually produces anything like the Animated Object of D&D 3.X/PF.

If it does, then, yeah, if it has articulation to have usable hands, the object has hands and can hold things in them.

[Bohandas]

For some reason I want to imagine that if a corpse was reanimated using animate dead it would walk smoothly like a computer generated skeleton like from Pirates of the Caribbean but for animate objects the same corpse would move more like stop motion which oddly is actually creepier (as the example in my head think the Terminator going down the hallway from the first movie after all of its skin is burned off it is very creepy looking)..

Really I would think it would be the other way around