TIL things about skeletons and zombies

[Dalebert]

Maybe you already knew these things. I was already arguing that skeletons aren't mindless but didn't realize the MM explicitly agrees with me. (all emphasis mine)

#1 You CAN resurrect someone who's been turned into a zombie or skeleton. I've seen contentious arguments about this based on the description in those spells. At no point in those long debates did someone try reading the creature descriptions. Resurrection is specifically called out as working under both creature descriptions.


Once turned into a zombie, a creature can't be restored to life except by powerful magic, such as a resurrection spell.


An animated skeleton retains no connection to its past, although resurrecting a skeleton restores it body and soul, banishing the hateful undead spirit that empowers it.

#2 Skeletons aren't mindless.

After describing how skeletons can engage in fairly complicated tasks...


Although they lack the intellect they possessed in life, skeletons aren't mindless.

This is relevant to some recent conversations like whether they can attune to magic items.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Maybe you already knew these things. I was already arguing that skeletons aren't mindless but didn't realize the MM explicitly agrees with me. (all emphasis mine)

#1 You CAN resurrect someone who's been turned into a zombie or skeleton. I've seen contentious arguments about this based on the description in those spells. At no point in those long debates did someone try reading the creature descriptions. Resurrection is specifically called out as working under both creature descriptions.





#2 Skeletons aren't mindless.

After describing how skeletons can engage in fairly complicated tasks...



This is relevant to some recent conversations like whether they can attune to magic items.

Both of those are things that (as I understand it) were changed between 3.5 and 5e. As a result, there are a lot of people who blithely assume that nothing's changed and use habits from old editions.

Note that having intelligent skeletons (and malignly so) eliminates the "good necromantic empire" option--you're enslaving intelligent beings (evil) and knowingly using would-be serial killers as common labor (unsafe if not evil). One dispel magic, one slip of control, one disruption in routine and you have a massacre.

[Unoriginal]

Maybe you already knew these things. I was already arguing that skeletons aren't mindless but didn't realize the MM explicitly agrees with me. (all emphasis mine)

#1 You CAN resurrect someone who's been turned into a zombie or skeleton. I've seen contentious arguments about this based on the description in those spells. At no point in those long debates did someone try reading the creature descriptions. Resurrection is specifically called out as working under both creature descriptions.

#2 Skeletons aren't mindless.

After describing how skeletons can engage in fairly complicated tasks...

This is relevant to some recent conversations like whether they can attune to magic items.

Yes, the MM is very clear.

Though note that the skeletons and zombies, while sapient, are very, very limited in their intellect. Like, Hill Giants are smarter.


Both of those are things that (as I understand it) were changed between 3.5 and 5e. As a result, there are a lot of people who blithely assume that nothing's changed and use habits from old editions.


Same reason why they think healing magic hurt Undead and necrotic magic heal them.



Note that having intelligent skeletons (and malignly so) eliminates the "good necromantic empire" option--you're enslaving intelligent beings (evil) and knowingly using would-be serial killers as common labor (unsafe if not evil). One dispel magic, one slip of control, one disruption in routine and you have a massacre.

Indeed. This is why the PHB mention that only evil individuals use Animate Dead often.

It's basically like saying "I often put serial killers' still conscious brains into raptor bodies then control them with a computer chip (which risk to get destroyed if they're electrocuted and that I have to change daily) before making them walk around the streets. "

Though it should be noted 5e doesn't say all instances of slavery are inherently evil either. The chaotic good Djinn have slaves:


Mortal slaves serve to validate a genie's power and high self-opinion. A hundred flattering voices are music to a genie's ears, while two hundred mortal slaves prostrated at its feet are proof that it is lord and master. Genies view slaves as living property, and a genie without property amounts to nothing among its own kind. As a result, many genies treasure their slaves, treating them as honored members of their households. Evil genies freely threaten and abuse their slaves, but never to the extent that the slaves are no longer of use.



The djinn believe that servitude is a matter of fate, and that no being can contest the hand of fate. As a result, of all the genies, djinn are the ones most amenable to servitude, though they never enjoy it. Djinn treat their slaves more like servants deserving of kindness and protection, and they part with them reluctantly.

Though of course it hardly apply here.

[Dalebert]

Indeed. This is why the PHB mention that only evil individuals use Animate Dead often.

Where does it say that? Page #?

I seem to recall softer language than that, something like "Animating the dead is not a good act" but I can't seem to find it now. I'm skeptical they made a sweeping statement like "only evil people do it frequently." That's prescribing a bit more to alignment than this edition is inclined to do.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Where does it say that? Page #?

I'm AFB, but it's in the sidebar about the schools of magic (or thereabouts).

[Dalebert]

Under necromancers:


Most people see necromancers as menacing, or even villainous, due to the close association with death. Not all necromancers are evil, but the forces they manipulate are considered taboo by many societies.

I found it. It seems to contradict what they said about necromancers as not always being evil because clearly, if anyone does it frequently, necromancers do.


Creating the undead through the use of necromancy spells such as animate dead is not a good act, and only evil casters use such spells frequently.

[Unoriginal]

Where does it say that? Page #?

I seem to recall softer language than that, something like "Animating the dead is not a good act" but I can't seem to find it now. I'm skeptical they made a sweeping statement like "only evil people do it frequently." That's prescribing a bit more to alignment than this edition is inclined to do.

p.203, in the Wizard entry.



Creating the undead through lhe use of necromancy spells such as animate dead is not a good act, and only evil casters use such spells frequently.

[Dalebert]

I agree that it's questionable but I can see plenty of neutral characters doing it while not using it for overtly evil ends.

[Millstone85]

#1 You CAN resurrect someone who's been turned into a zombie or skeleton. I've seen contentious arguments about this based on the description in those spells. At no point in those long debates did someone try reading the creature descriptions. Resurrection is specifically called out as working under both creature descriptions.Note that some of those came from the Crawford.

link (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/709791324656902144)

If you cast revivify on a zombie, the creature returns as a zombie. The spell doesn't change creature type.

link (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/710863306710319109)

Raise dead: "The spell can't return an undead creature to life"

So a dead undead is still undead for those spells?
Yes.

link (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/828725298870972416)


The MM mentions restoring a zombie to life with "powerful magic, such as a resurrection spell". What PHB spells can do it?
True resurrection can foil undeath.

[Unoriginal]

I agree that it's questionable but I can see plenty of neutral characters doing it while not using it for overtly evil ends.

It's not a question of "overtly evil ends".

If you put serial killers' still conscious brains into raptor bodies then control them with a computer chip (which risk to get destroyed if they're electrocuted and that you have to change daily) before making them walk around the streets, knowing a slip in control will free them for a rampage, and do so frequently despite the risks, you don't fit the criteria for neutrality.


Note that some of those came from the Crawford.

link (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/709791324656902144)


link (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/710863306710319109)


link (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/828725298870972416)

Interesting. Wonder about Reincarnation, though.

[Dalebert]

Note that some of those came from the Crawford.

link (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/828725298870972416)

Is there errata for the MM also because it says "such as resurrection" when there is a 7th level spell called "Resurrection". Otherwise, seems to me that at least for skeletons and zombies, this will work as well. It's a case of an exception to the general rule per the MM. It may not work for higher forms of undead.


It's not a question of "overtly evil ends".

If you put serial killers' still conscious brains into raptor bodies then control them with a computer chip (which risk to get destroyed if they're electrocuted and that you have to change daily) before making them walk around the streets, knowing a slip in control will free them for a rampage, and do so frequently despite the risks, you don't fit the criteria for neutrality.


We're disagreeing on a highly subjective concept. Debates on what the alignments mean is endless. See, I could easily see chalking that up to poor judgment, overconfidence in your ability to control them, contrived justification processes. You just can't explain every possible individual personality with just 9 categories. And again, I would just like to point out that the book contradicts itself by pointing out that not all necromancers are evil. It just can't be a wide-sweeping rule as you imply it to be.

[Unoriginal]

We're disagreeing on a high subjective concept.

You're disagreeing with the PHB.


See, I could easily see chalking that up to poor judgment, overconfidence in your ability to control them, contrived justification processes.

Be it poor judgement, overconfidence of your capacities, or contrived rationalization, if you FREQUENTLY put others in danger using dangerous monsters who can slip out of your control, you're showing blatant disregard for both the consequences of your actions and the lives of innocents. Which is why it means your alignment is evil.

Your DM made your PCs meet a NPC whose job was to make sure a mine was safe for the miners, but who frequently forced the miners to work in potentially lethal conditions (ex: natural issues, poor maintenance in the mine, or hostile beings showing up) due to refusing to listen to others' judgement despite being proven wrong several times, being overconfident in his capacity to make things work despite others paying the price with their lives, and who rationalize away any criticism of himself, not carrying about the people who suffered because of him, this NPC would be evil, too.




You just can't explain every possible individual personality with just 9 categories.

Good thing it's not what 5e's alignment are about, then.

5e's alignment is about your typical behavior, nothing more, nothing less.

[Millstone85]

Interesting. Wonder about Reincarnation, though.He had something to say on that too.

link (https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/712020801856208896)

Reincarnate works only on a humanoid, not on an undead or a creature of another type.

I think the overall idea is that if a body goes living -> dead -> undead -> dead, it is no longer the corpse of the original creature, but of the new creature that was made from the first corpse.

Now, I am not saying I like it. This feels more like an artifact of undead being a creature type than anything.


Is there errata for the MM also because it says "such as resurrection" when there is a 7th level spell called "Resurrection".That's when we get into true rules-lawyer fun. :smallamused:

When the MM entry on zombies says "such as a resurrection spell", it doesn't say "such as a Resurrection spell" or "such as a resurrection spell". It is not talking about the 7th-level spell of that name, just some spell that resurrects.

According to Crawford, that would be True Resurrection.

[Unoriginal]

He had something to say on that too.

I think the overall idea is that if a body goes living -> dead -> undead -> dead, it is no longer the corpse of the original creature, but of the new creature that was made from the first corpse.

Now, I am not saying I like it. This feels more like an artifact of undead being a creature type.

Mmmh, I think it actually make sense.

If it was just an artifact, they would just have changed it by now. In other editions, as long as you killed the Undead, you could resurrect the person normally afterward.

So no, this is a deliberate change. Suddenly, being turned into an Undead is much more horrifying: not only your body is being puppeteered by evil, but it also near permanently alter it to the point you can only be brought back with the most powerful of magicks.

While it's a big gut punch, I think it help shows that the Undead and other evil necromancers are a real threat.

[Coidzor]

It's not the first time Crawford has said or advocated for something that's rubbish, after all.

Also, 5e's Skeletons and Zombies are hardly as effective as raptors, so I don't understand why you're so fixated on that analogy.

[Unoriginal]

Also, 5e's Skeletons and Zombies are hardly as effective as raptors, so I don't understand why you're so fixated on that analogy.

Raptors are CR 1/4 with 10 HPs and multiattacks. Skeletons are CR 1/4 with 13 HPs and ranged weapons. Zombies are CR 1/4 with 22 HPs and a nice ability called Undead Fortitude.

While the raptors are better at hunting, they're roughly on the same power level as the two Undead.

[Drascin]

Same reason why they think healing magic hurt Undead and necrotic magic heal them.

In fairness, "revive kills zombies" is hardly an old D&D thing only. For most people I know, the fact that it's in every RPG videogame to ever exist probably informs more of that assumption.

Honestly, 5e is the weird one out, on this, I'm pretty sure.

[PhoenixPhyre]

In fairness, "revive kills zombies" is hardly an old D&D thing only. For most people I know, the fact that it's in every RPG videogame to ever exist probably informs more of that assumption.

Honestly, 5e is the weird one out, on this, I'm pretty sure.

It's not in every RPG ever. It's in final fantasy, which started as a d&d clone. Other than that... I'm coming up blank. None of the MMOs I've played did that, dragon's age doesn't, elder scrolls doesn't, etc.

[Unoriginal]

In fairness, "revive kills zombies" is hardly an old D&D thing only. For most people I know, the fact that it's in every RPG videogame to ever exist probably informs more of that assumption.

Honestly, 5e is the weird one out, on this, I'm pretty sure.

It came from D&D. Probably became prevalent due to Japanese RPGs (my bet being Final Fantasy), which were influenced by Record of the Lodoss War or other Japanese Fantasy works which also were strongly influenced by D&D.

But in any case, even if 5e is the one breaking the trend, it doesn't mean that people are justified into thinking it follows it rather than actually reading the books.

[Millstone85]

Suddenly, being turned into an Undead is much more horrifying: not only your body is being puppeteered by evil, but it also near permanently alter it to the point you can only be brought back with the most powerful of magicks.

While it's a big gut punch, I think it help shows that the Undead and other evil necromancers are a real threat.Kind of a thematic 180, though. The horror of undeath is that it makes it more difficult to cheat death?

Same issue with the premise of Tomb of Annihilation. Oh no, a necromantic curse is putting all those re-living back in the grave! Such a crime against the natural order! And yes, I heard there is more to it later on.

[Unoriginal]

Kind of a thematic 180, though. The horror of undeath is that it makes it more difficult to cheat death?

It makes it harder to do a proper bargain with death.




Same issue with the premise of Tomb of Annihilation. Oh no, a necromantic curse is putting all those re-living back in the grave! Such a crime against the natural order! And yes, I heard there is more to it later on.

It's not an issue. "Forbidding one of the gods' most powerful ability from working everywhere in the world" is a massive show of strength.

[Tanarii]

Kind of a thematic 180, though. The horror of undeath is that it makes it more difficult to cheat death?Many players will find the inability to get their PC back without resorting to a level 7 spell (or 9 depending on reading & acceptance of JC's tweet) pretty horrifying. I know my Tier 2 players worry about the 10 day, no undead, and needing a whole body limitations on Raise Dead.

Of course, depending on your DM & their campaign world, that may just be a matter of shelling out more GP to get the higher level spell cast.

[Coidzor]

Many players will find the inability to get their PC back without resorting to a level 7 spell (or 9 depending on reading & acceptance of JC's tweet) pretty horrifying. I know my Tier 2 players worry about the 10 day, no undead, and needing a whole body limitations on Raise Dead.

Of course, depending on your DM & their campaign world, that may just be a matter of shelling out more GP to get the higher level spell cast.

Yes, but probably a completely different sort of horror from the one ostensibly intended. Like the horror one feels when someone whom one is supposed to respect opens up their mouth and nothing but raw unbridled horse pucky comes out.

[Unoriginal]

Yes, but probably a completely different sort of horror from the one ostensibly intended. Like the horror one feels when someone whom one is supposed to respect opens up their mouth and nothing but raw unbridled horse pucky comes out.

"evil magic desecrating your body to the point holy powers can't help" is a pretty well known trope, though.

[Tanarii]

"evil magic desecrating your body to the point holy powers can't help" is a pretty well known trope, though.
Exactly. It sure beats "oh don't worry about George being killed by Finger of Death, we'll just kill his Zombie and Revivify him."

[Coidzor]

Exactly. It sure beats "oh don't worry about George being killed by Finger of Death, we'll just kill his Zombie and Revivify him."

If you're keen on going at cross purposes from the goal of 5e being one of the most playable versions of D&D, I suppose.

[Envyus]

Maybe you already knew these things. I was already arguing that skeletons aren't mindless but didn't realize the MM explicitly agrees with me. (all emphasis mine)

#1 You CAN resurrect someone who's been turned into a zombie or skeleton. I've seen contentious arguments about this based on the description in those spells. At no point in those long debates did someone try reading the creature descriptions. Resurrection is specifically called out as working under both creature descriptions.

This was always the case in the older games as I recall as well. The Zombie or Skeleton just needs to be dead again first.

[Unoriginal]

If you're keen on going at cross purposes from the goal of 5e being one of the most playable versions of D&D, I suppose.

What.

This does not make 5e less playable. What are you even talking about?

[Zalabim]

Well, the Resurrection spell says first thing, "You touch a dead creature that has been dead for no more than a century, that didn't die of old age, and that isn't undead. If its soul is free and willing, the target returns to life with all its hit points." That looks pretty straightforward, once you understand that reincarnate does not work on dead undead and revivify restores dead undead to living undead status.

[Tanarii]

If you're keen on going at cross purposes from the goal of 5e being one of the most playable versions of D&D, I suppose.
Nonsense & non-sequitur in a single post. Well done, that chap.