Twin Revivify

[Tanarii]

A twinned revivify still only costs 300 GP, right? Ditto raise dead etc? You'd have to bring the dead creatures to where you could touch them at the same time, but it looks to me like that's right. Twin doesn't cast the spell twice, it just targets an additional creature.

I've recently allowed XtgE content and I've got a player of a Divine Soul asking. Wasn't an question I had considered before because my campaign is single class only.

[Spectrulus]

By the RAW, it doesn't say it does. Kind of strange... I'd imagine by RAI it should though.

[Xetheral]

Can Revivify be Twinned? I thought Twin only worked on spells that target creatures, whereas Revivify targets corpses? Or is a dead creature still a creature?

[Tanarii]

Can Revivify be Twinned? I thought Twin onlu worked on spells that target creatures, whereas Revivdy targets corpses? Or is a dead creature still a creature?
Hmmm. Good question. I'd be inclined to rule it's a creature just because dead creature. But I'll dig around, maybe there's a Crawford tweet on the matter.

[DerficusRex]

Can Revivify be Twinned? I thought Twin only worked on spells that target creatures, whereas Revivify targets corpses? Or is a dead creature still a creature?

From the Revivify spell description: "You touch a creature that has died within the last minute."

So, yeah, as long as you can touch both dead creatures at the time of casting it looks like you can twin it.

[Xetheral]

From the Revivify spell description: "You touch a creature that has died within the last minute."

So, yeah, as long as you can touch both dead creatures at the time of casting it looks like you can twin it.

Ok, looks like "dead creatures" are a subset of "creatures" then. That has interesting consequences... it means a dead creature can be further damaged by Fireball, but can't be ignited. If a dead creature was an object instead, it wouldn't take damage (but could be ignited if deemed flammable).

[Malifice]

Yeah it works.

Nothing wrong with it either.

[iTreeby]

The real question is what happens when one of the dead creatures is a zealot barbarian.

[Theodoxus]

Excellent question... It's totally a houserule, but I'd say it would only use 150 gp in diamonds to Twin Revivify a zealot with a non-zealot buddy. It's really the only fair (if probably not RAW) ruling.

[Segev]

Excellent question... It's totally a houserule, but I'd say it would only use 150 gp in diamonds to Twin Revivify a zealot with a non-zealot buddy. It's really the only fair (if probably not RAW) ruling.

For those of us not familiar, what's a Zealot's rules for revivify that makes this "fair?"

[MaxWilson]

For those of us not familiar, what's a Zealot's rules for revivify that makes this "fair?"

Level 3 ability for the Zealot is, "At 3rd level, your soul is marked for endless battle. If a spell, such as Raise Dead, has the sole effect of restoring you to life (but not undeath), the caster doesn't need material components to cast the spell on you."

Looks to me as if a Twinned Revivify has effects other than restoring you to life, so does not qualify for this feature.

[Ganymede]

Just to muddy the water, here is Crawford saying a corpse is NOT a creature.

https://mobile.twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/597077875049635840

So how do we reconcile all all of this info with whether revivify can be twinned?

[Pex]

Which is more fun?

[LudicSavant]

The real question is what happens when one of the dead creatures is a zealot barbarian.

Clearly they team up to put an end to unnatural death throughout the world. :xykon:

But seriously though, Twinned would have effects other than reviving the Barbarian, and thus would get no benefit at all. Not even a discount.

[AHF]

Excellent question... It's totally a houserule, but I'd say it would only use 150 gp in diamonds to Twin Revivify a zealot with a non-zealot buddy. It's really the only fair (if probably not RAW) ruling.

If it were at my table, I would say the normal 300 gp still applies when a caster twins revivify on a non-zealot and a zealot. It would cost 300 gp in diamonds to revivify the non-zealot buddy alone since that target triggers a material component requirement of 300 gp worth of diamonds. Twinning doesn't make it logically any cheaper to cast the spell on the non-zealot. The second person comes along "free" whether a zealot or a non-zealot. As a practical consequence, you are just saving on spell slots at the expense of burning your metamagic.

Conversely, I would say that if you cast it on two zealots then it would cost nothing in material components because there is no trigger requiring a material component on either target.

[MaxWilson]

Just to muddy the water, here is Crawford saying a corpse is NOT a creature.

https://mobile.twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/597077875049635840

So how do we reconcile all all of this info with whether revivify can be twinned?

Conclusion: by RAW, Revivify cannot be cast at all, unless may if you hunt down the creature's ghost on the Outer Planes somewhere. So twinning is irrelevant.

Corollary: "RAW" is not a compliment. To say that something is true, technically, by the Rules As Written, is usually the same thing as admitting that the rules were badly written and need to be rewritten.

[Xetheral]

Just to muddy the water, here is Crawford saying a corpse is NOT a creature.

https://mobile.twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/597077875049635840

So how do we reconcile all all of this info with whether revivify can be twinned?

Well, in that case Revivify can't be cast at all, since it requires touching a dead creature. If creatures that die aren't creatures any more, then Revivify has no valid targets. (I think we can safely assume that means Crawford is wrong on this point, since we can probably assume the spell works.)

[MaxWilson]

Well, in that case Revivify can't be cast at all, since it requires touching a dead creature. If creatures that die aren't creatures any more, then Revivify has no valid targets. (I think we can safely assume that means Crawford is wrong on this point, since we can probably assume the spell works.)

This is one of the rare cases where Crawford may not be wrong.

But it doesn't matter, because as you say, Revivify is broken if Crawford is right. So whether he's wrong and the spell works just fine, or he's right and the spell is useless and needs a rewrite to function as intended... the upshot is that Revivify can be cast on corpses at the table of any sane DM.

[Ganymede]

Well, in that case Revivify can't be cast at all

I think it goes without saying but, if your interpretation method nullifies parts of the game rules, it is wrong.

I mean seriously, how is an interpretation that renders Revivify into some Lorem Ipsum in the middle of the spell list tenable?

[Ganymede]

This is one of the rare cases where Crawford may not be wrong.

But it doesn't matter, because as you say, Revivify is broken if Crawford is right

Not necessarily. The new information creates a seeming contradiction between "creature" and "has been dead," but we don't need to rely on that interpretation. We can avoid that contradiction while still respecting RAW by concluding this specific usage of "creature" is not the term of art describing a specific game state but a loosey-goosey way of describing a corpse.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Well, in that case Revivify can't be cast at all, since it requires touching a dead creature. If creatures that die aren't creatures any more, then Revivify has no valid targets. (I think we can safely assume that means Crawford is wrong on this point, since we can probably assume the spell works.)

There's also the core rule that "Specific beats General" where magic is given express notice of making exceptions to that rule.


This compendium contains rules that govern how the game plays. That said, many racial traits, class features, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and other game elements break the general rules in some way, creating an exception to how the rest of the game works. Remember this: If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins.

Exceptions to the rules are often minor. For instance, many adventurers don’t have proficiency with longbows, but every wood elf does because of a racial trait. That trait creates a minor exception in the game. Other examples of rule-breaking are more conspicuous. For instance, an adventurer can’t normally pass through walls, but some spells make that possible. Magic accounts for most of the major exceptions to the rules.

As far as revivify is concerned in this scenario, a creature that has died in the last minute still counts as a creature for the purposes of casting the spell.

For all other purposes that aren't also given exception, a corpse counts as an object.

[PhoenixPhyre]

A twinned revivify still only costs 300 GP, right? Ditto raise dead etc? You'd have to bring the dead creatures to where you could touch them at the same time, but it looks to me like that's right. Twin doesn't cast the spell twice, it just targets an additional creature.

I've recently allowed XtgE content and I've got a player of a Divine Soul asking. Wasn't an question I had considered before because my campaign is single class only.

I'd rule that the cost does not increase (so 300 gp flat). It's the same principle by which you can twin a concentration spell--you're not casting two spells. You're casting it once, but it's having the same effect on multiple targets. This is why if you lose concentration on twin haste, both targets lose the buff. It's a single spell instance, so only a single cost.

And yes, corpses are creatures with regard to the raise dead-type spells. To say otherwise is to enter total rules-lawyer realms that make things quite pointless.

[Ganymede]

There's also the core rule that "Specific beats General" where magic is given express notice of making exceptions to that rule.

As far as revivify is concerned in this scenario, a creature that has died in the last minute still counts as a creature for the purposes of casting the spell.

For all other purposes that aren't also given exception, a corpse counts as an object.

This is another interesting interpretation, though it differs from mine in that it would allow twinning Revivify while mine wouldn't. I do like it better, though.

[RSP]

I’m not sure what the issue is. A creature can die. A dead creature therefore both used to be a creature and is currently an object. The spells Revivify and Raise Dead target dead creatures, that is a specific type of object that used to be a creature.

Reincarnate targets a dead humanoid or a piece of a dead humanoid. Again, specific types of objects.

[No brains]

I'm about to get weird, so take a grain of salt. Maybe the rest of the margarita too. Here's one of the ponderings that left me with no brains:

Jeremy Crawford's stance on corpses not being creatures is suspect because he also says that petrified creatures still are creatures. If you dig through the game's definitions, interaction and animation are parts of what makes a creature distinct from and object. What is it about petrification that preserves more creature-hood than death?

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/966507846664781824

The quote in my sig that 'makes a demented kind of sense' has a logic patch for the corpse/ creature error: A creature possesses a corpse in its inventory. Having that corpse as their natural body allows them to do physical things. If they die, they drop their corpse, and it can be crafted into other objects by other creatures. The creature and the corpse are two separate articles that occupy the same point and frequently interact, like the script that makes a sprite take actions. It's sort of like TES console commands in that regard. I think I've achieved CHIM. Or I'm on skooma.

Maybe setting-dependent rules on souls can affect whether a creature 'goes somewhere' when it dies, but maybe there should be some assumption that there is enough 'creature' left to resolve some of the inconsistencies on creature/ corpse transparency.

I think 5e's focus on rulings over rules is because debates like this invite insanity, so it's in the DM's hands to settle the minutia of it. Something that could be so setting or campaign-subjective is literally not worth the time=money of R&D.

[Theodoxus]

I know there's a lot of Crawford fan boys around here, but I really don't care what he tweets. Until it's in a book, it's just his opinion.

Show me in a core rule book where a corpse is defined - either as a creature or, more importantly, an object - and I'll be happy.

Since such a definition doesn't exist, and the spells specifically state 'creature', then a corpse is a creature. An inanimate one, but still a creature.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I'm about to get weird, so take a grain of salt. Maybe the rest of the margarita too. Here's one of the ponderings that left me with no brains:

Jeremy Crawford's stance on corpses not being creatures is suspect because he also says that petrified creatures still are creatures. If you dig through the game's definitions, interaction and animation are parts of what makes a creature distinct from and object. What is it about petrification that preserves more creature-hood than death?

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/966507846664781824

The quote in my sig that 'makes a demented kind of sense' has a logic patch for the corpse/ creature error: A creature possesses a corpse in its inventory. Having that corpse as their natural body allows them to do physical things. If they die, they drop their corpse, and it can be crafted into other objects by other creatures. The creature and the corpse are two separate articles that occupy the same point and frequently interact, like the script that makes a sprite take actions. It's sort of like TES console commands in that regard. I think I've achieved CHIM. Or I'm on skooma.

Maybe setting-dependent rules on souls can affect whether a creature 'goes somewhere' when it dies, but maybe there should be some assumption that there is enough 'creature' left to resolve some of the inconsistencies on creature/ corpse transparency.

I think 5e's focus on rulings over rules is because debates like this invite insanity, so it's in the DM's hands to settle the minutia of it. Something that could be so setting or campaign-subjective is literally not worth the time=money of R&D.
On the first note - No, it makes perfect sense because Petrified is not the same as dead. The wording is very specific not to mention your character becoming an object, instead mentioning that they are transformed into a creature made entirely out of an inanimate substance. You don't instantly die and the condition can be removed by spells and some other effects but not resurrection spells.

It's also a fact of the D&D multiverse than when you die your soul goes somewhere usually dependant on your alignment and it's a necessary part of most resurrection spells (the willing part that only a few spells gloss over). Since being petrified doesn't kill you, your soul is there, you are still creature.

On that middle bit, that does make some sense. A dead creature is for all intents and purposes considered an object now unless it's targeted by a spell looking for a creature to return back to (un)life.


I know there's a lot of Crawford fan boys around here, but I really don't care what he tweets. Until it's in a book, it's just his opinion.

Show me in a core rule book where a corpse is defined - either as a creature or, more importantly, an object - and I'll be happy.

Since such a definition doesn't exist, and the spells specifically state 'creature', then a corpse is a creature. An inanimate one, but still a creature.

Dead goblins are considered Objects for the purposes of improvised weapons (PG 147 PHB) and the only mention I found of treating a corpse as a creature is in conjunction with Revivify and other spells like it being the only thing that can restore their hitpoints and bring them back to life (PG 197 PHB). So there is support in a core book for treating corpses as objects, and specific exceptions to that.

I know it's really fun to hate on Crawford's rulings around here, but a lot of them actually do make sense.

[Xetheral]

I’m not sure what the issue is. A creature can die. A dead creature therefore both used to be a creature and is currently an object. The spells Revivify and Raise Dead target dead creatures, that is a specific type of object that used to be a creature.

Reincarnate targets a dead humanoid or a piece of a dead humanoid. Again, specific types of objects.

The problem is that Revivify targets "a creature that's died in the last minute". So, it targets a subset of creatures. But Crawford's tweet says that the body of anything that has died is not a creature. Thus, the set of all "creatures that have died in the last minute" does not contain any bodies.

As MaxWilson says, the silly conclusion is that you can't cast Revivify on the body of your dead party member. (Depending on the metaphysics of that world, it might still be able to be cast if you can locate and touch (e.g.) the soul within a minute of death.) The better conclusion is to assume that Revivify targets (contrary to the text) "the body of a creature that's died in the last minute".

[Tanarii]

Which is more fun?Having a predator, or cannabilistic and cowardly humanoid, run away and drag along the bodies of a killed PC so they can't be raised. :smalltongue:

But I'm assuming in the context of Twin Revivify being cast that I didn't get to have my fun. :smallwink:



I know it's really fun to hate on Crawford's rulings around here, but a lot of them actually do make sense.Seriously, the idea that people around here are Crawford Fans is just totally crazy. I'm probably as close as it comes, and it's only because I suffered for years under the insanity that was Skip Williams.

[RSP]

The problem is that Revivify targets "a creature that's died in the last minute". So, it targets a subset of creatures. But Crawford's tweet says that the body of anything that has died is not a creature. Thus, the set of all "creatures that have died in the last minute" does not contain any bodies.

As MaxWilson says, the silly conclusion is that you can't cast Revivify on the body of your dead party member. (Depending on the metaphysics of that world, it might still be able to be cast if you can locate and touch (e.g.) the soul within a minute of death.) The better conclusion is to assume that Revivify targets (contrary to the text) "the body of a creature that's died in the last minute".

“You touch a creature that has died within the last minute” doesn’t seem like too big of an issue; clearly if creatures are living things, at some point they’ll die. The spell doesn’t target a “creature” but rather a creature that recently died. A recently dead creature is still dead and, per 5e, still an object; the fact that less than a minute ago it was a living thing doesn’t change the fact that it’s an object now. “A creature that has died” is still just a specific type of object.

[Exocist]

Seriously, the idea that people around here are Crawford Fans is just totally crazy. I'm probably as close as it comes, and it's only because I suffered for years under the insanity that was Skip Williams.

Story time for the worst Sage Advice you've ever seen? Aside from the one about the Tarrasque only being able to be hit on a natural one with the Sage Advice "that is strange isn't it?"

[MeeposFire]

Story time for the worst Sage Advice you've ever seen? Aside from the one about the Tarrasque only being able to be hit on a natural one with the Sage Advice "that is strange isn't it?"

Wait is that one from 2e? Technically I think that there might be a truth in there since the 2e Monstrous Compendium said something weird like that in the Tarrasque section and it made no sense but it was there so technically as the Sage in that case I would have to say something strange like that unless I said that what was in the book was a typo (personally I think it was).

[Exocist]

Wait is that one from 2e? Technically I think that there might be a truth in there since the 2e Monstrous Compendium said something weird like that in the Tarrasque section and it made no sense but it was there so technically as the Sage in that case I would have to say something strange like that unless I said that what was in the book was a typo (personally I think it was).

Yeah it was from 2e, the Tarrasque had both a negative THAC0 and a Negative AC (IIRC it was the first printed monster to do so). At the very bottom of the Tarrasque's entry it had this: "Note: Creatures with a minus THAC0 can only be hit on a 1."

What that should say is "Creatures with a minus THAC0 can only miss on a 1" (short of circumstances which give negative AC, of which there were none at the time), but instead it lead to the Tarrasque being basically unhittable by martial characters. When asked to clarify, the Sage Advice said something along the lines of "That is strange isn't it?" and gave 0 clarification.

Oh well, at least the Tarrasque has this little gem: "The tarrasque is also immune to all heat and fire, and it regenerates lost hit points at a rate of 1 hit point per round. Only enchanted weapons (+1 or better) have any hope of harming the tarrasque. The Tarrasque is totally immune to all psionics."

Now, I'm no physicist, but I'm pretty sure if you're immune to heat you can't move or do anything at all.

[MeeposFire]

Yeah it was from 2e, the Tarrasque had both a negative THAC0 and a Negative AC (IIRC it was the first printed monster to do so). At the very bottom of the Tarrasque's entry it had this: "Note: Creatures with a minus THAC0 can only be hit on a 1."

What that should say is "Creatures with a minus THAC0 can only miss on a 1" (short of circumstances which give negative AC, of which there were none at the time), but instead it lead to the Tarrasque being basically unhittable by martial characters. When asked to clarify, the Sage Advice said something along the lines of "That is strange isn't it?" and gave 0 clarification.

Oh well, at least the Tarrasque has this little gem: "The tarrasque is also immune to all heat and fire, and it regenerates lost hit points at a rate of 1 hit point per round. Only enchanted weapons (+1 or better) have any hope of harming the tarrasque. The Tarrasque is totally immune to all psionics."

Now, I'm no physicist, but I'm pretty sure if you're immune to heat you can't move or do anything at all.

To be fair in order to clarify the situation is to do what the Sage did (which is just go with what the text says regardless of how silly it seems) or to spontaneously create errata which depending on who you talk to is not something he is supposed to do.

As for the heat thing we all know you are just having fun with pedantry. Fun but not really in the same league as the negative THAC0 thing. Also even the only missing on a one thing still makes no sense as negative AC was possible from the start of the game (even no dex bonus you could get negative AC with just +3 plate and a shield and it just gets lower from there). If that really is the reason they really did not think at the time and I am also surprised that they did not change it in future printings because I am fairly sure that there are other creatures in my Monstrous Compendium that had negative ACs (things like Pit Fiends or Balors I would imagine) though I cannot be sure if those enemies were in the initial set of binders or not.

[Exocist]

To be fair in order to clarify the situation is to do what the Sage did (which is just go with what the text says regardless of how silly it seems) or to spontaneously create errata which depending on who you talk to is not something he is supposed to do.

As for the heat thing we all know you are just having fun with pedantry. Fun but not really in the same league as the negative THAC0 thing. Also even the only missing on a one thing still makes no sense as negative AC was possible from the start of the game (even no dex bonus you could get negative AC with just +3 plate and a shield and it just gets lower from there). If that really is the reason they really did not think at the time and I am also surprised that they did not change it in future printings because I am fairly sure that there are other creatures in my Monstrous Compendium that had negative ACs (things like Pit Fiends or Balors I would imagine) though I cannot be sure if those enemies were in the initial set of binders or not.

Ah, how could I forgot about Magical Armor bonuses, they always seem so rare compared to magical weapon bonuses.

While it's true that Balors&Pit Fiends have negative AC, they don't have negative THAC0 (Both have a THAC0 of 7) which is why that note is in the Tarrasque section. The Tarrasque was, IIRC, the only "world-ending threat"-type boss printed in the OG. In any case, I don't think the designers intended for you to summon a Negative AC monster to take out big T.

Yeah I'm just screwing around with the heat thing. The only question really is "Does immunity to heat make it immune to cold damage?"

[MaxWilson]

To be fair in order to clarify the situation is to do what the Sage did (which is just go with what the text says regardless of how silly it seems) or to spontaneously create errata which depending on who you talk to is not something he is supposed to do.

Or he could have, you know, done a bit of journalism and asked around among his TSR co-workers and gotten clarification from whoever wrote the Tarrasque text as to what they were thinking.

If he wasn't willing to do that he should have just skipped the question instead of wasting everyone's time.

[Merudo]

Conclusion: by RAW, Revivify cannot be cast at all, unless may if you hunt down the creature's ghost on the Outer Planes somewhere. So twinning is irrelevant.


I'm constantly amazed at how inept Crawford is at making rulings and answering questions.

At this point, I'm debating making a compilation of Crawford's questionable rulings and unhelpful answers. There really is a bunch of them.

[Exocist]

I'm constantly amazed at how inept Crawford is at making rulings and answering questions.

At this point, I'm debating making a compilation of Crawford's questionable rulings and unhelpful answers. There really is a bunch of them.

Then get a bunch of Skip Williams' questionable rulings and unhelpful answers to compare. I think it would be about the same amount per year (though maybe 3.5 could skew the numbers).

[LudicSavant]

I'm constantly amazed at how inept Crawford is at making rulings and answering questions.

At this point, I'm debating making a compilation of Crawford's questionable rulings and unhelpful answers. There really is a bunch of them.

You should totally do it.

[NaughtyTiger]

I know it's really fun to hate on Crawford's rulings around here, but a lot of them actually do make sense.

People treat his word like the bible and he is the head writer. ALL of his rulings should make sense, otherwise, he is just making things worse.

He contradicts himself a few times a year, but never admits he was wrong... Pope of Faerun

I will contribute to the list of Crawford-isms as soon as it goes live.

[UrielAwakened]

Now I imagine a scenario where the rest of the Clerics in town are seriously pissed at the upstart Sorcerer who just recently moved in and is undercutting what they charge for revivals by 50%.

[Segev]

Man, it'd avoid so much argument if the text of the spell just said, "You touch the body of a creature who died in the last minute..."

In that case, it doesn't matter if the body is an object or "the creature," it is still indisputably the body of the creature that lived in it less than a minute ago.

[PhantomSoul]

Man, it'd avoid so much argument if the text of the spell just said, "You touch the body of a creature who died in the last minute..."

In that case, it doesn't matter if the body is an object or "the creature," it is still indisputably the body of the creature that lived in it less than a minute ago.

Bah, I'm sure there would end up being a debate about something!

Maybe an incorporeal non-undead died, or maybe the creature has more than one body, or maybe you aren't touching the body if it's wearing clothing/armour (and heavy armor takes five minutes to doff!), or maybe we should question whether failing the death saving throws is really what killed the creature or whether it was instead a horrible childhood that prematurely sucked the soul from the poor creature. This is the internet -- there needs to be something to debate!

Jokes aside, though, agreed. Though I do like the idea that only fresh undead can be revived with Revivify (that way they both died and remain a creature), but obviously I wouldn't want to implement that restriction!

[MaxWilson]

I'm constantly amazed at how inept Crawford is at making rulings and answering questions.

At this point, I'm debating making a compilation of Crawford's questionable rulings and unhelpful answers. There really is a bunch of them.

Please message it appropriately if you do to make it clear that it's not a personal attack. "Why WotC should not have an official rules lawyer on Twitter" for instance comes across differently than "eleven times when Jeremy Crawford was wrong."

[Tanarii]

Just to muddy the water, here is Crawford saying a corpse is NOT a creature.

https://mobile.twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/597077875049635840

So how do we reconcile all all of this info with whether revivify can be twinned?
Thank you, btw. I'm probably going to ignore this and specifically allow Twin Revivify. But it's good to know.

---------

I'll step out of this thread at this point. Crawford haterz are welcome to continue their rants without me. I'll save my SA venom and bile for periodically bringing up ol' skip. :smallamused:

[RSP]

Just reread Twin Spell and saw it needs to be a creature (“When you cast a spell that targets only one creature...”). RAW, no spell effecting recently dead creatures would work with Twin, which very well may be intent.

[PeteNutButter]

We don’t need to be years into this edition to have this debate. Stoneskin is on the phb sorcerer list and consumes 100 gold gem to cast. There is no rule to even suggest that the sorcerer would need 200 gold worth of gems to twin it.

Let’s all be grown ups and ignore the sage advice tweets because they make no sense a good quarter of the time. The wording of revivify requires a dead creature to still be a creature. ...but wait, then why can’t you cast cure wounds on a dead creature to restore it to life? Oh 5e.

[ProsecutorGodot]

We don’t need to be years into this edition to have this debate. Stoneskin is on the phb sorcerer list and consumes 100 gold gem to cast. There is no rule to even suggest that the sorcerer would need 200 gold worth of gems to twin it.

Let’s all be grown ups and ignore the sage advice tweets because they make no sense a good quarter of the time. The wording of revivify requires a dead creature to still be a creature. ...but wait, then why can’t you cast cure wounds on a dead creature to restore it to life? Oh 5e.

You are correct, Twinned says "you can spend a number of sorcery points equal to the spell’s level to target a second creature in range with the same spell" which implies that you would only pay the cost once as the spell isn't being cast again but targeting an additional creature. The snag that spurred this debate into overdrive was Twinned Revivify's interaction with Zealot Barbarian's taking the material cost away if the spell serves only to bring them back to life. A quick reading makes me think that you could not cast Twin Revivify for free in this way because it doesn't just bring the Barbarian back to life, but also another creature.

It is very specifically mentioned in the PHB that the only way to restore hitpoints to a dead creature is with resurrection spells like revivify.


PHB PG 197: Healing
A creature that has died can't regain hit points until magic such as the Revivify spell has restored it to life

On the bolded note, being obstinate and ignoring the lead designer of the game purely off the principle that you disagree with how they designed the game, that is childish. You don't have to take his advice but don't discredit it completely simply because you don't like it.

The hate for rulings does not make sense. People ask questions and the person most qualified to answer them (whether you agree or disagree with that statement, he is the only documented person qualified to answer them as rulings rather than opinions) gives an answer. If you find it unsatisfactory, feel free to ignore it. You are allowed to ignore them, but you disagreeing does not make them all wrong.

In this case, it makes sense. Dead creatures can be treated as objects for the purposes of using them as improvised weapons. There is written precedent for them counting as objects rather than creatures. If they counted as creatures in this instance you would be making a grapple check against a dead creatures athletics/acrobatics and wasting your action just to pick up the creature. Magic is given express mention of superseding even specific rulings because the rules for magical spells and effects are written into the spells. This is what allows Revivify and spells like it to see their targets as creatures for the purposes of casting the spell.

We're not jumping through any hoops to make the conclusion that, unless otherwise noted, a dead creature counts as an object.

[Trippic]

so if a pc dies and you have a zealot barb in group
you can kill him
target him with the revivify and twin it to bypass the component cost altogether? :smallwink:

[Segev]

so if a pc dies and you have a zealot barb in group
you can kill him
target him with the revivify and twin it to bypass the component cost altogether? :smallwink:

That does seem to fit the RAW, if Zealot really does say that casting the spell takes no material component when it's used on him.

[MaxWilson]

People ask questions and the person most qualified to answer them (whether you agree or disagree with that statement, he is the only documented person qualified to answer them as rulings rather than opinions) gives an answer.

This is wrong. The only person qualified to answer with rulings is the DM of the game that's being run. Crawford is qualified to articulate WotC "official" corporate rules policy for whatever that's worth, but unless you're playing at a WotC-sponsored event that doesn't matter.


so if a pc dies and you have a zealot barb in group
you can kill him
target him with the revivify and twin it to bypass the component cost altogether? :smallwink:

No. According to the Zealot rule text, you only get to bypass component cost for spells that have no effect other than restoring the Zealot to life. A spell that resurrects the Zealot and his buddy doesn't qualify: you pay component cost as normal in that case.


That does seem to fit the RAW, if Zealot really does say that casting the spell takes no material component when it's used on him.

But it doesn't say that.

[Darkbru]

Which is more fun?

This...D&D is supposed to be about fun; and, so long as the "fun" isn't game-breaking there's no reason to disallow it. In the case of twinning Revivify or the like I'd allow it at my table because it fits within the RAI in my opinion. As for twinning with a Zealot Barbarian I'd agree that the cost could be halved to make it fair. Otherwise the player could say they're targeting the barb as a free revivify and twinning it to another PC making it a double revivify for free.

[ProsecutorGodot]

This is wrong. The only person qualified to answer with rulings is the DM of the game that's being run. Crawford is qualified to articulate WotC "official" corporate rules policy for whatever that's worth, but unless you're playing at a WotC-sponsored event that doesn't matter.

If someone is on Twitter @'ing DND for a rules answer, Crawford is the reliable source. I was very clear that you're free to ignore him, but the entire point of Sage Advice is to get rulings answers from the source. Crawford is answering questions that people asked him and then people are free to ignore those answers. That doesn't make the rulings wrong or terrible or an offense against the spirit of the game.

Every DM is able to make their own rulings at their own table, but Crawford's tweets and the Sage Advice Compendium set a baseline. Ignoring them because they're bad and wrong and my way is better is one step away from ignoring anything in the handbook that you disagree with because he wrote all that as well.

Just to be perfectly clear, I have no issue with people disagreeing with JC and his rulings. I happen to disagree with some rulings he has made that fit in line with RAW, it also can't be denied that he has historically created some issues with inconsistency. My issue is when people encourage others to ignore him for no other reason than they disagree. He's not always wrong, it's not fair to gloss over all of his rulings because you disagree with a few.

[Vogie]

I'd rule that it can be twinned, but it'd end up with the soul of one person split into two bodies.

And let the hijinks ensue.





All amusement aside, I'd love to play a character whose soul was split between two bodies. Give a bit of a hive mind quality going on.

[RSP]

...Twinned says "you can spend a number of sorcery points equal to the spell’s level to target a second creature in range with the same spell" which implies that you would only pay the cost once as the spell isn't being cast again but targeting an additional creature. The snag that spurred this debate into overdrive was Twinned Revivify's interaction with Zealot Barbarian's taking the material cost away if the spell serves only to bring them back to life...

I think the snag is that Revivify only works on objects (dead creatures) and Twin only works on creatures so the two are mutually exclusive. Questions on the cost are moot, RAW.

[MaxWilson]

If someone is on Twitter @'ing DND for a rules answer, Crawford is the reliable source.

He isn't reliable. On average you'll probably get more accurate answers from the Simple RAW threads on this very forum, though of course the very best answers come from https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/dnd-5e.


I was very clear that you're free to ignore him, but the entire point of Sage Advice is to get rulings answers from the source.

The rules text is the source. (C.f. "death of the author.") If Crawford shares an opinion on Twitter, and that opinion is contradicted by the PHB text, guess what? He's wrong. Sometimes he eventually admits this and changes his mind, other times he just leaves the wrong opinion out there on Twitter, but in neither case has he added value by sharing his wrong opinion. If he were wrong less often, and if he were more transparent about his reasoning, he might add value by reminding people what the PHB text actually says, but Twitter doesn't appear to be a good format for that kind of communication, and at any rate he doesn't do it.


Crawford is answering questions that people asked him and then people are free to ignore those answers. That doesn't make the rulings wrong or terrible or an offense against the spirit of the game.

Calm down. Wrong just means wrong. It doesn't mean Crawford needs to be stoned. They just ignore him because he's often wrong, and when he's not wrong he's usually redundant. It's very rare that he actually shares any context or design insight, but on the rare occasion where he has done that it has been useful. E.g. this was useful because it speaks to design intent: https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/700373623366811648


Every DM is able to make their own rulings at their own table, but Crawford's tweets and the Sage Advice Compendium set a baseline. Ignoring them because they're bad and wrong and my way is better is one step away from ignoring anything in the handbook that you disagree with because he wrote all that as well.

Ignoring everything in the PHB that you disagree with is exactly how you're supposed to run D&D, although it pays to be on the page with your players first. I don't know why you're knocking it.


Just to be perfectly clear, I have no issue with people disagreeing with JC and his rulings.

Great.


I happen to disagree with some rulings he has made that fit in line with RAW, it also can't be denied that he has historically created some issues with inconsistency. My issue is when people encourage others to ignore him for no other reason than they disagree. He's not always wrong, it's not fair to gloss over all of his rulings because you disagree with a few.

AFAICT he does more harm than good by (1) being wrong, (2) encouraging a rules lawyer play style. We'd all be better off if he prefaced every answer with, "Ask your DM for a definitive ruling, but this is how I'd run it if I were DMing..."

[PeteNutButter]

MaxWilson has already made most of my points. I picked a poor example on healing, but I’m confident that there are other things that break under a strict RAW if dead things are creatures. I’ll have to check whenever I get back to my book.

As for sage advice, I don’t disagree with it in principle. Having a game designer publicly answer questions is a great idea. I blame the forum, as in Twitter. It encourages knee jerk reactions that are a lot like a good DM would make on the fly mid game. JC presumably has better things to do than to answer nerd queries on his communication box all day. Judging by the inconsistencies and occasional overturning of old tweets it’s pretty safe to guess that he often just makes a ruling without even cracking his own book. Just like any good DM he can sometimes find later that his ruling was bad or inconsistent and he then changes it. What he doesn’t appear to be doing is stopping his life to scour the books before every answer.

The end result is sage advice tweets are a lot more like a good DM call mid session and a lot less like a thorough well thought out answer that accounts for the implications of its ruling. RAW players look for the later and run into trouble. That’s why I say just ignore them.

[ProsecutorGodot]

We'd all be better off if he prefaced every answer with, "Ask your DM for a definitive ruling, but this is how I'd run it if I were DMing..."
The sage advice compendium actually has that written down in it. Considering the tweets from Crawford are an extension of the compendium this is already handled. Read through the introduction on the Sage Advice Compendium. It's all meant to help a DM come to an informed decision, not to dictate them.

It also continues to confuse me how people can cite the designer of the rules as being wrong about the intent of the rules. It's baffling.


MaxWilson has already made most of my points. I picked a poor example on healing, but I’m confident that there are other things that break under a strict RAW if dead things are creatures. I’ll have to check whenever I get back to my book.

As for sage advice, I don’t disagree with it in principle. Having a game designer publicly answer questions is a great idea. I blame the forum, as in Twitter. It encourages knee jerk reactions that are a lot like a good DM would make on the fly mid game. JC presumably has better things to do than to answer nerd queries on his communication box all day. Judging by the inconsistencies and occasional overturning of old tweets it’s pretty safe to guess that he often just make a ruling without even cracking his own book. Just like any good DM he can sometimes find later that his ruling was bad or inconsistent and he then changes it. What he doesn’t appear to be doing is stopping his life to scour the books before every answer.

The end result is sage advice tweets are a lot more like a good DM call mid session and a lot less like a thorough well thought out answer that accounts for the implications of its ruling. RAW players look for the later and run into trouble. That’s why I say just ignore them.

This is much more sound reasoning that I can get behind. I'm definitely not saying that Sage Advice is an end all answer but ignoring it completely is losing out on a potentially useful resource.

[UrielAwakened]

Anyone remember what he said about Rakshasas and Dragon's Breath?

I still chuckle thinking about all the fun ways you can interpret that ability.

[MaxWilson]

@PeteNutButter, well said.

@ProsecutorGodot:


The sage advice compendium actually has that written down in it. Considering the tweets from Crawford are an extension of the compendium this is already handled. Read through the introduction on the Sage Advice Compendium. It's all meant to help a DM come to an informed decision, not to dictate them.

I know, which is why I'm baffled when people such as yourself try to tell us that JeremyCrawford is the only one qualified to make rulings. Even Crawford doesn't claim that about himself. All he claims to be is an official WotC's spokesperson, for people who care about WotC's official corporate response (e.g. for WotC-sponsored events). Somebody has to show WotC's customers that WotC hears their questions, and that lands on Jeremy's plate.


It also continues to confuse me how people can cite the designer of the rules as being wrong about the intent of the rules. It's baffling.

I think you're misunderstanding what people mean when they say Crawford is wrong. It's not about design intent (which he usually doesn't talk about anyway). When he says "it's intended to be XYZ," nobody ever calls those tweets wrong. But when he says things like "Super jumps (effectively a speed increase) appear in a few of the warlock's inspirations", well, he's wrong . Jumping in 5E costs exactly as much movement as walking.

So what you're looking at is people pointing out that the designer of the rules is wrong about the text of the rules, not the intent of the rules. When the text and the intent don't match up, we call that a "mistake," either on the part of the rules writers or on the part of the designer's memory. History bears out that it's more often the latter than the former.

He later tried to walk this back by claiming that he was talking about speed increases in niche scenarios like jumping over chasms, but that doesn't jive with the context of the discussion, which was an explanation of Jeremy's prior tweet that "Unlimited super jumps are potentially more disrupting of regular play than unlimited disguises are." Nobody believes that a niche ability to occasionally jump over a chasm somewhere is more disruptive of play than unlimited disguises are. Instead it's apparent that whoever wrote the Jump invocation was not on the same page with the person who wrote the 5E rules on jumping, or maybe they were written at different times and never synchronized--but you have to read between the lines to get this because Crawford refuses to just come right out and say, "Oops, my bad. I was thinking of the jumping rules we were using before, forgot that they've changed now. I guess you're right that the Warlock invocation was overlooked when we changed them."

[ProsecutorGodot]

I know, which is why I'm baffled when people such as yourself try to tell us that JeremyCrawford is the only one qualified to make rulings. Even Crawford doesn't claim that about himself. All he claims to be is an official WotC's spokesperson, for people who care about WotC's official corporate response (e.g. for WotC-sponsored events). Somebody has to show WotC's customers that WotC hears their questions, and that lands on Jeremy's plate.

He is the only documented WoTC employee on the Sage Advice Compendium whose tweets are also counted as rulings for the purposes of Sage Advice. I did not say that he is the only person qualified to make rulings full stop, just that his tweets qualify as official rulings. Rulings fall at the DM and are made by the DM, but an informed ruling can be made using Sage Advice. That's the purpose of the article.

Which you seem to be agreeing with me on, despite your best efforts to label it as a side effect of him being "the face attached to the rulings".

As a note, the Sage Advice Compendium as well as the Sage Advice articles are published by Jeremy Crawford. The intention of the article is written from his point of view and cites him as the only WoTC employee whose tweets coincide with the compendium. He does in fact claim that himself.

I will concede that he often doesn't admit fault but saying that he refuses to is untrue. Here's an excerpt of one instance where he has not only admitted fault but went back and corrected the issue:


I’m constantly revisiting the rules of the game. As a DM, I use them in the games I run. As a designer and editor, I refer to them every week to ensure that future D&D books are on course. As the Sage, I consider them from different angles when new questions arrive in my inbox and on Twitter. This sometimes leads me to reconsider a ruling I’ve made.

In this installment of Sage Advice, there’s an example of me revisiting a ruling. On Twitter, I recently gave a different explanation for how barkskin works and, by extension, how shields work. What I said was based on the game’s text, but the text is sometimes inconsistent on how shields are treated. In my official ruling here in Sage Advice, I’ve decided to counter what I said on Twitter about barkskin and shields to go with a simpler explanation—one that is also supported by the text and that more closely aligns with our design intent.

In the Sage Advice Compendium below, I’ve also changed my ruling on the Savage Attacker feat, which I originally addressed in November 2015. The original ruling was simply off-base—I read the feat too fast—so I’ve fixed it.
Granted this excerpt is from an older Sage Advice (January 2016) even then in recent history he has made efforts to correct older tweets that he believes he made hastily or with too little information: the infamous Shield Master ruling.

I also think he explained himself pretty well on the jump issue (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/04/11/__trashed-4/), with all of his comments in mind instead of a select few. Keep in mind that climbing takes double movement and jumping your full strength score normally requires you to use 10ft of movement in preparation. You are in fact effectively gaining extra movement by avoiding difficult terrain or a running start. There he goes being wrong about design intent again.

To be crystal clear this is not me saying that he or I believe that his word is law, but that it's been made clear his tweets are made with the intention to function as official rulings like those made in the Sage Advice compendium, rather than opinions like those shared by Mike Mearls and Christopher Perkins. I hope I've been clear enough with this, because I'm beginning to feel like you might be intentionally misinterpreting what I'm trying to say.

[sophontteks]

He does a good job, for the most part, but his rulings have become increasingly conservative, in my opinion. Where its less about intent and more about shutting down any possibility of something being exploited. And often there isn't even a known abuse or exloit, its just that ruling conservatively eliminates the possibility of one ever existing.

Take the shield master. He ruled his intent long ago. He changed it because he was afraid this ruling could be exploited.

He's basically the fun police now, which is why I've begun paying less attention to his rulings.

[Battlebooze]

Twinning a revivify to res two separate people sounds like the perfect opportunity for some freaky Friday GM shenanigans.

Oh no! Goregut the barbarian orc's soul is now in the gnome wizard's body and vise versa. :)

[Trippic]

No. According to the Zealot rule text, you only get to bypass component cost for spells that have no effect other than restoring the Zealot to life. A spell that resurrects the Zealot and his buddy doesn't qualify: you pay component cost as normal in that case.

the original spell is only targeting the zealot...the twin spell is whats targeting something else

[RSP]

the original spell is only targeting the zealot...the twin spell is whats targeting something else

There’s only 1 Spell; there is no second or “twin spell.”

“...you can spend a number of sorcery points equal to the spell's level to target a second creature in range with the same spell.”

The one spell is now having an effect other than just reviving the Zealot.

[NaughtyTiger]

Please message it appropriately if you do to make it clear that it's not a personal attack. "Why WotC should not have an official rules lawyer on Twitter" for instance comes across differently than "eleven times when Jeremy Crawford was wrong."

If Crawford showed respect when answering questions instead of being condescending, maybe

[Isaire]

On the first note - No, it makes perfect sense because Petrified is not the same as dead. The wording is very specific not to mention your character becoming an object, instead mentioning that they are transformed into a creature made entirely out of an inanimate substance. You don't instantly die and the condition can be removed by spells and some other effects but not resurrection spells.

It's also a fact of the D&D multiverse than when you die your soul goes somewhere usually dependant on your alignment and it's a necessary part of most resurrection spells (the willing part that only a few spells gloss over). Since being petrified doesn't kill you, your soul is there, you are still creature.


Wait.. so you're saying that petrifying someone is akin to cryogenically freezing them? Plot hook time!! Suddenly I understand why the terracotta army was assembled... :P

[Segev]

Wait.. so you're saying that petrifying someone is akin to cryogenically freezing them? Plot hook time!! Suddenly I understand why the terracotta army was assembled... :P

In such a scenario, it's probable that one of the army is actually the Emperor himself, too. Likely hidden - for security purposes - amidst the soldiers.

[Zalabim]

If he were wrong less often, and if he were more transparent about his reasoning, he might add value by reminding people what the PHB text actually says, but Twitter doesn't appear to be a good format for that kind of communication, and at any rate he doesn't do it.
With all due disrespect, he is already rarely ever wrong, and the times when he just reminds people what the text actually says are the kinds of answers that have gotten some of the most flak. He has also in the past explained when he is reversing a previous ruling and why. It looks to me like he is both more accurate than other sources and transparent about corrections when they are made. Twitter isn't conducive to long explanations of reasoning up front, but that's something the actual Sage Advice document handles.

Calm down. Wrong just means wrong. It doesn't mean Crawford needs to be stoned. They just ignore him because he's often wrong, and when he's not wrong he's usually redundant. It's very rare that he actually shares any context or design insight, but on the rare occasion where he has done that it has been useful. E.g. this was useful because it speaks to design intent: https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/700373623366811648
This answer here is actually just repeating what's in the multiclassing rules, not elaborating on design intent. Go ahead and look. The taboo about metal armor and shields is still in the multiclassing proficiencies.

AFAICT he does more harm than good by (1) being wrong, (2) encouraging a rules lawyer play style. We'd all be better off if he prefaced every answer with, "Ask your DM for a definitive ruling, but this is how I'd run it if I were DMing..."
People ask questions for a wide variety of reasons, but when he answers in his capacity as the provider of the Sage Advice column, people want to know the rules lawyer answer. Sometimes he shares the design intent too, and sometimes that's because the design intent is different than what was literally written. He never says, "This is how you should play."

I think you're misunderstanding what people mean when they say Crawford is wrong. It's not about design intent (which he usually doesn't talk about anyway). When he says "it's intended to be XYZ," nobody ever calls those tweets wrong. But when he says things like "Super jumps (effectively a speed increase) appear in a few of the warlock's inspirations", well, he's wrong . Jumping in 5E costs exactly as much movement as walking.
Meanwhile, this answer was actually to a question about the design intent, and look at how far you're stretching to make him "wrong". Put down your axe and look at sage advice with fresh eyes. You might be surprised.